The American Spectator

One thing on which all parties can agree is that the administration has zero chance of getting two-thirds of the Senate to sign on to any new treaty resembling the expiring Kyoto Protocol on “global warming”, as they are expected to accept later this year. The unacceptable characteristics to most Americans will prove to be, again, not just energy rationing but among only a handful of nations, and creating numerous “mechanisms” for wealth transfer to the rest of the world who are indispensable parties to the treaty and the process and must be at the table…just not actually covered.

There is a way around this, in the minds of some, and that is to argue that the Constitution’s Treaty Power, as written, is archaic and needs to be…what’s the word I’m lookin…ignored. That is, Kyoto isn’t a treaty so long as we don’t call it one, no matter its design, requirements or what the rest of the world calls it.

Yes, they are that transparent about their arguments, as you’ll see. I have a piece just published in the Federalist Society’s Engage walking through the weaknesses of this stunt of pursuing “fast track”, which requires a simple, bicameral majority in an up-or-down, no amendment, no filibuster procedure, instead.