PLAN TO SET ASIDE LAND IN ARIZONA FOR OWLS SLAMMED

The federal government wants to set aside 1.2 million acres of public and private Arizona land as critical habitat for 18 endangered pygmy owls, a move critics say threatens development of the land for private business and public recreation.

Designating the Tucson land as a critical habitat for the tiny creatures, which span 6 inches and weigh 2 pounds, is necessary because they live in an area facing rapid growth and development, said Maeveen Behan, project director for Pima County.

Two of the three are what I expected from the Governor elect. I was surprised at her selection of Herb Guenther, he is much more conservative than most Democrats, and many Republicans, he is a good choice for Head of the Department of Water Resources, he is very knowledgeable in state water law. He has helped us on several property rights issues, and has been better than the other Democrats on Gun Rights issues.

TL,

I haven't been ignoring you. We got hit by a major storm over last weekend and just got power restored late Wednesday afternoon. But it will probably be knocked out tomorrow by the storm I can see coming in. Computer withdrawal is not a pretty thing to watch.

tacticalogic suggests: "Check it out. More Commerce Clause madness."

Good grief man, can't you see the logic in that? How much clearer a connection could there be between interstate commerce and protecting the endangered Pygmy Owl? Is there any among us, so heartless and devoid of compassion that they wouldn't begrudge a measly little plot, 10 miles on a side, for each and every one of these owls? </sarcasm>

I wonder how many that decry the Endangered Species Act realize that Congress claims (and the court's agree) that its authority to enact such legislation is found in the Commerce Clause? And they do this without blushing. The problem is, that even if you were able to overturn that, you would still have to face the "inherent sovereignty" doctrine, which could accomplish the same thing. The phrase "inherent" should give you some clue as to just where the justices find it in the Constitution. (i.e., it ain't in there, so it's inherent!)

Regards,

Boot Hill

I wonder how many that decry the Endangered Species Act realize that Congress claims (and the court's agree) that its authority to enact such legislation is found in the Commerce Clause?

Probably about the same number that realize the same thing about the EPA.

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.