313 U.S. 69 (1941)
>A State has power to govern the conduct of its citizens upon the high sea with respect to matters in which the State has a legitimate interest and where there is no conflict with Acts of Congress
Sounds like a fun Supreme Court case :)
Also, from the article:
>Like the Paris accord, the deals are all non-binding. They call for investments in low-carbon energy sources, cooperation on climate research and the commercialization of cleaner technologies.
Which doesn't sound like a Treaty (in the same way the Paris Accord was not a treaty as the US President unilaterally signed the agreement without consent of Congress)
FWIW, some executive agreements have the force of treaty without needing ratification. These are generally authorized by statute or by a previous ratified treaty.
Probably not; I'm pretty sure the accepted interpretation is that binding agreements are forbidden, and paragraph 6 of the MOU between China and California [0] states “This MOU serves only as a record of the Participants' intentions and does not constitute or create any legally binding or enforceable rights or obligations, expressed or implied.” And paragraph 8 states “This MOU is neither a contract nor a treaty”.
Similar non-binding agreements between states (and in some cases subdivisions of states) and foreign countries (or subdivisions thereof) are extremely common, and I don't think anyone in the federal government wants to force them all through federal approval, even leaving aside the legalities.
Considering the expansive, still in force, New Deal era interpretation of the Commerce Clause, the U.S. could challenge California's actions in federal court and possibly win. Who knows. Maybe we can get a better interpretation of the Commerce Clause out of it!
Maybe? Still more than just symbolic, though. An agreement was actually signed by the governor of California with a foreign power. He didn't just do it as a symbol -- it was actually an agreement to adjust trade, and who knows what else behind closed doors.
There are three types of "treaties," only one of which requires a two-thirds vote by the Senate--the restricted interpretation of treaties in the US constitution, congressional-executive agreements and sole-executive agreements.
"They are all considered treaties under internal law, but are distinct from the perspective of US law."
Treaties has the force of law and are permanent, but can be repealed by an act of Congress... "By contrast, a congressional-executive agreement can only cover matters which the Constitution explicitly places within the powers of Congress and the President.[1] Likewise, a sole-executive agreement can only cover matters within the President's authority or matters in which Congress has delegated authority to the President."
It's a heck of a lot more complicated than that, mostly because the Constitution says nothing about this topic.
The U.S. has abrogated quite a few treaties[0]. Often it's been by Presidential fiat alone. There is not much case-law on the subject, and it's almost certainly a "political question" that the courts will not go near (lower courts might, but the SCOTUS almost certainly will refuse to decide whether POTUS or Congress can do this alone). Among other things there is the question of who has standing to bring suit, and that's a high enough bar to begin with. The last time the SCOTUS had a chance to say much about this, they said they couldn't[1] (but with only a plurality, not majority, so there is no precedent yet): "The Judicial Branch should not decide issues affecting the allocation of power between the President and Congress until the political branches reach a constitutional impasse." (the impasse being Congress passing a resolution opposing the President's action, which Congress did not do).
Maybe not the contract clause, but what about this?
> 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.
Foreign policy is reserved for the federal government, is it not?
Don't let yourself be fooled. China is not being high-minded or altruistic. The Paris Accord was economically beneficial to the Chinese because it explicitly allowed them to increase emissions, to continue their high growth rate and "catch up" to Western economies. Of course they want to tie the hands of their major economic competitors. And now they also see an opportunity to rehabilitate their public image in the minds of Western liberals, all while they keep throwing political dissidents in jail and oppressing religious minorities. And burning more dirty coal anyway too.
I'm not making an argument for or against the Paris Accord here--it's reasonable to argue that it's only fair to allow developing countries more flexibility under it. But please don't let yourself fall for Chinese propaganda that tries to paint them as altruistic or taking a moral high ground, or most absurdly, as the new "leaders" of the green movement.
OP is impressed by the shift in public perception, not in the causes itself. If America was ever the leader of the green movement, it also had its own sinister roots.
Ah, yes, Trump's crazy theory that global warming was invented by the Chinese to cripple the US economy.
If that was the case, China would be charging ahead with fossil fuels and doing nothing with renewables. But instead it is doing exactly the opposite, canceling hundreds of coal-fired power plants, and installing solar and wind energy at a truly amazing rate. And building up huge industries that will make it hundreds of billions of dollars.
I'm guessing you haven't read the Paris accord, China is still considered a developing country so they not only get to increase carbon emissions, but they get paid by the developed world to do it. Why wouldn't they sign the Paris Accord when they get free money for doing it?
What an interesting move. Pretty much leaves the federal government no choice but to respond though. The implications of a state contacting a foreign government for policy sets a bad precedence. Regardless of how noble the cause is. In this case it's green energy, but it could have just as easily been fossil fuels.
I really wish California would engage Trump rather than just slam the door shut. There's room for a deal and there's common ground to be found if people actually try. This needless childish behavior is screwing us all over.
> I really wish California would engage Trump rather than just slam the door shut.
I really wish Trump would engage California rather than just slam the door shut.
> There's room for a deal
Apparently not. Trump's White House, despite Trump personally previously calling for forceful climate action by the US government, now refuses to even say if Trump believes climate change is real, much less whether the President has any interest in doing anything about it, much less what the parameters he would for any climate action are.
> there's common ground to be found if people actually try.
Maybe, but Trump's not trying, and there's people who are. You work with the willing partners you have, not the ones you wish you had.
> This needless childish behavior is screwing us all over.
On this much, if not on which behavior is needless and childish, we agree.
Does Trump really seem like the sort of person who can be engaged productively? The needless childish behavior here is coming from the top; routing around the damage appears to be the most productive way of making progress.
Yes, there's room for a deal; that's why California just made one, with China!
I guess I'll ask for an example when California has engaged Trump in respectful conversation... I'm not defending him, I'm just saying I don't see anything happening.
Readit News
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Clause
Sounds like a fun Supreme Court case :)
Also, from the article: >Like the Paris accord, the deals are all non-binding. They call for investments in low-carbon energy sources, cooperation on climate research and the commercialization of cleaner technologies.
Which doesn't sound like a Treaty (in the same way the Paris Accord was not a treaty as the US President unilaterally signed the agreement without consent of Congress)
Similar non-binding agreements between states (and in some cases subdivisions of states) and foreign countries (or subdivisions thereof) are extremely common, and I don't think anyone in the federal government wants to force them all through federal approval, even leaving aside the legalities.
[0] https://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=19832
I think it is merely symbolic, as California can accomplish its climate targets voluntarily without any agreements.
This meeting was just to give the finger to the Trump administration and show them that the power is local.
"They are all considered treaties under internal law, but are distinct from the perspective of US law."
Treaties has the force of law and are permanent, but can be repealed by an act of Congress... "By contrast, a congressional-executive agreement can only cover matters which the Constitution explicitly places within the powers of Congress and the President.[1] Likewise, a sole-executive agreement can only cover matters within the President's authority or matters in which Congress has delegated authority to the President."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause
The U.S. has abrogated quite a few treaties[0]. Often it's been by Presidential fiat alone. There is not much case-law on the subject, and it's almost certainly a "political question" that the courts will not go near (lower courts might, but the SCOTUS almost certainly will refuse to decide whether POTUS or Congress can do this alone). Among other things there is the question of who has standing to bring suit, and that's a high enough bar to begin with. The last time the SCOTUS had a chance to say much about this, they said they couldn't[1] (but with only a plurality, not majority, so there is no precedent yet): "The Judicial Branch should not decide issues affecting the allocation of power between the President and Congress until the political branches reach a constitutional impasse." (the impasse being Congress passing a resolution opposing the President's action, which Congress did not do).
[0] http://www.ea.sinica.edu.tw/QDown.ashx?ID=5563 [1] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/444/996.html
> 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.
Foreign policy is reserved for the federal government, is it not?
I'm not making an argument for or against the Paris Accord here--it's reasonable to argue that it's only fair to allow developing countries more flexibility under it. But please don't let yourself fall for Chinese propaganda that tries to paint them as altruistic or taking a moral high ground, or most absurdly, as the new "leaders" of the green movement.
If that was the case, China would be charging ahead with fossil fuels and doing nothing with renewables. But instead it is doing exactly the opposite, canceling hundreds of coal-fired power plants, and installing solar and wind energy at a truly amazing rate. And building up huge industries that will make it hundreds of billions of dollars.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
I really wish Trump would engage California rather than just slam the door shut.
> There's room for a deal
Apparently not. Trump's White House, despite Trump personally previously calling for forceful climate action by the US government, now refuses to even say if Trump believes climate change is real, much less whether the President has any interest in doing anything about it, much less what the parameters he would for any climate action are.
> there's common ground to be found if people actually try.
Maybe, but Trump's not trying, and there's people who are. You work with the willing partners you have, not the ones you wish you had.
> This needless childish behavior is screwing us all over.
On this much, if not on which behavior is needless and childish, we agree.
Yes, there's room for a deal; that's why California just made one, with China!
What has Trump said that indicates he might be interested in a deal?