Replies

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.