is usark over stepping its rights by proposing rules for states without asking us

I will say usark does have a better argument for interstate transportation then I originally thought but I still think it's a much riskier way to go then to simply prove the snakes aren't invasive. ..and the resulting consequences will be amendments with very clear strict limitations. ..

Originally Posted by rodneynboalich

I can't believe you are even commenting. . Hr511 could or any bill could pass in a few hour...Jesus Christ. . You have literally no idea about legislation or how the process works.....It's always the same some usark supporter comes on here with little to no understanding of the legislative process or usarks history and want to tell me how it is........please show proof of how hr511 or any other bill for that matter can pass in a few hours..

It is completely possible, but every unlikely. In Dec 1941, a bill was read in the house at 12:30, passed the house at 1, passed the senate at 1:30, signed by the president at 4:30.

Any bill can be fast tracked, though it is usually reserved for trade deals. A fast tracked bill takes less then 30 day to pass.

A few months ago, the congress, senate, and president signed the budget bill in 6 hours. It can happen. Not likely but can happen.

But even if it is EXTREMELY unlikely, there still no problem with using a bill that does not stand a chance to make money to protect against a bill that can pass. Which is your argument right?

Since x bill could not have made it through, they should have not tried to make money off it? They should only wait until pushed to the very edge of doom and then ask for money? How does that make sense to you?

Originally Posted by rodneynboalich

As for 18 42 it's going to depend on how continental US is legally defined. ...if it's considered one entity or if it's referring to 49 states....As you can all see there's no and after continental US which makes it unclear. ..and there's never been an official ruling on that term

Well we can look that up. Chapter 18 does not state what continental united states means, so it gets the definition from USCS. When not defined in chapter it inherits its definition from the general law definitions. It saves thousands of pages just to state it once and use it from there. Exemptions are then carved out of the general definition when needed.

"Continental United States" includes “the several States and the District of Columbia, but does not include Alaska or Hawaii.” (5 USCS § 5701)

Now, DC is out because it is exempted out by the lacey act. But since it is normally considered part of the continental united states, it shows that the rest of the states are to be treated as one unit. And the USARK is in the legal right on this one.

Sorry.

Originally Posted by rodneynboalich

I will say usark does have a better argument for interstate transportation then I originally thought but I still think it's a much riskier way to go then to simply prove the snakes aren't invasive. ..and the resulting consequences will be amendments with very clear strict limitations. ..

You are still trying to argue right or wrong. logical vs illogical. Proven vs lies.

The law does not care about that. The law cares about legal or illegal.

You can prove that snakes require special air in order to survive. Still will not make the listing on the lacey act illegal.

Why?

Because the people that listed make the list, list snakes as invasive. They don't have to be right, they just have to do it.

No where does the lacey act say it has to be 100% backed up by science. The Lacey act just says that the FWS feels, thinks, and considered it might be a problem.

Let hold a hearing on the facts.

You come into court and state that snakes are 100% harmless. You prove through hours of testimony that snakes only help us. You bring in expert after expert on how snakes make the world a better place.

The FWS states in 20 seconds that they feel snakes could be bad, maybe.

The judge looks at the law, states that the FWS is the people that make up the law, unless you can prove the law does not apply to you, then he/she is going to rule in favor of the FWS.

Notice the judge did not look at right or wrong. Proven or not proven. But just who gets to decide what is on the list.

For her, who gets to decide what is on the list matters. Everything you can prove in court about how great snakes are, does not.

It is the way the law works.

Bills that pass over night are set up to do with the sponsor and supporters all working together to make it happen...nobody was supporting hr511 after the knowing clause was added. The sponsor didn't even show up for the second hearing...so no hr511 couldn't have passed in 30 days when no one was trying to pass it....try and keep up with reality

If that's the legal definition of continental US the it's in direct contradiction of how it's used in 18 usc 42.

Where do you keep getting this right or wrong nonsense. .and the law does care about right and wrong. Laws are in place to determine the set of rules a society is to live by.. and the laws are determined by sets of principals of right and wrong... right and wrong are the underlying basis for laws....I'm starting to think you might be retarded. ....seriously you're trying so hard to argue me that you're saying stuff that doesn't make sense. ....and yes Fws does have to be RIGHT about their listing of invasive animals....they have a whole set of rules to follow to list anything. .and that's one of the things usark is saying they didn't do is follow the rules...Fws can't just list anything. ...if they want to list something they have to prove they would be RIGHT for doing so. ..... these animals were added to the lacey act in the injurious part do to their listing as invasive under US Law. .injurious and invasive have to different definitions..the lacey act doesn't say anything about fws feeling they may be a problem....that's not where the authority to do preemptive listing come from....it comes from executive order 13112 which said the secretary of the interior can do invasive listing with Fws when Fws has shown data that proves said animal they want to list is potentially invasive. ...and of course the judge didn't look at right and wrong that's not what you do in a hearing for a preliminary injunction. ..the judge looked at it to see if usark meets the criteria to be granted the preliminary injunction. ......

You really need to stop acting as usarks mouth piece on here.....people are reading your nonsense and if they support usark and don't like the things I'm saying that's fine...but they don't need you to feed them misinformation. ...and usark certainly doesn't need an uninformed supporter handing out lessons in legal process and the current direction of their case......especially on that thinks laws aren't bases in right and wrong and also thinks thinks the lacey acts says Fws can't list whatever it wants on a whim. ....

You need to tell usark to come on here and clear up all the misinformation you have posted about them....It's one thing when I say stuff in a critical manner of usark...and is a totally different and destructive situation when a usark supporter comes on here with little knowledge of what's going and starts making claims about usarks case the legal and legislative process what is the basis of usarks arguments against fws and and complete lack of foresight when it come to the reaction of government when challenged on this level. .....

So please have usark come on here and clear things up before you confuse anyone else

And one last point... hr511 that usark decided to fight after no one was supporting would have added retics green anacondas and boas to the lacey act. ...now executive order 13112 gave Fws the right to do listing without the legislative process when bills like hr511 where getting held up by things like what usark was doing...ie setting up hearing to attack it....if usark would have left hr511 alone Fws wouldn't of had an excuse to go the executive order route claiming hr511 was purposely being held up..and with the knowing clause added to hr511 Fws wouldn't support it or want it to pass since they worked so hard to have a knowing clause removed from the lacy act 30 years ago. ...hr511 in its live active state was the best protection we had against further big snake listing. ..and usark destroyed that with their totally unnecessary hearing the set up in the subcommittee of the house natural resources committee. .and lol so wyatt could have one more big payday by creating a false victory...which lead to hr511 not getting reintroduced in the next session just like with the original ban..