Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
View Poll Results: What should be done with the Endangered Species Act
So far it's 3-0 against the nasty stuff. I have a poll idea, Is Cauliflower really food?
Next on my hit list is brocolli soup. The inventor of that stuff should be strung up.
:quietlyraiseshand: I admit, I actually LIKE cauliflower, as long as it's raw w/some ranch dressing to dip it in. I'm just a freak though, because I also LOVE broccoli and spinach (raw and cooked)! My mom somehow brainwashed me as a kid, because I have always liked these.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
__________________
~Just because I have a short attention span doesn't mean...~
:quietlyraiseshand: I admit, I actually LIKE cauliflower, as long as it's raw w/some ranch dressing to dip it in. I'm just a freak though, because I also LOVE broccoli and spinach (raw and cooked)! My mom somehow brainwashed me as a kid, because I have always liked these.
Good lord. Maybe you and Linda can get together and have a cauliflower/brocolli soup "dinner" sometime. I'll be at Jack in the box.
So far it's 3-0 against the nasty stuff. I have a poll idea, Is Cauliflower really food?
Next on my hit list is brocolli soup. The inventor of that stuff should be strung up.
Hey, I like cauliflower and brocolli. Cauliflower raw with French dressing or steamed with other vegetables and brocolli steamed or in cheese soup. I don't know if the have a Wildflower Bread Company around where you live, but you should try their brocolli and cheese soup in a bread bowl. Scccrrruuumptious.
__________________
“So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it but I couldn’t find honest employment.” —Mark Twain
Cabbage, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, broccoli, kale and kohlrabi are all derived from the same mustard species?
P.S. (Could this be an example of evolution of new species? Nah, plants don't count! )
__________________
We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it.
Environmentalists outbidding ranchers for land use permits at auctions.
I like the tactics.
Quote:
Bidding wars escalate over ranch land At auctions, environmental activists buy leases on public lands to keep ranchers from using the acreage for grazing.
By Jacob Goldstein | Special to The Christian Science Monitor
It's one of the most long-standing feuds in the West - the face-off between environmentalists and ranchers over who, besides beefy cattle, really benefits from letting herds nibble away at public lands.
The fight over grazing seems far from resolution and, if anything, is bringing out environmentalists' crafty side. One recent tactic: outbid ranchers for the right to lease the land - and then just watch the grass grow, uneaten.
It's a strategy used of late on state-managed lands in Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, and Utah. Known as state trust lands, these parcels - which cover more acreage than Pennsylvania - are environmentalists' newest club to wield against ranchers and their hungry herds.
In the most recent development, the Arizona Supreme Court in November ruled that environmental groups have the right to bid for leases on state trust lands. The case dates from 1997, when a coalition of environmentalists and hunters were initially rebuffed in efforts to bid on leases for several parcels of state trust land designated for grazing. The would-be bidders intended to clear the land of cattle in order to repair damage that they alleged had been caused by grazing.
The highly publicized case turned on the distinguishing feature of state trust lands: the mandate that they be used to generate revenue for public schools and other beneficiaries.
In its ruling, the high court opened the door to bidding by nonranchers, implying that leasing the land to ranchers might not always meet "the best interests" of the beneficiaries.
The practical effect of the ruling may be limited: So far, parcels converted from grazing cover fewer than 100,000 acres of land across the West - a relatively small number, given that more than 30 million acres of state trust land are used to graze livestock.
But the victorious environmentalists nonetheless see the ruling as an important achievement. "The Supreme Court decision turns a paradigm on its head," says John Horning, conservation director of an environmental group that was a party to the Arizona lawsuit. "It tells the old guard that the Western landscape is not exclusively valuable when it can produce commodities - that these lands are also valuable for the noncommodity values they can produce."
It is also clear that the environmentalists' tactic is as much about publicity as it is about the particular parcels up for lease. The requirement that state trust lands be managed to generate revenues for beneficiaries provides a showcase for their argument that ranching on all public lands - including those administered by the federal government - does not make economic sense.
State lands "draw attention to the subsidized nature of all public lands, whether state or federal," says Jon Marvel, the head of an environmental group that now holds former grazing leases on state lands in Utah and Idaho. "They underline that a market rate is not being paid, that ranchers do not compete for what they receive."
Several environmental groups from across the West - including Mr. Horning's and Mr. Marvel's - are launching a national campaign to end all ranching on public lands.
They argue that such grazing is a money-losing enterprise for taxpayers, and that the US government should offer ranchers a voluntary buyout of grazing rights on all federal land.
Ranchers, for their part, play down the impact of the Arizona ruling - and continue to argue that driving ranchers out of business will harm rural communities.
Doc Lane, spokesman for the Arizona Cattlemen's Association, says that ranchers offer the state long-term stability - and he questions whether that outweighs the short-term value of the higher bids submitted by the hunters and environmentalists.
"The only thing the [court] decision will do," says Mr. Lane, "is force the state land department to be a lot more specific about what is good for the trust and what isn't."
Interesting article. However if the article was update to 2005 it would probably include a 3rd player...
Quote:
Meritage Homes Buys State Trust Land At Record Auction
Proceeds Benefit Arizona Public Education
(Phoenix, July 13, 2005) After the sales price was raised 33 times, Meritage Homes made the winning bid of $92.2 Million to purchase 288 acres of Arizona State Trust Land in the Desert Ridge Master Planned Community. The opening bid was the appraised value of $80 Million, the highest opening bid ever, and the final sales price of $92.2 Million sales price was the 2nd highest in Land Department history.
Because the appraised value of $80 Million was high, I was not sure how much higher the bidding would go, State Land Commissioner Mark Winkleman commented after the auction. The fact we received a sale price of $12.2 Million over appraised value is a big win for Public Education in Arizona!”
Meritage had strong competition from DR Superblock 2, L.L.C., a joint venture of Toll Brothers Homes and Pulte Homes. In the past, Toll Brothers Homes and Pulte Homes have competed at Land Department auctions and both homebuilders have developments in Desert Ridge that were formerly State Trust Land. Meritage and the Toll/ Pulte joint venture, the only two bidders, raised the purchase price a total of 33 times in less than 20 minutes.
Commissioner Winkleman confirmed that the Land Department will have several other auctions this summer which will result in another record breaking sales year. On August 13, another Desert Ridge parcel will be offered with an opening bid of $135 Million.
“Don’t worry,” Commissioner Winkleman continued. “We’re not done earning money for our beneficiaries this summer.”
The Arizona State Land Commissioner serves as trustee of over 9.3 million acres of Arizona State Trust Land. The proceeds from the sale of Arizona State Trust Land are delivered to the beneficiaries of the Arizona State Trust Land Permanent Trust Fund, primarily Arizona Common Schools, K through 12.
Toad case may reveal Roberts' philosophy
Appeals court vote may show inclination toward states' rights
Monday, August 1, 2005; Posted: 11:27 p.m. EDT (03:27 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A toad may offer insight into John Roberts' legal philosophy.
The Supreme Court nominee voted against the amphibian in a 2003 case testing the powers of the federal government.
The vote suggests he may be inclined to support state or local interests on issues from civil rights to pollution control if confirmed to the high court.
Justices constantly mediate turf battles between states and the federal government. And under Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the court has tended to side with the states.
Senate Democrats plan to vigorously question Roberts about his views, with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts among those on the Judiciary Committee who say they want to know more about where he believes federal interests stop.
Some Democrats have said they fear he will support scaling back longtime federal protections for the elderly, disabled, and the environment.
Roberts, 50, has not spoken publicly since being picked by President Bush to replace retiring Sandra Day O'Connor.
He dealt with the issue of federal-state control just once in his two years as a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District and Columbia.
In that case, Roberts suggested that federal power is limited, urging the court to reconsider its decision restricting a San Diego area construction project because it encroached on the habitat of the rare arroyo southwestern toad.
He questioned whether "a hapless toad that, for reasons of its own, lives its entire life" in one state could be regulated by the federal government. His view did not prevail.
Doug Kendall, executive director of the environmental public interest law firm Community Rights Counsel, called Roberts' reasoning "enormously disconcerting."
Richard Garnett, a Notre Dame law professor and former clerk for Rehnquist, said Roberts did not reveal any radical views or propose striking down the Endangered Species Act.
"I don't think this indicates any eagerness for courts to start invalidating federal laws," he said.
At issue is the Constitution's "commerce clause," which empowers Congress to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states."
"When you think commerce clause, don't think technical and meaningless," said Cass Sunstein, a University of Chicago law professor. "Think in what ways can the elected representatives of the people provide protection against serious harm."
The Supreme Court has just one states' rights case to review this fall, but it's among the most important issues the justices will decide: whether Congress has the authority to prohibit physician-assisted suicide if a state allows it.
This summer, the court used the commerce clause to rule in favor of federal regulation of medical marijuana and to strike down state wine shipment restrictions.
O'Connor, the court's first female, generally has been a strong states' rights advocate. But not always.
For example, two years ago she joined a ruling that found state government workers are protected under a federal law guaranteeing they will not lose their jobs if they take time off to deal with family emergencies.
Supreme Court showdowns over federal power date back more than 100 years.
In 1870, the court struck down a national law that banned sales of illuminating oils like kerosene. Limits should be set state-by-state, the justices decided.
Under Rehnquist's leadership, the Supreme Court has overturned federal restrictions on guns near schools and a law intended to protect female victims of violent crime.
The reasoning? That Congress overstepped its bounds under the commerce clause.
In June, however, Rehnquist was on the losing end of a major federal power case. The court ruled 6-3 that federal agents may arrest people who use pot to ease their pain, despite state medical marijuana laws.
Justice Clarence Thomas, the court member with perhaps the strongest views on the commerce clause, said the ruling was so broad that "the federal government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives and potluck suppers throughout the 50 states."
Stephen McAllister, a former Thomas law clerk and law school dean at the University of Kansas, said conservatives want courts to keep Congress from using "commerce" as an excuse to meddle in everything.
"When you wake up in the morning you affect commerce. The fear is commerce power becomes the general police power for the federal government," McAllister said.
She's a blast AND has good taste in food!!!!! I knew I liked that woman!
GO
Linear Mode
