This unconstitutional treaty (the Convention on Nature Protection) is the root of the proliferation of “sub-species.” It is the cited authority for the powers exerted by Federal Agencies through the courts. Proponents for such multilateral treaties claim that they supercede the Constitution, per Article VI, Clause 2:Note that the bolded phrase directs the scope of treaty authority to the Constitutions and Laws of the States, not the Constitution of the United States.“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
This claim of treaty authority ignores that treaties are authorized UNDER the Constitution. Therefore, any treaty that violated it would be void, because:I know, since when has that stopped them? Well, since when have property owners learned how to set up a test case in such a way as to make sure that the constitutional case, and the appeals, are correctly structured and conducted as to make for such a test?1. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence acknowledge property rights as unalienable and stated that the purpose of government is to secure those rights.
2. The officers who negotiate and ratify treaties take an oath to abide by the Constitution. They do not have the legal authority to negotiate, ratify, or enforce an illegal document.
Supreme Court decisions have prohibited treaties that violate Constitutional provisions because government lacks the authority to conclude an agreement that violates Constitutional rights.
The Constitution grants limited powers to a Federal Government of the States. The framers did not envision treaties among an unspecified group of governments, each capable of post facto reservations (effectively changes in the terms of the treaty after ratification). The government is thus exceeding its authority when it concludes such an agreement.
It doesn't happen. That's the problem. Consider how long we waited for a case that was a decent test of the Second Amendment.
That's my point. The Constitution did not come from Mount Olympus and is profoundly and most likely, given the intelligence of the Founders, Deliberately Flawed.
Well, since when have property owners learned how to set up a test case in such a way as to make sure that the constitutional case, and the appeals, are correctly structured and conducted as to make for such a test?
Good luck!
It doesn't happen. That's the problem. Consider how long we waited for a case that was a decent test of the Second Amendment.
That's what I'm screaming !!!
Note that the bolded phrase directs the scope of treaty authority to the Constitutions and Laws of the States, not the Constitution of the United States.
That's exactly right!
I've read Article VI dozens of times but I completely overlooked it.
Also, treaties are made under the Authority of the United States. United States means the Federal government in the Constitution.
The Authority of the United States (the Federal government) is Limited by the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.