Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

High Court Rejects Challenge to Roadless Rule (Prohibits resource development millions of acres)
The Albuquerque Journal ^ | October 1, 2012 | AP

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: forestservice; roadlessareas; wildernessareas
AP restricts excerpts to two sentences. No further link with details.
1 posted on 10/01/2012 12:33:17 PM PDT by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

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.


2 posted on 10/01/2012 12:37:12 PM PDT by RitchieAprile (my French needs no pardoning..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile

In this case it was Clinton who issued an executive order during the last years of his presidency.


3 posted on 10/01/2012 12:44:46 PM PDT by CedarDave (Presstitutes: Journalists who refuse to ask hard questions and who report by omission or distortion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

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?


4 posted on 10/01/2012 12:48:42 PM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

The Clinton roadless rule could have been and should be reversed by any sitting Republican President.


5 posted on 10/01/2012 12:49:23 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile
17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;-

Don't see anything in the Constitution about millions of acres of 'national parks'.

/johnny

6 posted on 10/01/2012 12:50:37 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rockinqsranch
EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED…

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

7 posted on 10/01/2012 1:00:38 PM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

parks were established by act of congress, e.g. by representatives of the people.

file under “other needful buildings”...


8 posted on 10/01/2012 1:05:19 PM PDT by RitchieAprile (my French needs no pardoning..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

Bumping good info


9 posted on 10/01/2012 1:05:24 PM PDT by KC Burke (Plain Conservative opinions and common sense correction for thirteen years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile
Correction:

In this case it was Clinton who issued an executive order during the last years days of his presidency.

10 posted on 10/01/2012 1:09:20 PM PDT by CedarDave (Presstitutes: Journalists who refuse to ask hard questions and who report by omission or distortion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

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.


11 posted on 10/01/2012 1:10:23 PM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile
Parks aren't 'needful buildings'. The section of the Constitution I quoted is what Congress is allowed to do. If it isn't there, they aren't supposed to do it. Period.

/johnny

12 posted on 10/01/2012 1:20:06 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rockinqsranch

It should be pulled again, it’s complete bunk. Just Google it.


13 posted on 10/01/2012 1:25:01 PM PDT by the_devils_advocate_666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

Yes exactly. Bush should have reversed it. Another of his disappointments.


14 posted on 10/01/2012 1:57:56 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile

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.


15 posted on 10/01/2012 2:24:14 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke

Turns out 0bama has signed about 140 Executive Orders.. I picked up the ‘over 900’ number somewhere and should’ve verified it. My bad.


16 posted on 10/01/2012 2:41:51 PM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

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).


17 posted on 10/01/2012 2:49:12 PM PDT by RitchieAprile (my French needs no pardoning..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile

I seriously cannot make out what you’re saying.


18 posted on 10/01/2012 3:00:06 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
huh? According to this: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/roosevelt.html, FDR had over 3700 executive orders.

Or am I misreading something somewhere?

19 posted on 10/01/2012 3:17:04 PM PDT by Tanniker Smith (Rome didn't fall in a day, either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

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.


20 posted on 10/01/2012 4:19:10 PM PDT by KC Burke (Plain Conservative opinions and common sense correction for thirteen years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino; taxcontrol; CedarDave
Back in the early 70s Congress authorized clear cutting in the natl forests. That legislation also authorized future presidents to evaluate the health of the forests and make changes to policy needed to protect the forests.

So Clinton directed the Forest Service to do a extensive study that took 6-7 years and make policy recommendations.

Based on that, Clinton implemented the roadless policy.

Certainly Bush tried to change, modify, or lessen the effects. Even tho it is next to impossible, Bush was able replace a few of the Forestors and Regional Forestors. But Bush's subsequent study came out essentially the same.

21 posted on 10/01/2012 4:19:23 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tanniker Smith

I think you make a good point by citing FDR. Leftists want to rule by fiat — conservatives want proper process.

Leftists and totalitarians want planners to control, conservatives want rule of law and a proper congress supreme.


22 posted on 10/01/2012 4:24:14 PM PDT by KC Burke (Plain Conservative opinions and common sense correction for thirteen years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson