The Un-Constitutional
Endangered Species Act
The Oregon Grange Resolution
Whereas: The United States congress passed the Endangered Species Act in the year of 1973. At that time, very few people realized the affect this law would have on our lives, liberties, and properties.
Whereas: The American public began to wake up to the dangers of this law when the spotted owl was placed on the Endangered Species List in the month of June, year 1990, which all but destroyed the timber industry in the Pacific Northwest.
Whereas: It turns out it was not the timber industry which was supposedly causing the disappearing spotted owls by cutting down timber to sell for public usage. It turns out the whole spotted owl scare was unfounded. According to a new government draft plan to save the spotted owl. The government no longer blames the logging industry as a threat to the spotted owl. The government now places the primary threat on the Barred owls who are less selective about their habitat, plus they are out-competing the spotted owls on the prey they feed on of which is a completely natural occurrence. The government scientists believe Barred owls are causing the decline of the spotted owls.
Whereas: The Northern Spotted Owl is a sub-species of the Mexican spotted owl, which is not endangered at all. Regardless of these facts, the U.S. government plans to spend $200 million more on the Barred Owl removal plan. It is not clear whether they plan to kill off a large number of the Barred owls or what. This removal plan could cause the Barred Owl to be put on the ESA list. Our U.S. Government should stop playing God and allow nature to take its course.
Whereas: Action caused by the Endangered Species Act was undertaken by the United States Bureau of Reclamation announced on April 7, 2001. Water for the farmers, who were drawing water from the Klamath Project, was cut off in order to maintain water in Upper Klamath Lake for endangered sucker fish and to provide sufficient water flows in the Klamath River for Coho salmon. It turns out that the National Academy of Sciences would later rule that the ESA recovery plan was based on false science.
Whereas: The cutting off of irrigation water by the government destroyed the livelihoods of an estimated 1,400 farms, covering approximately 240,000 acres of farmland in Northern California and Southern Oregon, . This in turn destroyed many businesses located in the towns of Bonanza, Lorella, Klamath Falls, Tulelake, Merrill and Malin. By this excessive abuse of power, government bureaucrats are saying that fish are more important than people. Because the Endangered Species Act doesn’t list people, but everything else, the people of the U.S.A. become in danger of losing their life, liberty and properties.
Whereas: U.S. District Judge, Ann L. Aiken, ruling in Eugene, Oregon, on Monday, April 30, 2001, denied a request for an injunction restoring irrigation flows for Klamath water users. They were denied their constitutional rights which state in Article 1, Section 9-3, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.” The Endangered Species Act, in this case, is an ex post facto law because the farmers of the Klamath Basin had filed and received their water rights prior to the passage of the Endangered Species Act in the year 1973. The only words that will describe the judge’s action in this case is called “Judicial Injustice”.
Whereas: “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona (U.S. Supreme Court) 380 US 436 (year of 1966).
Whereas: The Federal government has used the ESA recovery plan to take land-use control over hundreds of thousands of privately owned acres of land. These ESA and other federal regulations have closed entire communities, confiscated hundreds of billions of dollars of private property, and destroyed the lives of thousands of families all in the name of protecting the environment. The Federal and State governments now own 40% of the U.S.A. lands.
Whereas: The Declaration of Independence adopted in Congress on July 4, 1776, in one of its claims against King George III, was that he has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. When our forefathers wrote and adopted the U.S. Constitution, they made sure that the laws so stated wouldn’t allow un-constitutional departments of bureaucracies that are now being sent forth to harass our people who will become serfs to the Federal government if not stopped.
Whereas: Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that all legislative powers belong to the U.S. Congress, and are limited by enumerated powers stated in Article 1, Section 8. There are a total of eighteen listed powers and none of them allow Congress to pass environmental laws and create bureaucracies to enforce said laws. This is what Thomas Jefferson meant when he stated, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
Whereas: Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution states:
2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and 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.
3. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution. This oath means these office holders have made a contract with the people who have never given any powers other than those listed in the U.S. Constitution. These officers are not above the supreme laws of the lands. Anything contrary to this is a usurpation of said supreme laws of the land is leading to real tyranny throughout the United States of America.
Whereas: “We the people are the rightful masters, both of Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” --Abraham Lincoln
Whereas: It is a misconception to believe that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constituted the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is concisely stated as follows:
“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of the law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it...
“A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supercede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” --Sixteenth American Jurisprudence Second Edition, Section 177
Whereas: The United States Constitution was not written in an ambiguous language; therefore, it is easy for anyone who can read it can understand it. It is the supreme law of the land per Article 6.
Therefore be it resolved: That the Oregon State Grange requests that the National Grange print this resolution in the National Grange newspaper so that all granges throughout the United States will share in the information it imparts. The U.S. Endangered Species Act violates Article 1, Section 8, Article 5, Bill of Rights #’s 5, 9 and 10 of the U.S. Constitution. We request that the U.S. Congress rescind this un-constitutional Endangered Species Act, and if Congress will not do this, we call on the nation’s high supreme court to overturn this law for the people of the U.S.A.
This resolution was adopted by the Deer Creek Grange #371 at its regular meeting held on April 14, 2008.
This resolution was adopted by the Oregon State Grange at its 135th Annual State Session held ad Prineville, Oregon, week of June 16-20, 2008.
William D. Waggoner, Master
1920 Thompson Creek Rd.
Selma, OR 97538
Delaine Sherman, Secretary
P.O. Box 871
Selma, OR 97538
