By Redbaiter- in the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low.

General Debate 22/02/11

Some good news on the freedom front. Its Montana, but its a start. Thanks again to the Tea Party.

HELENA — The Montana House has overwhelmingly endorsed a plan to disregard the federal law protecting endangered and threatened species. Republicans enthused by Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s recent tough talk on wolves led a 61-39 vote Saturday to nullify the federal Endangered Species Act in Montana.

Tea party politics in the Legislature have spawned increasing belief in an 18th-century doctrine that purported to give states the ultimate say in constitutional matters. Critics dismiss the notion as unconstitutional since federal laws are supreme. Dispatching with the Endangered Species Act would cost Montana roughly $1 billion in federal funds.

Schweitzer recently encouraged ranchers to shoot protected wolves harassing their livestock. But the governor says he doesn’t support nullification. The bill faces one more usually procedural vote before it passes the House.

Source.

3 responses to “General Debate 22/02/11”

  1. Pascal Fervor Avatar
    Pascal Fervor

    Maybe it could be good news. But I fear that the only good news here is that more Americans will finally understand how treaty law is set up in the constitution to supersede constitutional limits.

    Well, even then, not that many more Americans. That is due to 1) ostrich-like tendencies and 2) the usual lazy bleating that “it’s too complex for me to understand”– all as the watermelon schemers expect and as their lawyers intend it to be, respectively.

    Here’s a comment I received on the matter:

    “This is a direct attack on the Supremacy Clause as regards the treaty power, not just some Federal statute.

    This particularly involves the Convention on Nature Protection.

    So, unless they addressed that in their action, they have no standing to bring an attack on the Convention itself.

    Frankly, I therefore think they’ll lose.”

    Here is why I see wisdom in that opinion: The Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2 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.” [emphasis added]

    Notice there is no comma in that last phrase. It is vague. It could be argued by those favoring the taking of individual rights that “any Thing in the Constitution” applies to the Federal Constitution and that includes the Bill of Rights. It looks like it was written to mean any state constitution along with the laws of any state — which is bad enough, but I do not trust the courts, and I bet you don’t either.

    And here’s the rub: to the best of my knowledge, there is yet no legal precedent set here, so that is what I meant up at the top. I’ve an open challenge for anyone to show where a treaty has been challenged successfully by an individual who has had the 4th Amendment rights upheld. Sadly, I’ve been shown nothing so far.

    Here, read this article and see if it convinces you that the risk is real. Maybe keep your eye on developments and see if the challengers in your story are denied standing in court.

    Like

  2. Pascal Fervor Avatar
    Pascal Fervor

    As if the above were not enough, I just came across “Who Controls Your State?” by Henry Lamb.

    Excerpt:

    There is zero justification for the federal government to own, or claim to own, or control by decree or regulation, the land within the borders of any state.

    But it does.

    Like

  3. George Avatar
    George

    Knowing the mindset of a number of rural Montanans [both Republican and Democrat] as I do, the wolf problem will be resolved by the ‘Triple S’ method.

    Shoot. Shovel. Shut up.

    And the feds can do what they like about it.

    Like

Navigation