Have congressional Republicans taken a position on whether they will give “consent” to the United States...
The United States Climate Alliance is an effort by state governments to support the Paris Climate Accord and help reduce emissions in the United States. There is however a constitutional problem with this organiazation as it may qualify as an interstate compact which is expressly forbidden by the US constituion without consent from 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.
(US constition Article 1 clause 3)
This leads to an interesting situation. Congressional Republicans aren't generally in favor of big actions to fight climate change, but they are generally in favor of empowering local and state government; what they view as proper federalism. From the GOP platform:
We pledge to restore the proper balance and vertical separation of
powers between the federal government and state governments — the
governments closest to, and most reflective of, the American people.
We encourage states to reinvigorate their traditional role as the
laboratories of democracy, propelling the nation forward through local
and state innovation.
Have congressional Republicans taken a position (or taken action) on whether they will give "consent" to the United States Climate Alliance as an interstate compact?
united-states republican-party us-state-laws federalism paris-agreement
edited Dec 19 '18 at 15:18
Machavity
17.7k65484
asked Dec 19 '18 at 15:02
lazarusLlazarusL
6,42622152
add a comment |
The United States Climate Alliance is an effort by state governments to support the Paris Climate Accord and help reduce emissions in the United States. There is however a constitutional problem with this organiazation as it may qualify as an interstate compact which is expressly forbidden by the US constituion without consent from 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.
(US constition Article 1 clause 3)
This leads to an interesting situation. Congressional Republicans aren't generally in favor of big actions to fight climate change, but they are generally in favor of empowering local and state government; what they view as proper federalism. From the GOP platform:
We pledge to restore the proper balance and vertical separation of
powers between the federal government and state governments — the
governments closest to, and most reflective of, the American people.
We encourage states to reinvigorate their traditional role as the
laboratories of democracy, propelling the nation forward through local
and state innovation.
Have congressional Republicans taken a position (or taken action) on whether they will give "consent" to the United States Climate Alliance as an interstate compact?
united-states republican-party us-state-laws federalism paris-agreement
edited Dec 19 '18 at 15:18
Machavity
17.7k65484
asked Dec 19 '18 at 15:02
lazarusLlazarusL
6,42622152
Hm, “or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay”... I'd be inclined to invoke that line here!
– leftaroundabout
Dec 20 '18 at 1:23
1
@leftaroundabout I'd love to see if there is any precedent around abusing that line!
– lazarusL
Dec 20 '18 at 1:36
add a comment |
The United States Climate Alliance is an effort by state governments to support the Paris Climate Accord and help reduce emissions in the United States. There is however a constitutional problem with this organiazation as it may qualify as an interstate compact which is expressly forbidden by the US constituion without consent from 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.
(US constition Article 1 clause 3)
This leads to an interesting situation. Congressional Republicans aren't generally in favor of big actions to fight climate change, but they are generally in favor of empowering local and state government; what they view as proper federalism. From the GOP platform:
We pledge to restore the proper balance and vertical separation of
powers between the federal government and state governments — the
governments closest to, and most reflective of, the American people.
We encourage states to reinvigorate their traditional role as the
laboratories of democracy, propelling the nation forward through local
and state innovation.
Have congressional Republicans taken a position (or taken action) on whether they will give "consent" to the United States Climate Alliance as an interstate compact?
united-states republican-party us-state-laws federalism paris-agreement
edited Dec 19 '18 at 15:18
Machavity
17.7k65484
asked Dec 19 '18 at 15:02
lazarusLlazarusL
6,42622152
The United States Climate Alliance is an effort by state governments to support the Paris Climate Accord and help reduce emissions in the United States. There is however a constitutional problem with this organiazation as it may qualify as an interstate compact which is expressly forbidden by the US constituion without consent from 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.
(US constition Article 1 clause 3)
This leads to an interesting situation. Congressional Republicans aren't generally in favor of big actions to fight climate change, but they are generally in favor of empowering local and state government; what they view as proper federalism. From the GOP platform:
We pledge to restore the proper balance and vertical separation of
powers between the federal government and state governments — the
governments closest to, and most reflective of, the American people.
We encourage states to reinvigorate their traditional role as the
laboratories of democracy, propelling the nation forward through local
and state innovation.
Have congressional Republicans taken a position (or taken action) on whether they will give "consent" to the United States Climate Alliance as an interstate compact?
united-states republican-party us-state-laws federalism paris-agreement
united-states republican-party us-state-laws federalism paris-agreement
edited Dec 19 '18 at 15:18
Machavity
17.7k65484
asked Dec 19 '18 at 15:02
lazarusLlazarusL
6,42622152
edited Dec 19 '18 at 15:18
Machavity
17.7k65484
asked Dec 19 '18 at 15:02
lazarusLlazarusL
6,42622152
edited Dec 19 '18 at 15:18
Machavity
17.7k65484
edited Dec 19 '18 at 15:18
Machavity
17.7k65484
edited Dec 19 '18 at 15:18
Machavity
17.7k65484
17.7k65484
asked Dec 19 '18 at 15:02
lazarusLlazarusL
6,42622152
asked Dec 19 '18 at 15:02
lazarusLlazarusL
6,42622152
asked Dec 19 '18 at 15:02
lazarusLlazarusL
6,42622152
6,42622152
Hm, “or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay”... I'd be inclined to invoke that line here!
– leftaroundabout
Dec 20 '18 at 1:23
1
@leftaroundabout I'd love to see if there is any precedent around abusing that line!
– lazarusL
Dec 20 '18 at 1:36
add a comment |
Hm, “or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay”... I'd be inclined to invoke that line here!
– leftaroundabout
Dec 20 '18 at 1:23
1
@leftaroundabout I'd love to see if there is any precedent around abusing that line!
– lazarusL
Dec 20 '18 at 1:36
Hm, “or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay”... I'd be inclined to invoke that line here!
– leftaroundabout
Dec 20 '18 at 1:23
Hm, “or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay”... I'd be inclined to invoke that line here!
– leftaroundabout
Dec 20 '18 at 1:23
1
1
@leftaroundabout I'd love to see if there is any precedent around abusing that line!
– lazarusL
Dec 20 '18 at 1:36
@leftaroundabout I'd love to see if there is any precedent around abusing that line!
– lazarusL
Dec 20 '18 at 1:36
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
No, but there's really no need for them to do so either. Remember, The Paris Accords were largely a do-it-yourself framework
Here’s how the game works: The negotiating framework established at a 2014 conference in Lima, Peru, requires each country to submit a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, called an “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” (INDC). Each submission is at the discretion of the individual country; there is no objective standard it must meet or emissions reduction it must achieve.
So if a dozen states decide that they will make their own standards and live by them, that doesn't bind any other state or the Federal government. California, for instance, has long had its own air pollution standards that exceed those imposed by the EPA. That's how Federalism works. If California decides to live by standards that it negotiates with other states, that doesn't affect states not party to that agreement.
In other words, the Republican Party is living by its own ideals by NOT addressing this with legislation.
answered Dec 19 '18 at 15:17
MachavityMachavity
17.7k65484
3
As long as its not an "interstate compact" then sure, there's no need for them to do anything. But if it is, then it would be illegal until they specifically allowed it.
– mbrig
Dec 19 '18 at 20:22
2
@mbrig As long as there's no formal treaty (which a former US president said it wasn't), it's more or less an agreement between states to try and live environmentally conscious.
– Machavity
Dec 19 '18 at 20:25
2
Bad example. California's automobile air pollution standards are explicitly grandfathered in by the Clean Air Act. States may only choose between California and Federal emissions. If not, they'd be preempted by Federal regulation since it affects interstate commerce, specifically the specification of vehicles being sold across state lines. There is talk about revoking this exemption.
– user71659
Dec 19 '18 at 23:36
I'm accepting this answer (partially because of the very good article on the Paris Accord). If anyone else finds evidence the United States Climate Alliance is taking more formal action either with foreign powers or between states and there is a real constitutional question, please share that information in another answer.
– lazarusL
Dec 20 '18 at 21:39
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37249%2fhave-congressional-republicans-taken-a-position-on-whether-they-will-give-conse%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
No, but there's really no need for them to do so either. Remember, The Paris Accords were largely a do-it-yourself framework
Here’s how the game works: The negotiating framework established at a 2014 conference in Lima, Peru, requires each country to submit a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, called an “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” (INDC). Each submission is at the discretion of the individual country; there is no objective standard it must meet or emissions reduction it must achieve.
So if a dozen states decide that they will make their own standards and live by them, that doesn't bind any other state or the Federal government. California, for instance, has long had its own air pollution standards that exceed those imposed by the EPA. That's how Federalism works. If California decides to live by standards that it negotiates with other states, that doesn't affect states not party to that agreement.
In other words, the Republican Party is living by its own ideals by NOT addressing this with legislation.
answered Dec 19 '18 at 15:17
MachavityMachavity
17.7k65484
3
As long as its not an "interstate compact" then sure, there's no need for them to do anything. But if it is, then it would be illegal until they specifically allowed it.
– mbrig
Dec 19 '18 at 20:22
2
@mbrig As long as there's no formal treaty (which a former US president said it wasn't), it's more or less an agreement between states to try and live environmentally conscious.
– Machavity
Dec 19 '18 at 20:25
2
Bad example. California's automobile air pollution standards are explicitly grandfathered in by the Clean Air Act. States may only choose between California and Federal emissions. If not, they'd be preempted by Federal regulation since it affects interstate commerce, specifically the specification of vehicles being sold across state lines. There is talk about revoking this exemption.
– user71659
Dec 19 '18 at 23:36
I'm accepting this answer (partially because of the very good article on the Paris Accord). If anyone else finds evidence the United States Climate Alliance is taking more formal action either with foreign powers or between states and there is a real constitutional question, please share that information in another answer.
– lazarusL
Dec 20 '18 at 21:39
add a comment |
No, but there's really no need for them to do so either. Remember, The Paris Accords were largely a do-it-yourself framework
Here’s how the game works: The negotiating framework established at a 2014 conference in Lima, Peru, requires each country to submit a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, called an “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” (INDC). Each submission is at the discretion of the individual country; there is no objective standard it must meet or emissions reduction it must achieve.
So if a dozen states decide that they will make their own standards and live by them, that doesn't bind any other state or the Federal government. California, for instance, has long had its own air pollution standards that exceed those imposed by the EPA. That's how Federalism works. If California decides to live by standards that it negotiates with other states, that doesn't affect states not party to that agreement.
In other words, the Republican Party is living by its own ideals by NOT addressing this with legislation.
answered Dec 19 '18 at 15:17
MachavityMachavity
17.7k65484
3
As long as its not an "interstate compact" then sure, there's no need for them to do anything. But if it is, then it would be illegal until they specifically allowed it.
– mbrig
Dec 19 '18 at 20:22
2
@mbrig As long as there's no formal treaty (which a former US president said it wasn't), it's more or less an agreement between states to try and live environmentally conscious.
– Machavity
Dec 19 '18 at 20:25
2
Bad example. California's automobile air pollution standards are explicitly grandfathered in by the Clean Air Act. States may only choose between California and Federal emissions. If not, they'd be preempted by Federal regulation since it affects interstate commerce, specifically the specification of vehicles being sold across state lines. There is talk about revoking this exemption.
– user71659
Dec 19 '18 at 23:36
I'm accepting this answer (partially because of the very good article on the Paris Accord). If anyone else finds evidence the United States Climate Alliance is taking more formal action either with foreign powers or between states and there is a real constitutional question, please share that information in another answer.
– lazarusL
Dec 20 '18 at 21:39
add a comment |
No, but there's really no need for them to do so either. Remember, The Paris Accords were largely a do-it-yourself framework
Here’s how the game works: The negotiating framework established at a 2014 conference in Lima, Peru, requires each country to submit a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, called an “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” (INDC). Each submission is at the discretion of the individual country; there is no objective standard it must meet or emissions reduction it must achieve.
So if a dozen states decide that they will make their own standards and live by them, that doesn't bind any other state or the Federal government. California, for instance, has long had its own air pollution standards that exceed those imposed by the EPA. That's how Federalism works. If California decides to live by standards that it negotiates with other states, that doesn't affect states not party to that agreement.
In other words, the Republican Party is living by its own ideals by NOT addressing this with legislation.
answered Dec 19 '18 at 15:17
MachavityMachavity
17.7k65484
No, but there's really no need for them to do so either. Remember, The Paris Accords were largely a do-it-yourself framework
Here’s how the game works: The negotiating framework established at a 2014 conference in Lima, Peru, requires each country to submit a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, called an “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” (INDC). Each submission is at the discretion of the individual country; there is no objective standard it must meet or emissions reduction it must achieve.
So if a dozen states decide that they will make their own standards and live by them, that doesn't bind any other state or the Federal government. California, for instance, has long had its own air pollution standards that exceed those imposed by the EPA. That's how Federalism works. If California decides to live by standards that it negotiates with other states, that doesn't affect states not party to that agreement.
In other words, the Republican Party is living by its own ideals by NOT addressing this with legislation.
answered Dec 19 '18 at 15:17
MachavityMachavity
17.7k65484
answered Dec 19 '18 at 15:17
MachavityMachavity
17.7k65484
answered Dec 19 '18 at 15:17
MachavityMachavity
17.7k65484
answered Dec 19 '18 at 15:17
MachavityMachavity
17.7k65484
17.7k65484
3
As long as its not an "interstate compact" then sure, there's no need for them to do anything. But if it is, then it would be illegal until they specifically allowed it.
– mbrig
Dec 19 '18 at 20:22
2
@mbrig As long as there's no formal treaty (which a former US president said it wasn't), it's more or less an agreement between states to try and live environmentally conscious.
– Machavity
Dec 19 '18 at 20:25
2
Bad example. California's automobile air pollution standards are explicitly grandfathered in by the Clean Air Act. States may only choose between California and Federal emissions. If not, they'd be preempted by Federal regulation since it affects interstate commerce, specifically the specification of vehicles being sold across state lines. There is talk about revoking this exemption.
– user71659
Dec 19 '18 at 23:36
I'm accepting this answer (partially because of the very good article on the Paris Accord). If anyone else finds evidence the United States Climate Alliance is taking more formal action either with foreign powers or between states and there is a real constitutional question, please share that information in another answer.
– lazarusL
Dec 20 '18 at 21:39
add a comment |
3
As long as its not an "interstate compact" then sure, there's no need for them to do anything. But if it is, then it would be illegal until they specifically allowed it.
– mbrig
Dec 19 '18 at 20:22
2
@mbrig As long as there's no formal treaty (which a former US president said it wasn't), it's more or less an agreement between states to try and live environmentally conscious.
– Machavity
Dec 19 '18 at 20:25
2
Bad example. California's automobile air pollution standards are explicitly grandfathered in by the Clean Air Act. States may only choose between California and Federal emissions. If not, they'd be preempted by Federal regulation since it affects interstate commerce, specifically the specification of vehicles being sold across state lines. There is talk about revoking this exemption.
– user71659
Dec 19 '18 at 23:36
I'm accepting this answer (partially because of the very good article on the Paris Accord). If anyone else finds evidence the United States Climate Alliance is taking more formal action either with foreign powers or between states and there is a real constitutional question, please share that information in another answer.
– lazarusL
Dec 20 '18 at 21:39
3
3
As long as its not an "interstate compact" then sure, there's no need for them to do anything. But if it is, then it would be illegal until they specifically allowed it.
– mbrig
Dec 19 '18 at 20:22
As long as its not an "interstate compact" then sure, there's no need for them to do anything. But if it is, then it would be illegal until they specifically allowed it.
– mbrig
Dec 19 '18 at 20:22
2
2
@mbrig As long as there's no formal treaty (which a former US president said it wasn't), it's more or less an agreement between states to try and live environmentally conscious.
– Machavity
Dec 19 '18 at 20:25
@mbrig As long as there's no formal treaty (which a former US president said it wasn't), it's more or less an agreement between states to try and live environmentally conscious.
– Machavity
Dec 19 '18 at 20:25
2
2
Bad example. California's automobile air pollution standards are explicitly grandfathered in by the Clean Air Act. States may only choose between California and Federal emissions. If not, they'd be preempted by Federal regulation since it affects interstate commerce, specifically the specification of vehicles being sold across state lines. There is talk about revoking this exemption.
– user71659
Dec 19 '18 at 23:36
Bad example. California's automobile air pollution standards are explicitly grandfathered in by the Clean Air Act. States may only choose between California and Federal emissions. If not, they'd be preempted by Federal regulation since it affects interstate commerce, specifically the specification of vehicles being sold across state lines. There is talk about revoking this exemption.
– user71659
Dec 19 '18 at 23:36
I'm accepting this answer (partially because of the very good article on the Paris Accord). If anyone else finds evidence the United States Climate Alliance is taking more formal action either with foreign powers or between states and there is a real constitutional question, please share that information in another answer.
– lazarusL
Dec 20 '18 at 21:39
I'm accepting this answer (partially because of the very good article on the Paris Accord). If anyone else finds evidence the United States Climate Alliance is taking more formal action either with foreign powers or between states and there is a real constitutional question, please share that information in another answer.
– lazarusL
Dec 20 '18 at 21:39
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37249%2fhave-congressional-republicans-taken-a-position-on-whether-they-will-give-conse%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Hm, “or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay”... I'd be inclined to invoke that line here!
– leftaroundabout
Dec 20 '18 at 1:23
1
@leftaroundabout I'd love to see if there is any precedent around abusing that line!
– lazarusL
Dec 20 '18 at 1:36