(From Freedom Works, http://www.freedomworks.org/content/lord-monckton-copenhagen-treaty) "There has been considerable debate raised about Monckton's conclusion that the Copenhagen Treaty would cede US sovereignty. His comments appear to be based upon his interpretation of the The Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 2). This clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. TREATIES as the supreme law of the land. Concerns have been raised in the past that a particularly ambitious treaty may supersede the US Constitution. In the 1950s, a constitutional amendment, known as the Bricker Amendment, was proposed in response to such fears, but it failed to pass. You can read more about the Bricker Amendment in a 1953 Time Magazine article" (partially copied below):
"One of the greatest constitutional crises the country has ever faced," said the American Bar Association, and argued that the Bricker Amendment should be passed to protect the Union from dire peril.
"The most momentous constitutional issue since President Roosevelt's attempt to pack the Supreme Court," said the Washington Post, and argued that the Bricker Amendment should be defeated to protect the Union from dire peril.
This week the U.S., quietly and in measured tones, is in the midst of a constitutional great debate. Ohio's junior Senator, Republican John William Bricker, touched it off by proposing a constitutional amendment. Its main aim: to restrict the making of U.S. domestic law by international treaty. Earnest Lawyer Bricker argues that his amendment would plug "a dangerous constitutional loophole." Members of President Eisenhower's Cabinet argue that it would "damage [the] balance of power" between Congress and the President and "completely hamstring" the conduct of foreign relations, and Wisconsin's Senator Alexander Wiley calls the amendment "the most dangerous thing that has ever been brought before Congress." But 44 other Republican Senators (and 19 Democratic Senators) agreed to cosponsor the Bricker Amendment. Several state bar associations have endorsed it, but the New York State Bar Association denounces it as "unnecessary, unwise, divisive and dangerous."
The Supreme Law. The debate turns on a clause (Article VI, Clause 2) in the U.S. Constitution that makes treaties—along with federal laws and the Constitution itself—"the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Laws must be made "in pursuance" of the Constitution, but treaties need only be made "under the Authority of the United States," i.e., by the President, "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate . . . provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur." Thus treaty provisions can, without legislation, become internal law, enforceable on individual citizens and overriding conflicting laws, both state and federal. If a treaty provision is not enforceable as it stands, Congress has the power under Article I to make "necessary and proper" laws to put it into effect.
As interpreted by the Supreme Court, Article VI means that treaty provisions, or "necessary and proper" laws based on the treaties, can regulate matters that the Constitution otherwise reserves to the states and the people. After federal courts had declared a 1913 migratory-bird protection law invalid on the ground that it violated the Tenth Amendment ("The powers not delegated ... are reserved . . ."), the U.S. and Canada agreed by treaty to protect birds that flew between the two countries. Then Congress passed a law similar to the 1913 law. In 1920, in the famous Missouri v. Holland decision, the Supreme Court upheld the statute, ruling in effect that the Federal Government can derive from treaties legislative powers not specifically granted by the Constitution.
For the full article: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,806676-1,00.html
There are many sites found by simple search on the Internet to give more information regarding this important piece of global legislation.
I've been told the links herein are not working, please try them as follows, and I am including some additional ones giving contrary point of view ... if the links do not work directly, try copying and pasting them into your browser, or do a search on Global Climate Change Treaty - Copenhagen, which should provide these and other links.
Chuck Norris Article:
Actual Climate Change Document - pdf format: