Buck_Godot:
The biggest problem is that the first thing the Trump did when entering office is to tear up NAFTA all of the treaties made under Obama purely out of spite. What this means is that the US can only be held to its word through the term of the current president. If we’re lucky, future presidents may be able to claim Trump was an aberration and they can be trusted, but if this policy isn’t heartily repudiated by both sides once Trump leaves office, we will be limited to treaties of four years or less.
Treaties, approved by the Senate, are generally more enduring than a single presidential administration. When the “treaty” is really just an ‘executive agreement’ (I think that’s the correct description of our position on the Paris Climate Accord) then no, people can’t really expect that they’ll remain in force beyond the current administration. I seem to remember writing about that here a while ago … Yes, here it is:
I was writing a response to your long earlier post, but I’ve gotten sidetracked from that, and wanted to respond briefly to this:
There’s a very good reason that the Constitution requires treaties be ratified by a super-majority of the Senate. It’s so that before the US commits itself to some action on the international stage, we ensure that there’s broad-based and durable domestic support for that action, so that it won’t be undone next election and we won’t look schizophrenic and our allies won’t be left confused and unsure if the US is really committed to a course or action.
Obama short-circuited that process and committed us to an action that did not have a broad-based and durable base of support in this country. Do you, at least now, understand why that was not a good idea?