"There, in fact, is a still-hunting debate about whether the Paris Accord is a treaty in Constitutional terms"
No, there isn't. As someone once said, the Constitution is written in language so clear that it requires a lawyer to misunderstand it.
Let us suppose that a school is having a class trip. Going on the trip requires the student to sign up and also to get the consent of his parents.
Arguing that the Paris accord is a "treaty" is like arguing that a student should get to go on the trip simply because he signed the sheet, even though his parents have not granted permission. That would be an idiotic and/or dishonest interpretation, and anyone who makes that argument is not "debating" under any reasonable interpretation of that term.
There are also some points to be made about what this says about the character of the student who signs the sheet when he knows full well that his parents are never going to grant permission, but we'll just leave that off to the side.
No, there isn't. As someone once said, the Constitution is written in language so clear that it requires a lawyer to misunderstand it.
Let us suppose that a school is having a class trip. Going on the trip requires the student to sign up and also to get the consent of his parents.
Arguing that the Paris accord is a "treaty" is like arguing that a student should get to go on the trip simply because he signed the sheet, even though his parents have not granted permission. That would be an idiotic and/or dishonest interpretation, and anyone who makes that argument is not "debating" under any reasonable interpretation of that term.
There are also some points to be made about what this says about the character of the student who signs the sheet when he knows full well that his parents are never going to grant permission, but we'll just leave that off to the side.