[inquest]

If you're referring to John Jay's treaty of 1794, that was attacked as unconstitutional for a number of reasons, but most stridently on the grounds that it was a commercial treaty, and as such usurped Congress' power over commerce. But it doesn't appear that the courts ever ruled that way.

[Carry_Okie]

If you're referring to John Jay's treaty of 1794, that was attacked as unconstitutional for a number of reasons, but most stridently on the grounds that it was a commercial treaty, and as such usurped Congress' power over commerce. But it doesn't appear that the courts ever ruled that way.

BTW, I hadn't forgotten my commitment to you to get back to you re this business of unconstitutional treaties. You were correct; I was referring to Jay's treaty and the SCOTUS has not yet repudiated a treaty. You have thus identified my book's first substantitve erratum. I have yet to write the note but it will be included in each book I ship in the future.

Thank you.

Still, considering the scope of the Convention on Nature Protection, and its impossible goal of completely stopping natural selection...

I think we have a candidate.