They might get away with it as long as they aren't binding themselves. However, if Congress specifically considered and declined to adopt the treaty, then that negative aspect could rule the land as Congress' treaty power supersedes states' general lawmaking.
You don't have to be a signatory to that type of agreement in order to abide by it. Let's say, for example, that the Paris accord includes a certain target for vehicle emissions. There's nothing in Article II that would prohibit a state from setting those same standards.
I sure as hell know I would keep working and just pocket the extra money to reach my life goals sooner
And I bet those life goals involve putting that money back into the economy. Maybe you want to travel, or buy a nicer place to live, or fix up a '72 Chevelle SS. Either way, the money feeds the economy.
The economy is not helped because a hedge fund manager can buy more derivatives (now a bigger market than actual capital stocks). It just gets taken off the table to add to a net worth that will never be spent.
I would work less if I didn't have to work for my income. Am I the only one?
I also thought this until I retired. I do more now than I did when I was working. And more of that work actually does something for my community. No, I don't put in the "hours" like a wage slave, but the work is more productive and meaningful and fun for me.
What part of this do you think violates Article II? They're not talking about joining into a treaty, only abiding by it.
It's funny, but when the Right wants to limit black voters or take away some woman's rights to birth control, it's all about the 10th Amendment and "states' rights", but when states want to do something that Donald Trump doesn't like, they forget everything about federalism and insist on a strong centralized government.
I don't mind hypocrites, as long as they're honest about it.
So, Trump's campaign manager got to join his administration, and a chief strategist is allowed to talk to a website he runs.
Man, your perusal sure missed a lot, including...
His aides who received ethics exemptions include Michael Catanzaro, a domestic energy and environmental policy adviser. Catanzaro was granted permission to work on a broad portfolio of matters of interest to his former energy sector clients, including emissions regulations, clear air standards and renewable fuel standards.
Shahira Knight, a White House adviser on tax and retirement policy, received a waiver to participate in a range of tax and financial policy matters. Knight, a former tax lobbyist, served as vice president of Fidelity Investments' public affairs and policy group before joining the White House.
Andrew Olmem, who lobbied on bankruptcy and securities issues at the firm Venable before joining the White House as a financial policy adviser, has an exemption to meet with former clients involved in Puerto Rico's financial crisis and engage in a range of insurance and financial policies.
Eh, we should just send him as the first person to land on the Sun... but don't worry, we'll land at night!
First you have to install a 10k gold-plated chair and toilet in the spacecraft and stock it with sufficient KFC Gravy Bowls. Then tell him that Obama was opposed to being the first man on the Sun.
International courts. How many nukes do they have?
Good question. Actually eight of the countries that are signatories to the Paris accord have nuclear arsenals. So the question you have to ask yourself is, "Do I feel lucky?"
Don't get to comfortable. According to the Constitution, you're #637 in the order of presidential succession. You may yet find yourself in the Oval Office.
I recall a little thing called the American Revolution where leaders of the time didn't agree with the provisional govenment decision and had the stones to back it up.
And the first thing they did was ask France for a loan and military help.
The US is also one of the first countries to establish the Environmental Protection agency to explicitly DO something about getting emissions down.
And the first country to have a jackoff in the White House who turned the EPA into the enforcement arm of the fossil fuel industry and prohibit it from performing its core function.
In that case, why are there separate bathrooms for men & women?
Oh, you are so close to figuring this whole thing out, you know that?
Plus, a lot of public places don't have separate bathrooms for men & women. And guess what? There's been no spike in sex crimes in those bathrooms.
Just that Leftists want government to force every public organization to allow transgenders to use bathrooms of their choice.
There was a time when in certain states (that voted for Trump) there were separate water fountains for black and whites. You can thank "Leftists" for that ending.
To be fair, I find cake to be highly sexual. I'm thinking of a flourless chocolate cake with dark chocolate syrup drizzled over it right now and I'm extremely aroused.
It's going to take a famous and tragic case for the adults to finally school the SJW playground and enact these legislations everywhere.
How many "famous and tragic" cases of some gun nut going into a school and shooting a bunch of first graders will it take before strict gun laws are enacted everywhere?
Not one of these bathroom bills has anything to do with kids' safety. How much horseshit do you have to be fed before you push the plate away?
Every once in a while females get [pix11.com] raped [pennlive.com] and otherwise assaulted there. No, not by actual transgender lunatics — by "regular" perverts.
So let me see if I get this right. Transgender people don't commit rapes in bathrooms, but straight men do.
Then why the fuck aren't you supporting a law to keep straight men out of bathrooms? I mean, make them do their business in a latrine or something. Give them giant diapers. Let them wallow in their own filth. But lord-a-mighty, you're jacked up about a law that would affect transgender people even though it has fuck-all to do with rape or molestation or fondling your baby dick.
And don't we already have laws against rape and molestation and fondling your baby dick? What are these red state bathroom bills that are unpopular in their own fucking states expected to accomplish besides getting a bunch of yahoo god-botherers all fired up? Oh never mind. I've answered my own question.
What in the holy fuck do you think is going on in bathrooms? People go in, do their business, wash their hands (at least in the blue states) and then go about their lives. I guarantee you've been in bathrooms with transgender people, and somehow they managed to resist the urge to grope your baby dick.
Republicans are against big government but want government to monitor their fucking bathrooms. Makes a lot of sense.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have to be a signatory to that type of agreement in order to abide by it. Let's say, for example, that the Paris accord includes a certain target for vehicle emissions. There's nothing in Article II that would prohibit a state from setting those same standards.
Nobody told me there would be math in this comments section.
And I bet those life goals involve putting that money back into the economy. Maybe you want to travel, or buy a nicer place to live, or fix up a '72 Chevelle SS. Either way, the money feeds the economy.
The economy is not helped because a hedge fund manager can buy more derivatives (now a bigger market than actual capital stocks). It just gets taken off the table to add to a net worth that will never be spent.
I also thought this until I retired. I do more now than I did when I was working. And more of that work actually does something for my community. No, I don't put in the "hours" like a wage slave, but the work is more productive and meaningful and fun for me.
C ya.
What part of this do you think violates Article II? They're not talking about joining into a treaty, only abiding by it.
It's funny, but when the Right wants to limit black voters or take away some woman's rights to birth control, it's all about the 10th Amendment and "states' rights", but when states want to do something that Donald Trump doesn't like, they forget everything about federalism and insist on a strong centralized government.
I don't mind hypocrites, as long as they're honest about it.
Trump's already given ethics waivers to 17 of his staff allowing them to lobby while they work for the government and he's just getting started.
Number of Obama waivers: 0.
Man, your perusal sure missed a lot, including...
First you have to install a 10k gold-plated chair and toilet in the spacecraft and stock it with sufficient KFC Gravy Bowls. Then tell him that Obama was opposed to being the first man on the Sun.
Good question. Actually eight of the countries that are signatories to the Paris accord have nuclear arsenals. So the question you have to ask yourself is, "Do I feel lucky?"
Well, do you?
Don't get to comfortable. According to the Constitution, you're #637 in the order of presidential succession. You may yet find yourself in the Oval Office.
And the first thing they did was ask France for a loan and military help.
Did you know that Trump just waived his own lobbying rules for members of his administration?
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
And the first country to have a jackoff in the White House who turned the EPA into the enforcement arm of the fossil fuel industry and prohibit it from performing its core function.
So, you're OK with 4chan being banned?
Oh, you are so close to figuring this whole thing out, you know that?
Plus, a lot of public places don't have separate bathrooms for men & women. And guess what? There's been no spike in sex crimes in those bathrooms.
There was a time when in certain states (that voted for Trump) there were separate water fountains for black and whites. You can thank "Leftists" for that ending.
You bring up an important question: Why do these gay guys keep putting their dicks in your father's ass?
Did you know that the Constitution prohibits pre-emptive prosecution? Is that really what you want to argue for here? "Pre-emptive prosecution?"
Isn't "pre-emptive prosecution" the ultimate nanny-state?
Have you ever stopped for a moment do consider why the suicide rate among gun owners is so high?
To be fair, I find cake to be highly sexual. I'm thinking of a flourless chocolate cake with dark chocolate syrup drizzled over it right now and I'm extremely aroused.
All the way to the White House?
How many "famous and tragic" cases of some gun nut going into a school and shooting a bunch of first graders will it take before strict gun laws are enacted everywhere?
Not one of these bathroom bills has anything to do with kids' safety. How much horseshit do you have to be fed before you push the plate away?
So let me see if I get this right. Transgender people don't commit rapes in bathrooms, but straight men do.
Then why the fuck aren't you supporting a law to keep straight men out of bathrooms? I mean, make them do their business in a latrine or something. Give them giant diapers. Let them wallow in their own filth. But lord-a-mighty, you're jacked up about a law that would affect transgender people even though it has fuck-all to do with rape or molestation or fondling your baby dick.
And don't we already have laws against rape and molestation and fondling your baby dick? What are these red state bathroom bills that are unpopular in their own fucking states expected to accomplish besides getting a bunch of yahoo god-botherers all fired up? Oh never mind. I've answered my own question.
What in the holy fuck do you think is going on in bathrooms? People go in, do their business, wash their hands (at least in the blue states) and then go about their lives. I guarantee you've been in bathrooms with transgender people, and somehow they managed to resist the urge to grope your baby dick.
Republicans are against big government but want government to monitor their fucking bathrooms. Makes a lot of sense.
It's actually a 21-core processor, but three of them are disabled.