Free Associating in California. by Decameron

Hits: 0

California-flag-bear-flag
“Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York, Governor Jerry Brown of California, and Governor Jay Inslee of Washington announced the formation of the United States Climate Alliance after the announcement [by Trump to withdraw from the Paris Agreement], stating that they would convene states committed to upholding the Paris Agreement…”

The question, “what is Gerry Brown smoking?” has been around for decades.  He now says that California, New York, Washington state and others will join together to override the President of the US, and join the Paris Climate Agreement independent of the decision of the United States government.  That, folks, is not legal.  Under the US Constitution, the power of treaties lies exclusively with the President of the United States; under it, the Senate can ratify a treaty or not, but not make its own treaties. And, emphatically, states have no power or competency to enter into treaties.  In addition, in 1799, a decade after the ratification of the Constitution, there was 18 U.S. Code, Section 953, popularly known at the Logan Act, which reads:

Private correspondence with foreign governments

“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

The Logan Act still has the force of law, despite the fact that there has never been a successful criminal prosecution under it.  The intent of the act was always to prevent private parties from trying to undercut the policy of the federal government. And there have been repeated positive citations of the act in decisions by US Federal courts in both civil and criminal cases.

Some Democrats and MSM pundits were screaming, “Logan Act” violations about former National Security advisor Michael Flynn, and other presidential advisors after Trump won the November 2016 election.  Haven’t heard these pundits mention that in context of Gov. Brown, who said today, “I believe the rest of the world will mobilize, will galvanize our efforts."   Will other nations really make an agreement with California and its free associating alliance? Some argue that the Paris Climate Agreement is not a treaty, so the Constitution doesn’t apply. Really?

Governor Jay Inslee of Washington announced the formation of the United States Climate Alliance after the announcement [by Trump to withdraw from the Paris Agreement], stating that they would convene states committed to upholding the Paris Agreement…"   Decameron

This entry was posted in Decameron, government. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Free Associating in California. by Decameron

  1. Lars says:

    The Paris Climate Agreement is not a treaty and the states have a right to join in any alliance they want to, unless it is a legal treaty. What has now been done, is that the US has given international leadership to others in one of the most important areas for the future.
    Once proven new technology is needed, it will have to be imported. Unless, some states promote development within their own or allied states.

  2. sleepy says:

    The Paris Accord is not a treaty. The non-treaty aspect of the accord was a specific point that was lobbied for and included in the agreement at the behest of the Obama administration.
    https://theintercept.com/2017/06/01/will-trumps-slow-mo-walkaway-world-in-flames-behind-him-finally-provoke-consequences-for-planetary-arson/

  3. BabelFish says:

    In reading through reporting on their statements, I am not finding any proposals to sign treaty level agreements with foreign entities. It is reported that they will use a forum to facilitate coordination of actions intended to support the goals of the Paris Agreement. Could you provide links to those statements?

  4. Hood Canal Gardner says:

    FWIW (yet) another diversion.
    The Logan Act/surrounding 1799 ‘events,
    Paris Climate Agreement particulars,
    and/or upcoming Scotus brawling,
    it still is about: infrastructure, health care, student loan debt,
    and the incredible amounts of money being pissed away in the Middle East and 0% interest rates charged banks and 4% home loans rates they charge with 0% Fed Reserve money.

  5. This post by Decameron doesn’t hold together very well. Any state or coalition of states can set carbon emission policies in accordance with target figures and , even if they are the same target figures as specified by the Paris agreement, the policies would not violate the specific provisions of the Logan Act.
    Also, individual states can and do send and receive trade delegations and enter into economic arrangements with other countries, such as welcoming the establishment of manufacturing facilities or the export of commodities, without violating the Logan Act.
    Since the federal government’s withdrawal from the Agreement isn’t a policy, rather an absence of a policy, there isn’t a requirement that any state could violate. Also, I’m assuming that CA, NY, et.al. are not planning to conclude a treaty with 194 nations who are party to the agreement as I’ve not read anything to the contrary.
    I conclude that the governors and members of the legislatures, in the specific instance of carbon policy, are not in danger of being fined or imprisoned for governing their states in accordance with the interests of those states.
    WPFIII

  6. Alaric says:

    Brown’s wording is unfortunate (foolish?) but it is well within the rights of a state to enact stricter environmental (local) policies. CA has often lead the nation in doing this and they don’t need to speak to foreign agents to do it.
    but yes his wording was idiotic and Trump would be crucified and impeached for saying something like that

  7. 505thPIR says:

    It is an accord, not a treaty. If those states want to regulate themselves in accordance with the goals of the accord, they can do so to the extent of their powers within the Consititution.

  8. Ghostship says:

    I think they know that entering into a treaty would be illegal which is why they’re saying they’ll “uphold the Paris Climate Agreement” – just means they’ve agreed they’ll adopt the principles but it doesn’t mean they’ll sign any treaty. As states, I don’t see how Trump can object after he gave the states the right to decide on transgender toilets.
    Pat. Many happy returns for yesterday.

  9. Freudenschade says:

    Decameron,
    Just take the Mexico City office of the State of Texas. (https://texaswideopenforbusiness.com/international/state-texas-mexico-city-office) They try to influence the Mexican federal, regional and municipal governments all day long, to the benefit of the Texas economy. And it’s entirely fitting that they do so.
    The Logan Act is poorly worded and vague. That’s why it’s never been enforced. It’s ridiculous on its face.

  10. Freudenschade says:

    Decameron,
    Oh, and put this guy in prison, right?
    http://www.sos.state.tx.us/about/newsreleases/2017/030217.shtml

  11. Swami says:

    You may want to re-evaluate your statements after a closer reading of the statements in the links you provide.
    The net effect of the US Climate Alliance is that like-minded States will commit to meeting the carbon reduction targets in their States, to the extent they can. It’s not like they are going around the Federal government and cutting side deals with other countries.

  12. Lurker says:

    It seems officia enough. DJT is pulling the USA out of the Globalization NWO bandwagon. First action in this direction was the pulling out from the Trans Pacific Trade Pact Agreement followed now with the pulling out from the Paris Climate Agreement. No wonder the NWO chief Globalists like Obama, Merkel, Soros and Musk are up in arms against him. What is DJT’s next target?

  13. Laura says:

    For what it is worth, any state can decide on its own to pay attention to a treaty’s guidelines…It’s a “we won’t back down” response and perfectly fine. Obviously, when states (for any response) come into conflict with federal policy, there will be litigation — nothing new!

  14. D says:

    1) It will take four years to withdraw from the Paris Accords. The treaty is still in effect. Trump said he wouldn’t enforce the standards. 2) You say that Brown “now says that California, New York, Washington state and others will join together to override the President of the US, and join the Paris Climate Agreement independent of the decision of the United States government. That, folks, is not legal.” But they didn’t say they would “join the Paris Climate Agreement independent of the decision of the United States government.” They said they would make “a formal commitment to upholding the targets of the Paris agreement” in their respective states. Absolutely nothing illegal about that. Much ado about nothing. (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/california-york-washington-unite-back-climate-pact-47778881)

  15. kao_hsien_chih says:

    South Carolina, December, 1860. Here we go again…. Trump is the new Lincoln (and I don’t necessarily mean it the way most people might imagine it to mean).

  16. Old Gun Pilot says:

    I don’t read it that way Decameron. The governors’ alliance isn’t “..carrying on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government..”. They are simply agreeing that in their respective States they will attempt to adhere to the standards of the Paris Accords, specifically to reduce carbon emissions 26 to 28 percent of the 2005 levels. That seems to me to be a laudable enterprise. Just because the President is behaving like a reckless juvenile doesn’t mean the States can’t act responsibly.

  17. different clue says:

    Trump ran on several promises. One of those promises was to withdraw America from the Paris Climate Accords. It is not a promise I liked. I didn’t vote for Trump beCAUSE of that promise. I voted for Trump deSPITE that promise. But still, Trump has kept a campaign promise.
    Keeping a campaign promise is setting a precedent in terms of what recent Presidents have done. It would make it harder for the next President Whomever to go back to the recent tradition of making promises with zero intent of honoring them in order to trick voters into voting for President Whomever. Hopefully the next round of candidates in 4 or 8 years would include one making the campaign promise to bring America back into the Paris Accords. If he/she got elected on that (among other) promises, he/she would be pressured to follow the Trump Precedent of actually KEEPing a campaign promise.
    What of the now and the meantime? Is there a way for pro-conservation jurisdiction-loads of Americans to conduct de-carbonization operations without flouting or undermining Presidential authority breaking the Logan Act and other relevant laws? I hope that there is, because I would like to see de-carbonization proceed within the limits of the law.

  18. Bill says:

    With respect, this is hogwash. What the announcement actually said was:
    “New York, California, and Washington, representing over one-fifth of U.S. Gross Domestic Product, are committed to achieving the U.S. goal of reducing emissions 26-28 percent from 2005 levels and meeting or exceeding the targets of the federal Clean Power Plan.”
    There is nothing criminal about states working to reduce emissions, even if the President throws a fit and withdraws from a treaty. If Trump withdraws from the Migratory Bird Treaty tomorrow, will states be required to destroy nesting grounds? Of course not.

  19. Heros says:

    Please California secede. Please, please, please. Any kind of truce between the Yankees and their subjects in fly over land has been thrown on the pile of dead corpses left in the wake of unbridled Yankee lust for power and hegemony. The destruction of the Confederate heritage and trampling on the honor of their hero’s is the last straw. Its just a matter of time and their will not be any chance for meaningful change until a lot more people have a lot more to lose.

  20. David O White says:

    Climate change will become real to many people when insurance companies withdraw coverage for coastal property and refuse to issue new policies on vulnerable areas.

  21. Fred says:

    Lars,
    So it does not have the force of law and is nothing more than a giant virtue signal be the Left?

  22. marku52 says:

    It is Jerry Brown, BTW.
    And if you want to get wound up about Logan Act violations, why don’t you start with McCain?

  23. Lars says:

    You are correct. Trump’s action is meaningless and just another bone thrown to his cult members. Unfortunately, the US will be less and less trusted internationally because of this stunt.

  24. raven says:

    But, but, Obama bought a big house.

  25. Nancy K says:

    Gov Brown is amazing. Only wish he could move to NC and run for senator here.

  26. BraveNewWorld says:

    “The Logan Act still has the force of law, despite the fact that there has never been a successful criminal prosecution under it. The intent of the act was always to prevent private parties from trying to undercut the policy of the federal government.”
    Wasn’t it just last week that there was a story running on SST that it was perfectly fine for some private citizens to go to the Russians and set up an encrypted channel with Russia to make deals undercutting the sitting president?
    What about Regan before winning the election doing deals with the Ayatollah?

  27. Stumpy says:

    Hm. As I mentioned on the open thread, the core of the agreement is a mechanism by which the particapating nations contribute to a fund that is managed by The Green Climate Fund and deposited in the World Bank. I don’t see taxpayers in California and other US States raising the $Billions expected of the US as a developed country to park in the bank while some international cartel decides what to do with the money. Or maybe they would. Reducing carbon emissions on a state-by-state basis wouldn’t need more than convincing taxpayers to burn less fuel. The funny thing would be California proposing a project to be funded by the UN Green Climate Fund. Silicon Valley corporations are great proponents of climate science, let them put their money where their mouth is.

  28. trinlae says:

    P.s. My grad school gov student loan interest is a whopping 7.9%!!!
    That was for 2011…it dropped to about 6.5% by 2016. That i had completely paid my undergrad and masters degree student loans in full was never a factor in my credit rating, but if i had defaulted, it would not have been possible to borrow for the phd program.
    At 54, there is a fair chance to die before paying off in full, but for the young people, it is cannibalization. The only way to get back above water is to go into the undertaking business, and off load it back onto the source lol.

  29. trinlae says:

    Two ideas come to mind having read this:
    1. US m.o. seems to be to always tries to make deals in public that look like treaties but which turn out to be fig leafs for keeping things the same as before for as long as possible. Best example i can think of is Bush-Cheney electric car innovation delays, which pleased Tx oilmen but bankruptex detroit.
    2. Clinton Foundation would seem to be the poster child for Logan Act apparent non-compliance and subsequent non-indictment for the same.

  30. John_Frank says:

    Despite the Obama administration’s position that the Paris Climate Accord is an executive agreement and not a treaty, the position of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is that:

    The Paris Agreement remains a historic treaty signed by 194 and ratified by 147 counties. Therefore it cannot be renegotiated based on the request of a single Party.

    UNFCCC statement on the US decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement
    http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2017/06/unfccc-statement-on-the-us-decision-to-withdraw-from-the-paris-agreement/
    As such, President Obama should have put the Paris Climate Accord to the Senate for ratification. Of course, he did not because he knew that the Senate would reject his request.
    In the President’s Statement on the Paris Climate Accord he said:

    Therefore, in order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord — (applause) — thank you, thank you — but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris Accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers. So we’re getting out. But we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair. And if we can, that’s great. And if we can’t, that’s fine.

    Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/01/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord
    In turn, according to the UNFCC Statement:

    The Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) regrets the announcement by the President of the United States that his government will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Agreement.
    The Secretariat also notes the announced intention to renegotiate the modalities for the US participation in the agreement. In this regard, it stands ready to engage in dialogue with the United States government regarding the implications of this announcement.

    As to the steps being taken by the States, the language in the Constitution is fairly clear:
    Compact Clause
    http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/75/compact-clause
    “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power.”
    Whether or not the Federal Government is prepared to go to Court to enforce the clause in this instance remains an open question.
    In any event, the uproar over the President’s decision, even though he said during the campaign that he intended to withdraw the United States from the Accord is something to behold.
    Trump Rejects the Climate Gateway Drug: Global Progressives Go All Spanish Inquisition http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=10541
    As the author notes:
    And perhaps most importantly, he [Pres. Trump] called out, confronted, and rejected the role of Paris as a gateway drug to even more intrusive supranational elite control and power:

    The risks grow as historically these agreements only tend to become more and more ambitious over time. In other words, the Paris framework is a starting point — as bad as it is — not an end point. And exiting the agreement protects the United States from future intrusions on the United States’ sovereignty and massive future legal liability. Believe me, we have massive legal liability if we stay in.

    So, by withdrawing from the Agreement, the President has upended the Marxist agenda of using the Paris Climate Accord to establish a supra-national world government.

  31. PacificAdvocate says:

    >>>>directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof,
    Key phrase, here:
    >>>>…with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof….
    The Paris agreement doesn’t “influence the measure or conduct of any foreign government or foreign officer/agent….”
    The decision to abide by the Paris agreement only influences how Washington, California, and New York operate. The decision to abide by those measures is not contingent upon the behavior of foreign governments, nor do the States themselves receive any kind of benefit, remuneration, support, or reciprocal action from a foreign country or state for doing so. In short, the decision to abide by the Paris agreement does not coordinate nor influence the behavior (“measures of conduct”) of other countries, which are free and independent to adopt (or not) those measures in-and-of-themselves.

  32. Yeah, Right says:

    Somewhat tangential – and in no way meant to minimize the damage that Trump’s announcement will do to the USA’s standing in the world – but I’d point out that this is possible because of a monumental act of political cowardice by Barack Obama.
    The Paris Climate Accord is meant to be both acceded to and ratified by all member states, which on my reading of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties means that this accord was meant to be an international treaty, and should be regarded as such, and is regarded as such by every country bar one.
    Clearly not by the USA, because Barack Obama insisted on acceding to this accord via an executive agreement – an (in)action that suggests nothing more – nor less – than that he was lacking even the faintest degree of foresight.
    Anything that a POTUS signs as an executive agreement can be undone by his predecessor via yet another executive agreement.
    So is it possible that this self-evident truth never, ever occurred to Obama? Surely not.
    Or did he mull it and think, well, heck, I’ll be gone by then so why should I care? Very possibly.
    Or did he conclude that his successor is certain to be a Democrat, so what’s there to worry about? Very likely.
    But regardless, it amounts to cowardice or incompetence – take your pick.
    Trump may be uninformed, he may be gullible. Or a grifter.
    He might be all those things. But he’s no coward, unlike Obama.

  33. bks says:

    Jerry Brown has been a leader since the 1970’s and every topic for which he was questioned by the likes of Mike Rokyo back then is now bog-standard thinking. There was a time when conservatives wanted clean air and clean water. Now they want to make the EPA into a second chamber of commerce. Brown stands head and shoulders above the bumbling grifter in the White House who can’t even name a new FBI Director weeks after he claimed he would.

  34. Morongobill says:

    Referring to Jerry Brown, all I can say is what a long strange trip it has been, out here in Kalifornia.

  35. John_Frank says:

    According to this report, the so called United States Climate Alliance wants to accede to the Paris Climate Accord.
    Liberal States, Cities Ask U.N. to Let Them Join Paris Agreement, Raising Legal Questions http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/02/liberal-states-cities-ask-u-n-to-let-them-join-paris-agreement-raising-legal-questions/
    If that report is correct and the intent is to seek approval of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to accede to the UN treaty known as the Paris Climate Accord (which Mr. Obama said was an executive agreement and not a treaty), this would be offside under the Constitution.
    What is more troubling? The President asked for the help of the Democratic Party in seeking to obtain a fairer deal. In moving forward in this fashion, members of the Democratic Party are showing their complete disdain towards the effort of seeking to improve upon the Paris Climate Accord.

  36. Nancy K says:

    He is very well thought of in Ca. He has always acted about the environment.

  37. different clue says:

    raven
    Well, raven, the reason Obama bought a big house is because he could afford a big house. The reason he can afford a big house is because of the big payoffs he has already collected from big bussiness, and the even bigger payoffs he expects to keep collecting from big bussiness for years to come.
    The reason big bussiness is giving Obama the big payoffs which let Obama pay the big price for his big house is that President Obama did a lot of big favors for big bussiness. President Obama helped big bussiness make a lot of big money and escape a lot of big prosecutions for big crimes.
    So . . . yes. Obama bought a big house.

  38. different clue says:

    raven
    (Shame on me for forgetting to include the link to the article on Naked Capitalism about the big corruption behind Obama’s big payoffs.)
    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/06/market-forces-behind-obamas-record-setting-book-deal.html

  39. iowa steve says:

    Taken together, “Obama” and “big house” has a certain resonance to it.

  40. Nancy K says:

    I am 4th generation Californian, moved to NC 5 years ago to be near grandchildren. NC is a beautiful state and I love being near my daughter and grandkids, but I do miss CA. How has it been a strange trip and why call it Kalifornia? Never heard anyone from there call it that.

  41. Babak Makkinejad says:

    If one accepts – as I have – the conclusion that the global warming is due to astronomical causes rather then human activity, then it stands to reason to quit such instruments of economic dislocation and hardship as the Paris Accords.

  42. `Maybe this is all part of Bannon’s dream of dismantling the federal government. Bloomberg and his charities have pledged to fund the UN to the tune of 15 million dollars for the next two years. That’s what the US was supposed to chip in for the Climate Accord. Seems Bloomberg and the defiant cities and states will make the federal government irrelevant in this case.

  43. kao_hsien_chih says:

    I don’t (quite) mean in the sense that states are seceding, but what came before it.
    Even before Lincoln was elected, the state of debate became so coarse that there was nothing that Lincoln could do to convince the Southerns that he was not going to tear down what they saw as Constitutional guarantees and impose (from the Southern perspective), a Federal tyranny. Paranoid Southern politicians gained upper hand, engaged in reckless and preemptive actions of “resistance” that culminated in secessionist actions–which was not arrived easily in many Southern states.
    For the most part, not unlike Lincoln in 1860, Donald Trump is more a fabled creature than a real person–someone who has gained a giant and, to many, terrifying, reputation regardless of what he really is. There are temptations, actively urged on by modern day hotheads (ironically, also Democrats), of reckless so-called resistance…but, resistance to what? For most part, other than putting his foot in his mouth multiple times, what has Trump done that is so objectionable in matters of policy just yet?
    I would not equate interstate cooperation on matters of environmental policy on par with the acts of secession…yet. But they do remind me of various acts of disagreeableness that took place in both South and the North during 1850s by the state governments that did not agree with the Federal policy. Their legality is one thing, but open and overt political hostility between states, and between state and federal governments, feeding more and more into a state of distrust and uncooperation. This is a dangerous path we are treading.

  44. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Doubt it very much; the denizens of those cities already are complaining about high taxation; they would be loath to see millions of their tax dollars going to foreigners in Europe or elsewhere. No elected official in those cities will be survive the next election cycle.

  45. ex-PFC Chuck says:

    Babak, I agree that astronomical factors* have been the major drivers of climate changes in the pre-industrial past, and a significant dependent variable during that past has been the atmospheric CO2 levels. I also agree that they will continue to be causal factors in the future, however IMO it is wrong to assume that, given the human-induced rise in atmospheric CO2 that has occurred since the dawn of the industrial revolution, that CO2 level has not become an independent variable in its own right in climate processes. Since the nearer term effects appear to be inducing and/or accelerating, and since a lot has yet to be learned about the feedback loops involved, the most prudent course is to minimize or reverse humanity’s contribution to rising CO2 levels.
    * There are four periodic perturbations of the Earth’s orientation to the Sun. Below are some notes I took on these factors based on descriptions in the book Thin Ice: Unlocking the Secrets of Climate in the World’s Highest Mountains, BY Mark Bowen:
    1. Earth’s orbit is an ellipse that varies in eccentricity because of the gravitational influence of other planets. The period of the variation is approximately 100,000 years. In the present epoch the orbit is just about as close to circular as it gets, and thus receives about 7% more light than it does when the ellipse is most elongated.
    2. The period of a single traverse of the orbit is approximately 365.25 days – that is one calendar year. As seen from space above the North Pole, the Earth’s orbit precesses counterclockwise over a period of about 22,000 years.
    3. The Earth’s axis of rotation is tilted at an average of approximately 23.5 degrees from being perpendicular to a line between the centers of the Earth and the Sun when one pole is pointing directly at the Sun and the other directly away from it. This axis tilt drives the Earth’s annual seasons as it traverses its orbit. As seen from space above the North Pole, the Earth’s axis precesses over a period of approximately 26,000 years. This has the affect of causing the positions of astronomical bodies relative to the time of day or night. For example 13,000 years from now Polaris (aka the North Star) will be directly overhead at the 45th north parallel at some time of the day or night.
    4. The obliquity of the Earth’s axis precesses over a period of approximately 41,000 years, during which it its minimum tilt is about 22 degrees and its maximum is about 25 degrees.

  46. Mark says:

    The Logan Act does not say anything about a treaty or treatise. Frankly, it’s not hard to read at all, if you’ve got half a brain, unlike most legislation. It doesn’t say “don’t be green” or “Lets all throw some carbon in the air” or even “Don’t enter into a treaty with another government”.
    It says anyone “who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any CORRESPONDENCE or INTERCOURSE with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof” (more language about confirming effect of the “intercourse”) “shall be fined under this title or imprisoned”
    In these examples, “intercourse” means discussion, not banging – get your head out of the gutter.
    So it’s easy-
    “DON’T CONFABULATE (WRITE,EMAIL,TELEGRAM,FACESNAP,etc)
    TO FURNERS (other countries’ government officials)
    ABOUT U.S. BIDNESS (official matters being discussed between the USA and other nations, like, oh, climate change)
    WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION (from the Executive branch, which has dominion over all interaction with foreign governments (according to the Constitution)
    So it’s easy – Jerry Brown is flat out guilty, unless he was specifically authorized to go to China and negotiate with the Chinese officialdom by the Donald – I somehow doubt it. I don’t know about John McCain – he does have another access conduit via the fact that he is a sitting US Senator, and Congress often has been authorized to perform investigations overseas..

  47. Mark says:

    Hey Nancy-
    Since you don’t live here anymore, maybe you should leave that type of judgement to those who do.
    He is well thought of anywhere people need something – everywhere else, not so much. He has killed thousands of jobs in CA, our local cost of living has gone up 20-30% in the past five years – with the domestic COLA average of 5.2%. And yes, our gasoline(highest in the country) going up another 10% in taxes! Oh, yeah, it’s for the roads – that’s been promised EVERY TIME (and never adhered to unless specifically written in the bill-only happened once). Never mind the trampling of the 2nd amendment, the lack of protection of free speech for non leftists, and the rampant political overcorrectedness -I’m Californian born and raised for 57 years – and this place’s government is flat out corrupt.
    If I was mobile, I’d be gone-unfortunately I’m a cripple. And if anyone wants to correct me about that, well, blow me.

Comments are closed.