Please see, “The Crippling and Destructive Power of the Endangered Species Act – Part I, Part II, Part IV

The United States Constitution, Article II, Sec. 2 in part reads, “He [the president] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;”

Even more importantly, Article VI, in part reads, “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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

While you continue reading and taking in information I will present you, please consider Article VI and in particular “supreme law of the land” and “judges….shall be bound… the contrary notwithstanding”.

How many international treaties exist that you are aware of that any U.S. president has signed, in which two-thirds of the Senate have concurred? It may frighten you to know and it may dishearten you to discover how those treaties affect our unalienable rights referenced for us in the Declaration of Independence. And how many of them are you aware of are the “supreme law of the land”, and laws our judges “shall be bound” to uphold regardless of our own constitutions?

The Endangered Species Act, Sec. 3 (4), reads:

“(4) the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction, pursuant to—
(A) migratory bird treaties with Canada and Mexico;
(B) the Migratory and Endangered Bird Treaty with Japan;
(C) the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere;
(D) the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries;
(E) the International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean;
(F) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; and
(G) other international agreements;”

It is from the above that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) draws its power and authority. Michael S. Coffman, Ph.D. for the American Land Foundation wrote in 2002 that the ESA epitomized, “all anti-human, anti-property rights laws.” He also points out that the opening sentence of Sec. 3, declares that the United States “cedes sovereignty to the international community” by saying it is committed to upholding programs by the standards of the international community. Is any treaty, other than surrender, that cedes sovereignty to another, including an international entity, in the best interest of the American people?

When such treaties are signed and the administration of those treaties are in effect, the American people as a whole are ignorant of, 1.) the existence of the treaty, and 2.) what the treaty says and how it affects us all. But it’s not entirely the fault of a deficient citizenry.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is an organization in which the United States is involved in some of those “other international agreements” quickly mentioned in the ESA, Sec. 3 (4)(G). More on UNESCO and others in depth at a later time.

The United State’s involvement with UNESCO and other sub organizations of the United Nations (UN), involves the designation of “natural” and “cultural” landmarks/properties in which our signed treaties have given the U.N. power over. There are guidelines crafted by UNESCO to the states (countries) on how to go about nominating a natural and/or cultural property of which each member state has sworn to do. It is clearly pointed out that those doing the nominating, in our case here in the United States, are to do so without “undue publicity”. Now why would that be an important issue in an open society where once life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were important forerunners?

In the same instructions they are told not to involve the local people so they can’t “prejudice future decision-making by the Committee.” Essentially they are saying that when the nominating committee here in the U.S. decides your state, your country, your town, or your own private land, is necessary for the preservation of “natural and cultural” properties and habitat world wide, you shouldn’t know about it.

As I said, our ignorance of the ins and outs of these treaties isn’t completely our own fault. Even our own government is insuring we are sheltered from knowing the truth. Ah, the dangers of big government.

Each of the treaties listed in the ESA are problematic to the United States in several ways. All of them in some form or other usurp this country’s sovereignty, destroys our collective and individual independence, endangers our economy and makes shambles out of our property rights. In addition the “science” behind these treaties is often poor at best, non existent most of the time and is so poorly monitored and vetted for accuracy, detrimental events can take place destroying human rights.

The Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere, is one of the listed treaties that empowers the ESA. The Convention claims to desire the protection of flora and fauna in the Western Hemisphere, along with, “scenery of extraordinary beauty, unusual and striking geologic formations, regions and natural objects of aesthetic, historic or scientific value, and areas characterized by primitive conditions”. Doesn’t that entail an awful lot of places in this country?

Signing onto the Convention, the United States agrees to establish, “national parks, national reserves, nature monuments, and strict wilderness reserves”. When the United States has so designated lands and ceded them to the “Convention”, they also must promise to prohibit, “hunting, killing and capturing of members of the fauna and destruction or collection of representatives of the flora in national parks”. The Convention so designates the “park authorities” as the only ones who can make decisions on wildlife management, especially if it involves “taking”. (Now you should better understand why the National Parks won’t shut down and open them up to hunting to thin out game herds.)

Also included on the list of treaties within the ESA, CITES – Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. CITES primary function is to, “ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival.” Sounds simple enough, except that there is still that area of concern over just who it is that decides what species to consider and above all the “science” that is used to determine how international trade is going to threaten a specie survival.

We know the abuse that can and does exist when international entities dictate to the United States what it can and cannot conduct for trade involving certain species. Such power can easily put a real damper on a country’s economy. If such power is being wielded, shouldn’t we have some sort of assurance that at least the science is compelling and accurate?

Appendix I on the CITES website, lists the Indian flapshell turtle as an endangered species. We know not why or how this turtle made the list of endangered species for CITES. We do know however, that because it was listed there, our USFWS decided to list that same turtle as an endangered species under our own Endangered Species Act. This is not real encouraging when one is of the belief that our ESA is an independent law. It was only after the listing that USFWS tried reviewing documents to support this listing and found none. Scurrying to save face, the USFWS contacted turtle experts and learned it was a very common turtle and had no explanation as to why CITES would list such a species. Reassuring, eh?

Do we want to rely on some Third World, agenda-driven “scientist” to dictate to our nation what we must do with our properties, our wildlife and the habitat to support that wildlife? This example shows that our own scientist can’t even get it right.

So far, I’ve only examined a couple of the “treaties” that empower the administering of the Endangered Species Act. Do you see why you and I have little or no say about matters pertaining to that Act and why the Federal Government refuses to act to satisfy the wishes of the people? Hamstrung by treaties that become “the supreme law of the land”, forcing our judges to recognize and abide by those laws regardless of how it aligns or doesn’t with our own constitution, is a serious predicament in which I have grievous doubts few Americans are even aware of.

I can offer no comfort and can only say it is even much worse than this. It’s those “other international agreements” that will leave your mind boggled.

Please also consider that at around the same time our ESA was being written and was signed, was the same time frame in the U.S. signing of many of these treaties, including those I’ve yet to discuss.

Please see, “The Crippling and Destructive Power of the Endangered Species Act – Part I, Part II

Tom Remington