Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: sergeantdave
The bureaucratic rules may still be challenged. There’s no time frame nor statute of limitations.

Yeah, but the problem with treaties is that, constitutionally, they take precedent over legislative and regulatory acts. So if the U.S. is a party to the CITES treaty, it doesn't matter one hill of beans what DQA says.

It hurts - but that's the reason why it's always a big deal when there's some touchy-feely, good-for-the-third-world-and-China-but-not-the-U.S. treaty that a bunch of kids in Seattle are protesting about because the U.S. hasn't signed it yet.

65 posted on 08/27/2011 5:03:54 PM PDT by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]


To: Scoutmaster

“Yeah, but the problem with treaties is that, constitutionally, they take precedent over legislative and regulatory acts. “

No, that’s not correct. The DQA legislation is based on the United States Constitution, and no treaty can trump the Contstitution.

Yeh, it’s complex, but we need to understand that no UN treaty law can usurp our constitution. There’s a whole bunch of wrong opinions out there telling us that treaties trump the Constitution. It’s false. It’s left-wing garbage.

The US Constitution, which the DQA is based on, cannot be trumped by a UN treaty or CITES.

Cheers.


66 posted on 08/27/2011 5:18:38 PM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson