Replies

Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere; 56 Stat. 1354; TS 981 The Convention was signed by the United States on October 12, 1940, and ratified April 15, 1941. United States ratification documents were deposited with the Pan American Union, Washington, D.C., on April 28, 1941. Implementing legislation for the United States was achieved by enactment of Public Law 93-205, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; 87 Stat. 884). Section 8(e) of the Act directs the President to designate the agencies "which shall act on behalf of and represent the United States in all regards as required by the Convention," which was accomplished by Executive Order 11911, April 13, 1976. Congress had to pass implementing legislation in order to carry out the terms of the treaty, which it would not have had to do if the treaty superseded the Constitution. Now -it is entirely possible that the legislation that Congress passed was not Constitutionally based, but the treaty itself did not supersede the Constitution.

Congress had to pass implementing legislation in order to carry out the terms of the treaty, which it would not have had to do if the treaty superseded the Constitution.

You clearly haven't read the treaty. Allow me to quote myself:

The Convention on Nature Protection must be read to be believed. In his summary report to a distracted Senate, Executive Report No. 5, April 3 1941, Secretary of State Cordell Hull misrepresented its virtually unlimited scope. From the Preamble (bold emphasis added):

“The Governments of the American Republics, wishing to protect and preserve in their natural habitat representatives of all species and genera of their native flora and fauna, including migratory birds, in sufficient numbers and over areas extensive enough to assure them from becoming extinct through any agency within man’s control;”

After going on at considerable length about wilderness areas and national parks, they come back with this language in Article V Section 1:

“The Contracting Governments agree to adopt, or to propose such adoption to their respective appropriate law-making bodies, suitable laws and regulations for the protection and preservation of flora and fauna within their national boun¬daries but not included in the national parks, national reserves, nature monu¬ments, or strict wilderness reserves referred to in Article II hereof.”

All species, all land, no limits to the commitment. Mr. Hull made no mention of the scope of Article V in the summary he submitted to the Senate. It was he who convened the Planning Commission that created the United Nations soon after the adoption of this treaty. It is a document that exceeds the constitutional authority of the government of the United States.

It can’t work either. This treaty is contrary to natural law.

Nature is a dynamic, adaptive, and competitive system. Under changing conditions, some species go extinct, indeed, for natural selection to operate, they must. The problem arises when human influence grows so powerful that one can always attribute loss of a species to being “within man’s control.” When humans ask, “Which ones lose?” the treaty specifies, “None,” and demands no limit to the commitment to save them all. This of course destroys the ability to act as agent to save anything, much less objectively evaluate how best to expend our resources to do the best that can be done.

This treaty cannot be satisfied: It calls for a halt to natural selection, itself.

So, a treaty that exceeds Constituional authority of the United States (not to mention Natural Law) is on the books and was attached to the ESA. Together with CITES, they have brought resource enterprise to its knees, and done little to nothing for endangered species to boot.