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):Frankly, it is a treaty that exceeds the authority or power of any government. Its requirements cannot be met.“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 boundaries but not included in the national parks, national reserves, nature monuments, 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 his summary (that he submitted to the Senate -CO). It was he who, upon Roosevelt’s approval, 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.
A government that derives power from an impossible genetic status quo is incapable of a solution. This is a system that assumes protection and preservation work. It gives agencies of government unlimited monopoly power to manage all land use as if that would help. It supposes that agencies are experts interested only in fulfilling their mandate. It dedicates unlimited tax resources for protection of an unlimited number of species and their genera. It invokes itself across the entire nation. It assumes that destroying an economy will benefit native species. How would we then fund the effort to do better?
I'm not being cynical. I'm just trying to describe the nature of the fix we're in.
I have copies of the Congressional Record from 1941
I don't understand. This isn't a SCOTUS ruling. Marbury vs. Madison established the SCOTUS as the final word on Constitutinality. (Whereas in an ideal world every jury in America would make such judgements...with appeal, of course.)