The "treaty" is of course 181 pages of unreadable gobbledygook.

But I think I now know why they gave Obama was given the Nobel Prize. (Or should that be called the Nobel Bribe?)

Bear in mind that any treaty Obama signs still would have to be ratified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification

***QUOTE***

In the U.S.A., treaty ratification must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds majority in the U.S. Senate. The Senate does not actually ratify treaties. Once the Senate has given its advice and consent to ratification, the President ratifies the treaty by signing an instrument of ratification. While the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democracies to rally enough political support for international treaties.

***QUOTE***

How do you fight it all?

I really don't like some of the answers that come to mind. Not one little bit.

For now though, vote the bastards out. All of them. I would like to think that this would be enough. But I'm really, truly, deeply frightened about where we're headed.

Eric,

That is correct. But what if ∅ signs the treaty and acts (with his executive power) as if it was in force?

Any treaty which overrides the sovereignty of the US is unconstitutional. So Obama can sign whatever he wants, it wont mean anything. And what's more, it wont mean anything to the other developed nations that will be going through the motions.

But maybe Obama signing something blatantly unconstitutional would be an impeachable offense? We can only hope.

When the tide turns the treaties will be abrogated. The only real question is how far will the entitlement programs will be retrenched. And how much of the non core functions of the government will be rescinded.

Yehudit,

That all depends on whether you believe the Constitution is self enforcing.

Or what you believe might be done until the situation is corrected. Depending of course on if a Democrat Congress would go after a Democrat President.

The point Monkton makes is that the global warming crowd really have a political agenda, which is simply wrapped up in a shoddy scientific wrapper. My sense is that CV readers mostly would agree with Monkton.

Yes, ratification would be necessary. Monkton is not a US constitutional scholar, but that doesn’t mitigate his point about the purpose of the treaty.

Obama is a puppet for Soros, who is an admitted proponent of one world government.

History tells us there is no limit to the addiction of power. The current crop of Democrats have shown themselves to be deceitful and contemptuous of the will of the American people. There is little evidence that the Democrats would act differently when it comes to this treaty.