This column presents facts regarding the United States Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Wisconsin State Constitution, and various other documents in reference to modern topics. Mark hopes to encourage interest in those works so that others can consider whether our government is practicing within its constitutional limits. In the last category, he may indicate his opinion. Mark is a resident of New Berlin. Readers are encouraged to visit the following sites for more information on the United States Constitution and Thomas Jefferson's views on politics and government.
According to the Heritage Foundation; November 19, 2010
Typically the largest wealth distribution program that occurs in Cancun, Mexico, is college students spending their parents’ money. That could change at the upcoming United Nations climate summit if developing countries clamoring for money to cope with global warming get their wish. With each passing year, it’s clear that international climate change talks are less about climate and more about wealth redistribution.
The latest case in point comes from United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) official Ottmar Edenhofer. In a recent interview with Germany’s NZZ Online, Edenhofer lays out just what the climate talks are all about:
NZZ: De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
Edenhofer: First of all, developed countries have basically expropriatedthe atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
According to the Boston Globe, December 17, 2009 (full article available on-line)
COPENHAGEN -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said today that the United States would help create a $100-billion-a-year fund to assist developing countries adapt to climate change and shift to greener technologies.
Also today, US Representative Edward Markey arrived in Copenhagen to help push a deal forward. The Massachusetts lawmaker is co-author of climate legislation passed by the House. He was accompanied by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and other congressmen.
Instead, he sees much of the money coming from private investment, out of a growing number of nations’ efforts to begin carbon dioxide emission trading programs. Under such programs, polluting industries that emit too many greenhouse gases could pay developing countries to offset the same amount by protecting forests, or by other means.
"That would not add to US debt. Indeed, it would be good for private industry," Stavins said.
World Government vs. National Government
US Constitution; Article II, Section 2
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
We the People:
Wealth redistribution is not among the powers granted to our government by the Constitution. In addition, the principles of checks and balances give the Senators power to safeguard the assets of their state. If your US Senators would abdicate that responsibility to redistribute your employer’s money overseas, ask them why. From your employer’s perspective, if the company money is going to be forced overseas, they might as well move the factory with it.