Skip to comments.High Court Rejects Challenge to Roadless Rule (Prohibits resource development millions of acres)
Posted on 10/01/2012 12:33:09 PM PDT by CedarDave
CHEYENNE, Wyo. The U.S. Supreme Court has turned away an appeal challenging a federal rule that bars development on 50 million acres of roadless areas in national forests.
The justices said Monday they will leave in place a federal appeals court decision that upheld the so-called roadless rule that took effect late in the presidency of Bill Clinton.
(Excerpt) Read more at abqjournal.com ...
Its not the job of the SC to divine what lawmakers thought they meant when making laws. They have no buisness second guessing what elected legislators have passed, and barring
a true Constitutional question they are correct not to rule.
In this case it was Clinton who issued an executive order during the last years of his presidency.
Wondering if I can presume then that A President in the future can by Ex.O issue a contrary order, and open up the lands?
The Clinton roadless rule could have been and should be reversed by any sitting Republican President.
Don't see anything in the Constitution about millions of acres of 'national parks'.
Teddy Roosevelt 3
FDR 11 in 16 years
Truman 5 in 7 years
Ike 2 in 8 years
Kennedy 4 in 3 years
LBJ 4 in 5 years
Nixon 1 in 6 years
Ford 3 in 2 years
Carter 3 in 4 years
Reagan 5 in 8 years
Bush 3 in 4 years
Clinton 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush 62 in 8 years
Obama 923 in 3 1/2 years
parks were established by act of congress, e.g. by representatives of the people.
file under “other needful buildings”...
Bumping good info
In this case it was Clinton who issued an executive order during the last
years days of his presidency.
The information in your response was in a post I think it was this past Saturday, and the poster of the thread had Admin Moderator pull it for some reason. I was trying to respond at the time, and discovered it had been pulled, and the reason.
Can you vouch for that information you post in light of the fact the thread was pulled, or do you have another source?
I’d appreciate the information as I had passed those specifics on to friends, and need to know if I should send a correction, or disclaimer.
It should be pulled again, it’s complete bunk. Just Google it.
Yes exactly. Bush should have reversed it. Another of his disappointments.
It is exactly SCOTUS’ job to interpret laws. If laws require divination then they are not really laws.
What do you mean by a “true” constitutional question? Not qualifying for “strict scrutiny” according to Footenote Four? The presumption of constitutionality for only favored types of challenges is arbitrary. Nothing could be clearer constitutionally than that the administration is incompetent to legislate. Even if Congress has capitulated to it. SCOTUS is competent to oppose this.
Granted, SCOTUS’ capitulation is old news, so I don’t blame this bunch particularly.
Turns out 0bama has signed about 140 Executive Orders.. I picked up the ‘over 900’ number somewhere and should’ve verified it. My bad.
Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, “The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.” And, Article II, section 3 asserts that, “The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed...”
The executive cannot (legally) violate laws or the constitution.
If Congress wished to restrict the President in the making of such rules they do have the option of amending or making laws to make the proposed regulation illegal or unconstitional. If they can’t, because they are the minority party, well, elections matter. To me worst case is
a SC overruling the will of the electorate and governing from the bench. That is a two edged sword and you wouldn’t
want such a weapon in the hands of an Obama or an FDR (again).
I seriously cannot make out what you’re saying.
Or am I misreading something somewhere?
Thanks for the “self corrective” research. It is a hallmark of this site that we try to keep from posting bad information, and correct it when we error — you have followed that great tradition.