Comments on: President Climate Change Approves Cutting Down Forest http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/07/17/president-climate-change-approves-cutting-down-forest/ Beating Them With Their Own Sickle And Hammer Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:23:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: William Teach http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/07/17/president-climate-change-approves-cutting-down-forest/comment-page-1/#comment-121250 William Teach Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:38:04 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=24976#comment-121250 He did have some plans to allow it, and in a much bigger region, as far back as 2003, from what I learned after a comment over at Right Wing News for the cross-post. Can't find anything that says logging was ever done. I have to disagree on one thing: it is a national forest, so, they do have the right to do it, but, asking the state would be nice. I still do not think that logging should be done in an area like that, though. He did have some plans to allow it, and in a much bigger region, as far back as 2003, from what I learned after a comment over at Right Wing News for the cross-post. Can’t find anything that says logging was ever done.

I have to disagree on one thing: it is a national forest, so, they do have the right to do it, but, asking the state would be nice.

I still do not think that logging should be done in an area like that, though.

]]> By: kerwin http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/07/17/president-climate-change-approves-cutting-down-forest/comment-page-1/#comment-121236 kerwin Sat, 18 Jul 2009 06:45:54 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=24976#comment-121236 I think this was a Bush plan originally. I have a large problem with it. The problem is it is the state's territory and the federal government has no legal standing according to the U.S. Constitution to decide whether to cut it down or not unless perhaps they own the land as any other landowner in the state. In that case they have to obey state law and pay state taxes just like anyone else. In order for the federal government to have any authority in a state area that area must be ceded to them by the state and for a reason justified by the U.S. Constitution and conservation is not such a reason. I think this was a Bush plan originally. I have a large problem with it. The problem is it is the state’s territory and the federal government has no legal standing according to the U.S. Constitution to decide whether to cut it down or not unless perhaps they own the land as any other landowner in the state. In that case they have to obey state law and pay state taxes just like anyone else.

In order for the federal government to have any authority in a state area that area must be ceded to them by the state and for a reason justified by the U.S. Constitution and conservation is not such a reason.

]]>