Glenn Beck Interviews Lord Monckton about the Copenhagen Treaty (with Possible Implementation Alternative)

Following up on my Friday Pajamas Media column that was mirrored at BizzyBlog today — Here is a portion of the radio interview Glenn Beck had with Lord Christopher Monckton about a week ago:

In the last couple of minutes above, Monckton presents a possible method for implementing Copenhagen that bypasses the need for Senate ratification:

Well now, I’ll tell you what has to happen. Under your constitution, I think it’s Article VI, there has to be a 2/3 majority of the Senate in order to ratify it. Now I don’t think he’ll get a 2/3 majority in the Senate. I’m reasonably sure there are enough senators including blue dog senators who will (oppose it when they) realize that that if they hand over your democracy and your Constitution and make it subject to this new treaty — because that’s how your Constitution works, (as) Article VI taken with the Vienna Convention on the Interpretation of International Treaties means that an international treaty prevails over your Constitution — so if he signs away your Constitution, he is signing away for the first time to an alien bureaucratic entity that you don’t elect, that’s the danger.

Now if he can’t get it through the Senate — during his election campaign, he and his staff began saying that they didn’t like that part of the Constitution that meant they had to get 2/3 of the Senate to agree. And the way that he is proposing to do it, and this was announced during his campaign — is to get a simple majority in both houses, which he can of course get because he has a reasonable majority in both houses. So that the treaty will be enacted into your domestic law.

Now that is slightly less drastic than if the Senate were to ratify it, because at least in theory, you can repeal a domestic law, whereas you can’t rezile from a treaty. And once you’ve signed a treaty, the only way you can get out of that officially is to get all the other states and parties to agree to let you go. And since you’ll be the country that’s paying most in the way of reparations, there’s no way they will let you go.

Evidence that Obama and his apparatchiks believe that they can sign on to international treaties without the Senate’s advice and consent is here.

I see four potential difficulties with all of this becoming a reality:

1. Even if the Senate ratifies, does the Vienna Convention on the Interpretation of International Treaties really mean what Lord Monckton says it means? Well, the U.S. has signed it with narrow objections, and this linked graphic from that treaty would appear to indicate that a country can’t invoke an internal law as superior to a treaty, even after the fact. That would appear to leave little wiggle room. It could be argued with vague prospects for success that a constitution is a framework for the law but not THE law.
2. In regards to the “domestic agenda” gambit, getting a majority of even the Senate to go along is not going to be as easy as Lord Monckton believes it might be. Cap and trade’s prospects aren’t that good, and Copenhagen is significantly more severe.
3. The “domestic agenda” gambit drags the House into a decision to cede U.S. sovereignty. The Senate, as detached from reality as it is, could conceivably sign on to that. But it seems — emphasis seems — that a majority of the House would unwilling to face what I believe would be the strident across-the-board wrath of their constituents in the 2010 elections. The average congressman won’t want to be on the record in any way supporting Copenhagen. On the Democratic Party side, many will be furious at being forced to deal with something that should be the sole province of the Senate.
4. I don’t think the idea of whether simple majorities of both houses can constitutionally cede sovereignty through “domestic legislation” has ever been tested. Of course, by the time the test occurs, the legislation would have been in place for several years wreaking its havoc while being stoutly defended by the establishment media as “crucial, landmark, groundbreaking, pioneering, visionary, indispensable,” etc.

Given enough pressure, none of the suggested barriers is insurmountable for the one-worlders. Obviously, it’s best that President Obama not start the ball rolling in the first place. I fear that the only way he won’t is if the groundswell of objection is overwhelming and crosses ideological lines, as it should. Even then, Obama has clear “I do what I want, bleep you” tendencies, and this is one area where he might be determined to exercise them.

__________________________________________

UPDATE: This PJM commenter has a number of other relevant legal cites.

UPDATE 2: This PJM commenter suggest a possible Obama “I do what I want, bleep you” possibility.