In the past four days I have written three articles (To Fish or Cut Bait; Good News, Bad News; and Neither a Lawyer Nor Scientist Be) on the potential use of the recent and unanimous Supreme Court Decision, BOND v. UNITED STATES, that, according to The Wall Street Journal, allows individual citizens to, under certain circumstances, appeal the legality of federal actions, laws, and regulations that exceed the power granted the federal government in the Constitution and that  consequently infringe on the powers thereby Constitutionally “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” in the 10^th Amendment (the final statement of The Bill of Rights.) 

My attention has thus far been directed to the use of this decision to determine the validity of:

-The Endangered Species Act.

-The Animal Welfare Act.

-The Wilderness Act.

-Federal Gun Laws that usurp State Gun Laws on public lands.

-The proposed UN Small Arms Treaty.

-Federal legislation granting federal authority regarding eliminating certain (“Invasive” or non-Native) plants and animals in any State absent State concurrence.

-Federal legislation granting federal authority or purpose to “restore” or establish any “Native Species” or “Native Ecosystems” in any State absent State concurrence.

-Federal public land closures and non-management of federally-owned or controlled lands.

-Federal proposals like “Free-Roaming Buffalo” or Listing of Sage Grouse or Prairie Chickens that, like coercive wolf introductions, will reduce state game animal numbers and game bird hunting availability.

-Continued Federal land ownership (i.e. National Parks, National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, BLM, etc.) that continues and expands the Federal failure to support State and particularly Local governments, communities, and economies.  Similarly, the “perpetuity” of federally-negotiated easements seems open to question

-Many of the things flowing from the above like “Viewsheds”, “Sustainable Communities”, Agenda 21, Historic District Declarations, Scenic Road and River Declarations, etc.

-Current legislative proposals like redefining the historic and Constitutional definition of “Navigable Waters” – [i.e.”The importance of navigability and its interrelationship with basic issues of federalism--which level of government controls what--is immediately clear from the early history of a central power of the federal government. The Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate "Commerce . . . among the several states." In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that this power extended to regulation over navigable waterways,22 U.S. 1 which were an important hub of transportation in the early years of the Republic. The beds of navigable waterways, however, fall under the jurisdiction of the states] – via  a simple sweep of the Congressional pen by simply passing a new law defining “Navigable Waters” (i.e. where federal authority would be assumed) as “All Waters of the US”).    

Today I would like to propose a (perhaps #1?) target for brainstorming the use of this decision in reclaiming the America formed under our Constitution as  envisioned and described by the Continental Congress assembled in Philadelphia  that composed and signed the Declaration of Independence  on the 4^th of July 1776, 235 years ago tomorrow. 

The US Constitution (that flowed from The Declaration) signed 17 September 1787 states clearly that “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.” 

As you read this, the current President is “negotiating” (i.e. drafting and lobbying for) a proposed United Nations “Treaty” to commit the US to registering and “regulating” all  “Small Arms” in the United States.  As in the past, this UN document is called a “Treaty” to ostensibly make it “the supreme Law of the Land” and thereby, in this instance, destroy forever the 2^nd Amendment. 

I say “as in the past” because The UN CITES “Convention” (ruled a “Treaty”) is a major basis for the ESA “authority to “take without compensation” as well as to totally ignore citizens and their State governments as federal plant and animal mayhem of a major order are inflicted by federal bureaucrats on the populace who assumedly have no recourse.  Similar reliance on the 1946 “Convention for the Regulation of Whaling” (originally a Constitutionally-justifiable endeavor for federal authority) was used as justification for a 1974 Marine Mammal Protection Act that usurped State authority over Polar Bears, Sea Otters, and Manatees that exist in and were formerly under the management and authority of State governments.  

Ask yourself, does the word and meaning of the word “Treaties” as used in the Constitution really include:

1. UN documents and agreements signed by14 or 67 or 122 countries out of what is it now 186 countries in the UN? 32 nations of which will ignore it with impunity?  Seven of which will only partially enforce it and 20 of which feel they have not now nor will ever have any interest in said “Treaty” (“Convention”, “Agreement”, or whatever) or any matter included in it?

2. Documents not recognized as binding or ever enforced by many (most?) of the signatories and subject to abandonment with regime change?

3. Documents that are not invalidated under US Law by any of the foregoing?

4. Documents such as the foregoing that purport (and thus far have actually done) to become “the supreme Law of the Land” that we love so well and that is being dramatically changed to for the worst thereby?

5. International environmental, animal, or resource use “Agreements” that are used to modify “the Law of the Land” in the USA? 

“Treaties” in 1776 and even today in the USA mean specific agreements between two or more nations in which certain specific things are required for each country in order to achieve a common good.  For instance, were we to sign a Missile Non-Proliferation Treaty with say, China that said no more missile construction after 1 July and either we or China was shown to have “violated” said treaty – THEN THE “Treaty” would be invalidated and no longer be in force either nationally or internationally.  UN “Treaties”, “Conventions”, and etceteras ARE NOT SUCH “TREATIES” in the sense mentioned in the US Constitution. 

Now as I say this and ladies are swooning on their couches all over the country about how I must hate the federal government and the UN; relax.  We can still “negotiate” and sign such UN documents.  The only real difference that such agreements may (and should have all along) be complied with only to the extent of the Constitutional powers granted the federal government under the Constitution. In other words, the US Secretary of State and the Attorney General can’t travel to Switzerland and concoct with certain nations to draft a “Small Arms Treaty” and when a few countries like Zimbabwe, China, North Korea, Iran, and other such model nations sign it, return to the US and tell us how sad they are because in order to reduce “small arms” availability to terrorists and rebels they “had” to sign a UN Treaty demanding that all guns be registered and turned in by Wednesday.  State’s rights, private property rights, gun rights, individual rights, etc. are Constitutional matters for Americans and not matters for foreign manipulation with or without “native” (note the little “n”) Americans that dislike such things’ collusion in foreign parlors with foreign actors. 

So BOND v. UNITED STATES target #1 might well be obtaining a Supreme Court definition of “Treaty” as found in documents establishing the standards for a “Treaty” to “become the supreme Law of the Land”. 

I think that if we and all those overlords in Washington, DC get that “Treaty” definition straight, this House of un-Constitutional Cards would collapse in short order.  Then we can begin going about setting things right as The Founding Fathers did 235 years ago tomorrow! 

Have a Happy 4^th of July. 

Jim Beers

3 July 2011

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others.  Thanks. 

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist,
Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC.  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands.  He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC.  He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades. 

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting at   jimbeers7@comcast.net