Consensus on Global Warming At Last?

[BPSCG]

Who knew?

Money quote: "In a letter endorsing Kerry, 48 scientists who have won the Nobel Prize said the Bush administration is undermining the nation's future by impeding medical advances, turning away scientific talent with its immigration practices and ignoring scientific consensus on global warming and other critical issues."

But when Bush says we should plan a manned expedition to Mars, the smartmouths crack wise: "Yeah, put W on the first flight out..."

Har!

 

[Shane Costello]

IIRC the Kyoto protocol was rejected by the US senate unanimously (96-0) during Clinton's presidency. Was Sen. Kerry present that day?

 

[BPSCG]

IIRC the Kyoto protocol was rejected by the US senate unanimously (96-0) during Clinton's presidency. Was Sen. Kerry present that day?

Yes he was. Took me a little searching, but I found a Washington Times article that says so specifically.

Money quote: "Democratic Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut were among 95 senators who voted in favor of a pre-Kyoto resolution that directed the administration not to agree to a treaty that would hurt the U.S. economy by exempting developing nations. "

Clinton never actually submitted the treaty for ratification, knowing it would go down to crushing defeat.

 

[Shane Costello]

So is the president, whoever they might be, bound by this resolution, or could they ratify the Kyoto protocol (or any other treaty) regardless of what congress had to say on the matter?

 

[garys_2k]

So is the president, whoever they might be, bound by this resolution, or could they ratify the Kyoto protocol (or any other treaty) regardless of what congress had to say on the matter?

Two-thirds of the Senate must also approve any treaty.

 

[BPSCG]

So is the president, whoever they might be, bound by this resolution, or could they ratify the Kyoto protocol (or any other treaty) regardless of what congress had to say on the matter?

No, he can't.

We keep our constitution written down (never understood how you work it over there...). Article II, section 2, says in part, about the president's powers:

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"

That pesky separation of powers thing again. Designed to make sure the president doesn't ram a bad treaty through his cabinet without the approval of the legislative branch of the government.

I'm reading Churchill's history of the Second World War (on volume 4 right now, The Hinge of Fate). In volumne 3, he relates how he told Roosevelt that if the U.S. ever found itself at war with Japan, the British declaration would follow "within the hour." I puzzled how he could make a promise like that. From other contexts, I finally deduced that declaring war would be the job of the war cabinet. So I guess in some ways, the PM has powers the president doesn't.

 

[Dragon]

No, he can't.

We keep our constitution written down (never understood how you work it over there...). Article II, section 2, says in part, about the president's powers:

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"

That pesky separation of powers thing again. Designed to make sure the president doesn't ram a bad treaty through his cabinet without the approval of the legislative branch of the government.

I'm reading Churchill's history of the Second World War (on volume 4 right now, The Hinge of Fate). In volumne 3, he relates how he told Roosevelt that if the U.S. ever found itself at war with Japan, the British declaration would follow "within the hour." I puzzled how he could make a promise like that. From other contexts, I finally deduced that declaring war would be the job of the war cabinet. So I guess in some ways, the PM has powers the president doesn't.

I think you'll find that Ireland has a written constitution.
As for the UK, the reason that Churchill could declare war on Japan without going to Parliament first is in the "K". We are a monarchy and the Crown actually has formal powers, known as the Royal Prerogative

The monarch, via proclamations or Orders in Council, may declare war or treaties, without the input of the Commons/Lords. In reality, the declaration of war and the signing of treaties is done by the Prime Minister acting on behalf of the Crown. The 2003 declaration of war against Iraq was done by a Prime Minister and not by the monarch.

 

[BPSCG]

We are a monarchy and the Crown actually has formal powers, known as the Royal Prerogative

All kinds of fascinating stuff here I didn't know, and still don't understand. For example:

"No monarch has refused to give the Royal Assent to a government bill (passed at this stage by both the Commons and Lords) since 1707. Now it would appear to be completely untenable that the Queen would refuse to sign a government bill that had passed the Commons, select committees, the Lords etc. It would spark off a major (the major?) constitutional crisis."

Is it written down anywhere that the queen may not refuse assent to a government bill? What would happen if the queen just went nuts one day and refused her assent to all bills because she believed demons would eat her soul if she approved any bills on a day ending in the letter "y"? Or refused assent to a bill because she had strong ethical problems with it?

"The monarch, via proclamations or Orders in Council, may declare war or treaties, without the input of the Commons/Lords. In reality, the declaration of war and the signing of treaties is done by the Prime Minister acting on behalf of the Crown. The 2003 declaration of war against Iraq was done by a Prime Minister and not by the monarch. One is a democratically elected politician accountable to the electorate via an election; the other is in the position by a quirk of birth."

So what happens if the queen disagrees with the Prime Minister? Who wins?

"The monarch is above the law and has crown immunity."

What does that mean? It surely can't mean she can kill someone if she decides she doesn't like the way he parts his hair.

"The legal immunity conferred by the Royal Prerogative may extend to institutions and servants of the Crown. Cabinet ministers may try to use crown immunity to avoid the release of parliamentary documents as they are servants of the Crown."

We have something here - a principle, not a law, but one that's been repeatedly upheld by the the Supreme Court - called executive privilege. It says the president can refuse to turn over some documents to Congress on the grounds that those documents contain conversations that the speakers expected to be held confidential. The idea is that the president needs to hear all opinions and ideas, even if he ends up rejecting some of them, and if advisors were to find their conversations with the president splattered all over the front pages, they'd be reluctant to speak their minds.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted BPSCG:
So what happens if the queen disagrees with the Prime Minister? Who wins?

I think this conundrum was the basis for both the English civil war and the constitutional crisis in the 1930's. In the former case Charles I had a difference of opinion with parliament on tax, precipitating the war. He ultimately lost his head. In the latter case I believe the crisis arose due to the incompatabilty of a marriage between the sovereign and a divorcee, and the latter's role as head of the Church of England. The problem was that the King didn't have to do what parliament wanted him to do, which would have brought all consititutional ambiguities to the fore.

 

[BPSCG]

I think this conundrum was the basis for both the English civil war and the constitutional crisis in the 1930's.

Well, the King lost both times, didn't he? Charles lost his head and Edward his throne? Are these considered legal precedents?

But what happens if, say the PM wants to declare war against, oh, say, Brazil, claiming that them nasty Brazlians have unprovokedly attacked British patrol boats off the coast of South America. The Queen thinks there's something fishy here, doesn't believe the attacks were unprovoked. Does she have the power to veto the war?

Parliament passes a law reinstating the death penalty after a two-year wave of murders in which the convicted killers happily confess their crimes in open court and stating for the record they committed their crimes because they find life outside to be too complicated and were looking for three meals a day, a roof, a bed, and television free of charge for the rest of their lives. The Queen is still opposed to the death penalty nonetheless. Can she annul the new law?

I'm not asking if either of these monarchical overrides would be popular or likely, but simply whether they are legally possible/permissable.