Posted on 06/23/2005 9:24:26 AM PDT by Alexander Rubin
Washington, D.C.–In a letter to House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-CA), the American Policy Center (APC) and over 50 public policy groups called for an end to the federal government’s unconstitutional practice of taking land and property rights under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Chairman Pombo plans to make reauthorizing the ESA a priority of the current Congress.
"There are some who claim that the Act needs to be ‘strengthened,’ ‘updated,’ or ‘modernized,’" said APC president Tom DeWeese. "How absurd. For three decades this law has done nothing but steal property, destroy economies, shatter livelihoods, cost billions of dollars, and even take lives. The ESA needs to be repealed, not ‘modernized.’"
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
You're much closer to the truth with the latter.
Yep, just like the Americans with Disabilities Act has been used by lawyers and wheelchair "victims" to enrich themselves and hurt others.
If anyone thinks that they have a rational argument to the contrary, I would love to hear it.
Exactly. I do honestly believe it was conceived of with the best intentions. But amoral and immoral individuals have so abused it, and used it as justification for every civil dispute under the sun, that it's become a meaningless tool to justify the beginning of a tyranny of the federal government, and perpetuate the quagmirifcation (if I can invent such a word) of the legal system.
Quagmirifcation.... hmmm, I like the way it feels in my mouth. Okay, new word invention allowed!
See an example at:
THE STAND AT KLAMATH FALLS: THE KALAMATH BASIN CRISIS.
The ESA should have ben abolished long ago. In fact, my understanding is that it sunsetted years ago, but congress has administratively continued its funding because of all the special interests that have built up around it.
I can't imagine how anyone could argue with those sentiments - however we know they will, because in the midset of these types, trees are more valuable than people and rights.
NYT Headline:
"Republicans & Greedy Corporate Interests Seek to Wipe Out All Life on Earth!"
Well Gabz, more than that, the ESA is a symbol for steps that the government is taking to look after the environment. As such, many groups find it critically important. It is religious doctrine to many people out there, in addition to the green, environmentalist and animal rights special interests groups out there. Thus, changing it would be a long, hard, costly and difficult uphill battle.
It just reinforces why big acts like that need to be so carefully looked at defined BEFORE they are passed. Or else judiciail activism, and normally on a small scale (local judges, not really the Supreme Court) will turn them into this. Instant quagmirification. Suddenly, you are waist high and wading in a confused and convoluted battle for an outdated act hat must be changed, but whose supporters are afraid it will be replaced by nothing or worse than nothing.
Following the plan, step by step!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1428558/posts?page=15#15
I'm all for reasonable restrictions in the name of protecting the environment, conservation and preservation of species - but within reason.
It is a sore subject with me because I have seen friends nearly lose their homes because of over zealous envirowhackos ruining their livelihoods.
Speaking of the law being unconstitutional. Where in the US Constitution does it grant the Federal Government the authority to pass laws regarding the protection of endangered species?
This law is unconstitutional outside the Washington D. C. simply because it's outside the authority of the Federal government.
For the federal government to have such power a constitutional ammendment would need to be passed granting such authority.
THe states have the authority to pass usch laws. The federal government does not.
What ever happened to Clinton's, American Heritage and Rivers Act? Wasn't this part of another land-grab in association with the UN. I recall the big-dust up, but I don't remember what happened with it.
No idea. Anyone?
Well, that's comforting...Now I have nothing more to worry about!
Wait a bit guys...Just a few more minutes of denial...
Well-stated. Part of the current problem with the Endangered Species Act is that it is too absolutist of a doctrine. Before extreme measures are taken to protect any species of life on earth, a couple facts should be considered:
1) Exactly how "unique" is the species we are trying to protect; e.g. is it a singular representation of a zoological family or just a slight variation of genetics exemplified by other similar species? AND
2) What overall impact on the ecosystem, if any, would a diminishing number of this species have?
As far as I know, neither of these are taken into consideration when resources relating to species protection are allocated, resulting not only in unnecessary displacement of human livelihood but an inevitable backlash against truly important environmental issues being fought with limited means.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. Those are very important items that should be considered not just with the ESA, but with all environmental laws and regulations.
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.