|
You are back to insulting. Not a good sign.
The lacey act is not a clear document. Yes, he can add species. But, and this is a big but, it seems to be an abuse of power to do so. It is possible, yes. But I would say it needs to challenge in court.
You originally claimed that they should challenge the act of adding them. You now say that would be hard to do.
You say that they could go to congress to get it so they can, that would be a huge undertaking. One that you would criticize USARK for if they remotely used it to make funds on.
Mr Boalich, I want to make it clear here, I never posted anything that you did not at one point or another either directly deny or support. I was just your sounding board. I pointed out where the laws are for and against you.
But for real, if you think that you can win a case on your merits, sue the federal government. If you are not willing to do that, then I would say, be quite. Let the people that actually know the law, use it.
My whole argument from the start was to tell you that how the snakes got on the list is not a good issue to bring up in the courts. Because it is murky and will take a long time to fight.
Then we talked about the difference between invasive species listing and lacey act enforcing state laws.
Remember you brought up state laws. Enforcing state laws is different then invasive species listing. You kept trying to advance that they are under the same umbrella, I proved you wrong.
Now you are back to saying they should challenge the listing.
It is really circles with you.
I will try to help you out.
Challenging the adding of species under the invasive part of the act is really legally hard to do. But it is clear that under the invasive part of the lacey act, they do not have the right to interstate control.
Now they can enforce state laws, which is not the same as the invasive part.
I only became a sounding board because I wanted to you fully realize your thoughts on this.
|