Posted on 12/16/2001 6:39:07 AM PST by brityank
Not-with-standing the Hague and the WTO, there is no body that enforces Treaties between sovereign nations. War and diplomacy are supposed to be the tools of international agreements. Although the SCOTUS interprets law to be in conformance with treaty provisions, those are ususally self-executing ones, such as granting privileges to non-US citizens on par with citizens rights.
Unless the law or regulation states that the purpose is to protect species in their natural habitat, then the Court will not enforce same.
On standing, the ESA specifically recognizes environmental groups as having standing. Bennett v. Spear was a SCOTUS case where a Klamath Basin rancher was DENIED standing on the basis that his economic interest wasn't sufficient to establish standing. He needed to represent the environment to sue. (The denial was shot down and the rancher recognized.)
Technically true, but the treaty is used by both RICOnuts and judges when creatively interpreting the implementing legislation. That is how and why the ESA has morphed so enormously to include every single subspecies they can fantacize. The rationale is the Convention on Biological Diversity. I know we didn't ratify that. See below.
there is no body that enforces Treaties between sovereign nations.
Correct, but that is why we have the IUCN directed NGO/Agency cabal that we do.
Unless the law or regulation states that the purpose is to protect species in their natural habitat, then the Court will not enforce same.
The ESA does indeed cite the Convention on Nature Protection for its authority. That provision was added in 1983 through an effort led by the NRDC. Further, all federill resource agencies are currently committed to implementing these treaties RATIFIED OR NOT under the bylaws governing their membership in the IUCN. When the Agenda 21 becomes hard law, that status will be permanent.
On standing, the ESA specifically recognizes environmental groups as having standing... He (the rancher) needed to represent the environment to sue.
Which is what I am recommending. Landowners are routinely denied standing in the courts. My system fixes that.
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed !!
An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen !!
No Guns, No Rights !!
Molon Labe !!
Some of us have "done something" at great risk to our financial futures as well as out fortunes. It is disheartening to provide leadership, only to find an electorate that doesn't really want electeds to actually DO SOMETHING!
The sheeple only seem to want things like "the year of the woman," and "it's the economy stupid" and the oxymoron, "smart growth!" Meanwhile, they support the insipid litigation against economic progress by luddite groups like "Earth Justice!"
I will never forget the Earth Justice lawyer addressing a Board of County Supervisors and challenging them not to vote to support securing additional water rights to stimulate the County's economy. When questioned what he had against the free market system, he replied: "You have enjoyed far too much such freedom and induced unmitigated growth... You must remember, the environment is not free and business has never paid it's fair share for the damage done through the excesses of capitalism!"
Carry_Okie is right, AGAIN! Some people fear the perceived problem that supposedly justifies their "cause" will actually become solved by some useful idea, thereby stipping them of their power over millions of others. Demigogs all!!!
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.