RE The numbers

[1_iron]

Pat, Ron, et. al.

Heartily agree. I was in business all my life prior to my retirement, and I
must have signed thousands of contracts in my time. However, I NEVER
approved one without a time limit - which gives the parties the ability to
review how it is working.

The people of the United States, however, signed off on the Constitution
(which has no time limit) without blinking hard. Review of that contract is
so complicated it rarely happens, and I think many of us citizens are
concerned about the emerging state of affairs.

Tax reform is a current example. One vote per person is the rule, yet 40-odd
percent of our populace pays no income tax - indeed, these folks are
beneficiaries of the tax system. Have you any doubt future tax cuts the
recently passed bill provides for will not be done away with long before
they have a chance to become active?

Jim Taylor

(P.S.  Forgive a non-lep post, but this citizen for one is beginning to
think Jefferson was right when he suggested a bloody revolution now and then
would not be a bad thing.)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Foley" <patfoley at csus.edu>
To: "Ron Gatrelle" <gatrelle at tils-ttr.org>
Cc: "Neil Jones" <neil at NWJONES.DEMON.CO.UK>; "Leps-l"
<Leps-l at lists.yale.edu>; "Carolina Leps" <carolinaleps at duke.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: RE The numbers


> Ron and others,
>
> The US Endangered Species Act does not give rights to animals and plants.
Nor
> does the US Constitution forbid the giving of rights to nonhuman objects.
> Corporations, for example, are nonhuman entities (which humans may
participate
> in), as is the American flag and so forth -- all of which Congress has
seen fit
> to grant rights to.
>
> Perhaps the least constitutional thing about the ESA is its opportunity
for the
> US federal government to mess around in what might legitimately be thought
to
> be State responsibilities. The role of the federal government has expanded
well
> beyond what many of the framers wished for, but it has done so largely out
of
> necessity, in a more crowded nation when individual states do not have the
> power to overcome multinational corporate interests. It must also be said
that
> fundamental ethical agreements should be decided at a national level at
least,
> and I appreciate the abolition of slavery and the preservation of public
land
> by the federal government - policies that many states have been
traditionally
> opposed to. The US Supreme Court accepts the Constitutionality of all of
these,
> and I say (for once this year) God bless them for it.
>
> Yours in struggle,
>
> Patrick Foley
>
> Ps. See Susan Buck 1996, Understanding Environmental Administration and
Law,
> Island Press, Washington, D. C. for more on this.
>
> Ron Gatrelle wrote:
>
> > My comments incerted below. Ron
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Neil Jones" <carstore at nwjones.demon.co.uk>
> > To: <carolinaleps at duke.edu>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 2:39 PM
> > Subject: RE The numbers
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > >I am a conservationist and watcher who does not wish to see
> > > collecting banned but who doesn't agree with much of the ideology that
> > collectors adopt. For
> > > example, I would disagree with Ron Gatrelle when he states that the
> > >Endangered Species Act violates the US constitution as he has done in
the
> > past
> > >
> >
> > I definitely think the ESA is unconstitutional. In the one post I
mentioned
> > this I also told why. BUT, what jerked my chain here in what Neil said,
is
> > the fact that he left out the other half of my statement. WHICH WAS-
that I
> > said that I liked what the ESA did - provide protection.
> >
> > Neil likes to try to make Paul look bad by taking things Paul says out
of
> > context - or accusing Paul of taking everything out of context.  In
debate,
> > taking the other guys remarks out of context is a "classis" maneuver.  I
> > now see that this is a regular part of Neil's MO.  What one does is just
> > quote part of what someone says (accurately) but in such a way that the
> > hearer (reader) will naturally jump to a false conclusion. This is what
> > Neil was doing here. He hoped that the (gullible) reader would think
(via
> > half-information) that I was against protecting butterflies. Which of
> > course is patentedly false not only by my other words but by my real
life
> > actions. Further, in saying "as he has done in the past" Neil is hoping
the
> > reader will take this to mean "often" and in some primary fashion.  (My
one
> > mention of this was an aside to another issue.)
> > The great thing about this tactic in debate is it affords the
perpetrator
> > complete deniability.  "I (Neil) didn't say that." or "I wasn't trying
to
> > do that."
> >
> > So - for the record.  Both Neil and I like what the ESA does - affords
> > protection for wildlife including leps.  However, I think it is
> > unconstitutional as it affords "rights" to wildlife they (by the
> > Constitution) do not have, while Neil thinks it is constitutional.
> >
> > RG
> >
> >
> >  ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> >
> >    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
> >
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
>


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl