Mmmmmmmmm.....Fanny May.
Posted on 07/30/2006 2:51:32 PM PDT by yoe
Nothing in the U.S. Constitution authorizes the federal government to regulate private property. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution authorizes the federal government to manage wildlife or prescribe land-use regulations within the various states.
By what authority, then, has the federal government constructed the expansive bureaucracy that now forces wolves, panthers and bears on states and communities that don't want them, or levied fines, and jailed people who dare dig a ditch or dump a load of sand on their own private property?
This federal power arises from the treaty clause (Article VI (2)) of the U.S. Constitution.
Alabama attorney Larry Becraft provides an excellent analysis of just how and when this treaty power was discovered. This power has been exploited dramatically in recent years, and is the basis for imposing a global environmental and social agenda on the United States.
Before the Ramsar Treaty, no American was jailed for dumping sand on his own private property. Ocie Mills and his son spent 21 months in a federal prison and a decade in litigation for dumping 19 loads of building sand on his own property after securing a county building permit and approval from the state department of environmental protection.
Before the CITES Treaty, no one would fault a person for shooting a charging bear. John Shuler was fined $7,000 and spent nine years in litigation because he shot a grizzly – charging toward him only 30-feet away from his front porch.
Environmental extremists, inside and outside the government, are using international treaties to expand the power of government far beyond the power granted originally by the Constitution.
The process has been refined to an art. Environmental organizations pour millions of dollars into the campaigns of elected officials. When elected, the officials repay the favor by appointing executives of the environmental organizations to powerful governmental positions. The Clinton/Gore administration appointed at least 27 of these extremists to powerful positions, including Bruce Babbitt from the League of Conservation Voters to head the Department of Interior, and George Frampton from the Wilderness Society to head the Fish and Wildlife Service.
More than 50 major U.S. environmental organizations, and six federal agencies (including the U.S. State Department), are members of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, an international non-government organization that has drafted virtually all of the international environmental treaties for half a century. Delegations that represent the U.S. in treaty negotiations are headed by the U.S. State Department. When a treaty is adopted by the U.N. body, the federal agencies and the environmental organizations that helped draft the treaty then lobby Congress and their constituents to demand ratification.
The League of Conservation Voters supported the Clinton/Gore ticket in 1992. They got their reward. Now the LCW is supporting the Kerry/Edwards ticket. They expect, and will undoubtedly get their reward if the two Johns are elected.
When George Bush was elected in 2000, the international community was bitterly disappointed, and had cause to be. Bush immediately withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, which Al Gore personally navigated through the contentious 1997 U.N. conference in Kyoto, Japan.
Bush immediately withdrew the U.S. signature from the International Criminal Court, which the Clinton administration signed just hours before the deadline. Bush also pulled the plug on a decade-long strategy to authorize U.N. global taxation when he forced a rewrite of the document produced by the U.N.'s High Level Panel on Financing Development in Monterrey, Mexico.
The power of U.N. treaties over domestic policy is not limited to environmental regulations. Increasingly, the U.N. is developing treaties to govern the Internet, the oceans, space, domestic taxation, trade and virtually every other area of human activity.
The Bush administration was right in withdrawing from U.N. activity, but it is a meager first step in a process of withdrawal that must be accelerated. Sadly, many internationalist environmental extremists remain embedded in the Bush administration and in Congress. The recent revival of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, pushed by John Turner in the State Department, and Sen. Richard Lugar, is evidence that a more thorough cleansing of government is needed.
The elections in November are a referendum on whether to continue to disrupt the U.N. process of dominating domestic public policy, or whether we will return to the Clinton/Gore days of advancing the internationalist/environmental agenda through U.N. treaties. John Kerry has made clear his intention to restore international favor by subjecting the United States to the will of the international community.
Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.
No, a treaty with provisions that violate the Bill of Rights is certainly eligible for ratification. Now, can those offending elements be defended in court successfully?
Your article is in error. The SCOTUS has held that the Commerce Clause give the legislature authority to regulate transactions within states, because they could, at any time, become interstate transactions.
Scalito had a great dissent recently... "(some little frog) for reasons of it's own, spends its entire life within the state of California..."
Still, that is the legal justification for regulation of wildlife, regulation of Marijuana, regulation of firearms.
dedicated to the destruction of the United States....
You mean like Jeff Davis and his buddies?
An interesting way to look at the problem!
At the same time a pre-existing law exempted the US Postal Service from any federal law that didn't specifically name it as being subject to that law.
Interestingly enough, the same law prohibiting everybody but DOD from filling in an estuary didn't name USPS. This meant USPS could fill in an estuary any time it pleased.
I thought this was quite ineresting and checked with the Facilities folks at USPS to see if they were aware of this. They already had a list of such projects worked up and my informant suggested they had accelerated the schedule of work before the environmentalists noticed.
Can't be. You've seen that post before. Must be an involuted recursive hyperbole. ;-)
> Can this actually be interpreted any other way?
No, I can't see any _sane_ way that it could be.
You're welcome
1
That's pretty funny!! For some more laughs, why don't you explain again how US Treasury Bills are backed by water and mineral rights?
Whatever...
Besides! You know I don't do "cursive!" I may curse a little, but NO CURSIVE!!! (dammit!)
Also, I'm like the CEO that writes a memo with deliberately challengable lines, or quotes in it. Then I sit back and see who's reading for comprehension!!!
There is something like that in one of my replies on this very thread and no one has called me on it yet.
Wholly Criminetlingham!!! You wrote that and posted it 10 days before 9-11-2001!!! (that was when we were still running under Bill Clinton's non-existent war on terror under Jamie Gorelick's rules of non-engagement!)
More proof the inmates are running the GovernMental Insane Asylum!!!
What have you got against the beaten down 10th amendment???
No! No! Noooooooooooooooo!!! You're thinking of Fannie Mays, not T-Bills!!! They are backed by the full faith and credit of Jamie Gorelicker!!!
Mmmmmmmmm.....Fanny May.
Why... Those look just like chocolates, sorta!!!
ping
Bump for later!
oh, you're already here. nevermind ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.