During the G-20 Summit over the weekend, the U.S. and China formally latched on to last December’s climate framework, cobbled together in Paris just weeks after a gruesome and far more crucially important jihad attack. The pact, which is most certainly a treaty, signifies one of the most egregious abuses of power ever orchestrated by a president. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that 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 [emphasis added].” But the Obama administration obfuscated this point by insisting the agreement is, in essence, not legally binding.

In short, there was no getting the statist-empowering accord through Congress. So Obama rewrote the rules and altogether circumvented Congress instead. As John Kerry himself explained, “I would love to have a legally binding agreement. But the situation in the U.S. is such that legally binding with respect to finance is a killer for the agreement.” The subterfuge is even lost on the media. As ABC News reported, “Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping ratified a sweeping agreement to curb carbon emissions, accelerating the path toward implementation of the 200-nation accord that the world leaders hope to achieve by the end of the year.” But how can Obama ratify something that’s not a treaty? Sadly, the media either doesn’t know or, worse, doesn’t care.

Meanwhile, the U.S.-China political conflict revealed itself in a disparaging way at the G-20 gathering. According to USA Today, “Tensions over protocol began almost as soon as Air Force One touched down in Hangzhou on Saturday. No mobile staircase was prepared for the U.S. president to exit the front door of the plane, forcing him to leave via the lower back door, which has its own stairs. He also was the only national leader not to be provided with red carpet on arrival.” Obama, of course, brushed aside the embarrassing optics, insisting it was much ado about nothing. But China, which is bitter over U.S. opposition to its encroachments in the South China Sea, was clearly sending a message. Ironically, the same snub will apply to said climate deal. China has no intention of actually following the letter of the law.