FaunaClassifieds - View Single Post

06-01-2015, 08:24 PM

oh thx AA i see it now and just replied to it; cuz basically the USARK injunction stuff only applies to the case's plaintiffs & those who were USARK members by 4/15(?) and prior in that move to get reticulated pythons & green anacondas removed from interstate transport ban; would only apply to the public if they actually with the lawsuit.

albeit even 'bigger picture' apparenty the LACEY ACT - as well intentioned and effective against illegal logging & wildlife trafficking as it is - actually violates the US Constitution's very lawmaking process itself:

http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheor...reign-law.html

"Congress has also created a second category of extraterritorial criminal offenses. They make it an offense, punishable in the federal courts in the United States, to violate a law of a foreign country. The Lacey Act is one such law. The Lacey Act now makes it a crime to import fauna or flora, natural or processed, if it has been taken in violation of a foreign nation’s laws. Those expansions of the reach of the act have created federal constitutional problems that Congress did not anticipate. The Article I Bicameralism and Presentment Clauses define the federal lawmaking process, and it demands that the Congress and the President cooperate in order to create a federal law. The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause requires the federal government to act pursuant to “the law of the land,” which imposes the rule of law government officers. The Article II Appointments Clause requires that any person entrusted with authority to make or enforce federal law be appointed by the President or someone else specifically identified in the clause. Foreign officials, however, hold office under the authority of their own laws, not those of the United States. Accordingly, by granting foreign officials the authority to define elements of a federal offense, the Lacey Act violates the constitution’s federal lawmaking process."

06-01-2015, 08:24 PM	#5
neilg	oh thx AA i see it now and just replied to it; cuz basically the USARK injunction stuff only applies to the case's plaintiffs & those who were USARK members by 4/15(?) and prior in that move to get reticulated pythons & green anacondas removed from interstate transport ban; would only apply to the public if they actually with the lawsuit. albeit even 'bigger picture' apparenty the LACEY ACT - as well intentioned and effective against illegal logging & wildlife trafficking as it is - actually violates the US Constitution's very lawmaking process itself: http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheor...reign-law.html "Congress has also created a second category of extraterritorial criminal offenses. They make it an offense, punishable in the federal courts in the United States, to violate a law of a foreign country. The Lacey Act is one such law. The Lacey Act now makes it a crime to import fauna or flora, natural or processed, if it has been taken in violation of a foreign nation’s laws. Those expansions of the reach of the act have created federal constitutional problems that Congress did not anticipate. The Article I Bicameralism and Presentment Clauses define the federal lawmaking process, and it demands that the Congress and the President cooperate in order to create a federal law. The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause requires the federal government to act pursuant to “the law of the land,” which imposes the rule of law government officers. The Article II Appointments Clause requires that any person entrusted with authority to make or enforce federal law be appointed by the President or someone else specifically identified in the clause. Foreign officials, however, hold office under the authority of their own laws, not those of the United States. Accordingly, by granting foreign officials the authority to define elements of a federal offense, the Lacey Act violates the constitution’s federal lawmaking process."