As soon as I read the title of Ed King’s post at Climate Home, “If Trump quits, California could apply to join UN climate talks”, I knew I had to comment:
Asked by Climate Home on Thursday if the golden state could replace the United States, California senate leader Kevin De Leon said it was an “option that I want to keep openâ€.
Legal experts at Harvard and Yale were already researching if a sub-national body could join the UN climate talks he said, but added this would be a “political decisionâ€.
“We will continue to be active in the international movement to address climate change,†said De Leon, who branded Trump’s threat to the UN process as a “jobs killerâ€.
“To the extent the UN wants to coordinate with work we are doing we are more than willing to take part in these discussions,†he added.
My impression is that Mr. King is a Brit and as such can be excused for not knowing about Article I, Section 10 of the U. S. Constitution:
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
What’s the excuse of the “legal experts” from Harvard and Yale? Such participation would also seem to violate the Logan Act.
My dad used to complain about lawyers for whom the only law with which they seemed to be familiar was the U. S. Constitution. Now, apparently, they aren’t even familiar with that.
Perhaps the state could be given some sort of observer status, but what is the point of it all. California could pass any number of laws concerning its internal economy, such as carbon taxes, fuel-efficiency standards, and renewable quotas. It can require impossible things, and it cannot target other states or countries. If the underlying point is that climate change requires a concert of action because of collective action problems, then this is not a solution. It’s venting.
I meant “it cannot require impossible things . . .”
Another reason to support the California secession.
“absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection laws” shows one of the spelling/grammar errors in the Constitution.
Law professors don’t really believe in the Constitution or the meaning of words. They’ll simply be looking for some plausible sounding sophistry for true believers to spout. (And by true believers I mean lying sacks of shit such as anyone that works for Vox.com.)
I’m hoping for a California secession (in order to keep their Mexican slaves), because I’m looking forward to the US Army doing to California what Sherman did to Georgia on his march to the sea. Plus, the trials and public hangings afterwards promise to make for Must See TV!