[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"The Endangered Species Act (ESA) effectively
bypasses the normal authority of the Executive and Legislative branches of federal government."

I am, by no means, an expert on the Constitution, but it seems, in my opinion, that the ESA is un-constitutional
and maybe the real solution is to have the legality of it ruled on by the Supreme Court.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

I'd appreciate your comments since you have been looking at the issue of the ESA also.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

ping

[Alamo-Girl]

On the surface, it looks like a breakdown when congress invites lawsuits against the government - and hence creates judicially-mandated expenditures of public money, loss of property, judicially-mandated regulations, etc.

I don't have a clue whether it is constitutional, but it sure strikes me as a breach of fiduciary duty. A fiduciary duty is an obligation to act in the best interest of another party (i.e. we the people.)

[ClancyJ]

Thanks for pinging me. Here is something I would like to have on this thread - but the source of the material disappeared. I am putting it here - not a direct quote - without the source.

By redefining Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, all globlists/environmentalists now have to do is ratify international treaties that subvert the Constitution and throw all power into their hands. As a consequence, Americans are systematically coming under the control of international law and the United Nations, and species have more legal rights than Americans.

[ClancyJ]

Zone of Interest

Plaintiff has to be in the "zone of interest" - does this mean that a plaintiff would have to be an endangered species, experiencing harm to a different endangered species, or complaining of a conflict within ESA - such as complaining that the action taken to aid sucker fish was damaging bald eagles.

If this is what is meant - I see problems with that because that would mean citizens had no redress unless it involved another aspect of ESA. Therefore ESA rules and is unchallengable. Surely the court did not mean that.

If this is the case - I would think IMHO - that this is totally unconstitutional because you have in effect set one organization or Act above all others with no redress. On top of that - this Act is expired and is only in effect because they keep on funding it and the courts "act" as if it is in effect.

So, I see real problems for the ESA here:

• The Act is expired - how can an Act be law if it is not legimate.
• How can courts "act" as if an expired Act is law. This appears that the court is making an illegal or unconstitutional decision.
• How can an Act take precedence over every other right except other rights it would also protect. In other words - how can a endangered species have precedence over all other laws in the country, all other rights, except the rights of another endangered species. This puts this act above all other rights in a country. It means once this act comes into play, no other rights can be considered unless they too are protected by the ESA (another endangered species).
• How can a constitutional law be tied to international treaties that put the power of the law in foreign or international NON-AMERICAN hands? You therefore have international interests subverting the constitutional rights of American citizens through the door of an ESA Act (expired).

Therefore the courts are putting one law over all others. The law honored above all others is expired (therefore not a law) and allows no redress by citizens. In addition, this expired law is tied to international treaties that put the power in the hands of non-citizens of the U.S. over U.S. guaranteed constitutional rights.

Remember - I am not a student of constitutional law or any law - ignore if this is totally false.