http://www.huffingtonpost.com/young...licy/why-the-paris-climate-agr_b_9914606.html
"
For all the applause for the Paris Climate Agreement, current treatment of the agreement is almost certainly a violation of the treaty clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution stipulates, “The President...shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...” Most international agreements, especially ones sharing the magnitude of the Paris Accord, are treaties in the constitutional sense and should be presented to the Senate as such. President Obama’s decision to evade the Constitution by entering into the agreement, which will have major domestic impacts, and treat the accord as anything less than a treaty is an abrogation of his oath of office."
It's a TREATY.
"The agreement also contains legally binding elements, which
indisputably trigger the ratification requirement. Under the accord, nations must
submit emissions reduction targets and review those targets regularly. Even Laurent Fabius, president of the international meeting that created the Paris Accord, and the
European Union have
acknowledged the binding legal nature of parts of the Paris instrument.
Some contend that this distinction about whether the treaty is sufficiently binding is unnecessary, alleging that the Paris Agreement does not require the United States to exceed its commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the legal grandfather of the Paris Treaty. However, when the Senate ratified the UNFCCC in 1992 it was with the explicit
understanding that future fruits of climate change conferences would be submitted to the Senate for advice and consent as well."
