The correct answer is 56,000 liters. Think about it: one person could save 56,000 liters of water simply by changing their shower habits.
Today I am not going to post a trivia tidbit because I would like to focus on a more pressing issue. Please read the New York Times article "Environmental Laws Waived To Press Work on Border Fence." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803E7D71F38F930A15753C1A9619C8B63
The Department of Homeland Security has decided to build a gigantic fence through a national conservation area in violation of a court ruling. It "disagrees with the court's ruling" and divines that it will win an appeal. Michael Chertoff, who was not elected, is violating the separation of powers and attacking the environment. Meanwhile we whine about "activist judges." At least the members of the judicial branch have to create an illusion of impartiality.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Gap Year Reading List
- Banker to the Poor: Micro-Lending and the Battle Against World Poverty (Muhammad Yunus)
- Candide (Voltaire)
- Catch 22 (Joseph Heller)
- Equus (Peter Shaffer)
- Full Circle: A South American Journey (Luis Sepúlveda) (also known as Patagonia Express)
- Getting Stoned with Savages: A Trip Through the Islands of Fiji and Vanuatu (J. Maarten Troost)
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (JK Rowling)
- Hija de la Fortuna (Isabel Allende)
- Interpreter of Maladies (Jhumpa Lahiri)
- Life, the Universe and Everything (Douglas Adams)
- Little Pink Slips (Sally Koslow)
- Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America (Barbara Ehrenreich)
- Sexo en Nueva York (Spanish translation of Sex in the City) (Candace Bushnell)
- Sophie's World (Jostein Gaarder)
- Symposium (Plato)
- The Da Vinci Code (Dan Brown)
- The Glass Castle (Jeannette Walls)
- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (Douglas Adams)
- The Kite Runner (Khaled Hosseini)
- The Lost Continent (Bill Bryson)
- The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court (Jeffrey Toobin)
- The Restaurant at the End of the Universe (Douglas Adams)
- The Trial of Henry Kissinger (Christopher Hitchens)
- The Witches of Eastwick (John Updike)
- Three Cups of Tea: One Man's Mission to Fight Terrorism and Build Nations One School at a Time (David Oliver Relin and Greg Mortenson)
- Tunnel Vision (Sara Paretsky)
Blog Archive
Visitor Counter
10 comments:
Link didn't work for me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/us/23fence.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/C/Chertoff,%20Michael
I think this is the article of which you speak though.
It does seem rather brash, to go ahead because they are "confident of eventually winning the case". This line of reasoning impairs the judiciary and undermines the system of checks and balances. And its not just something that can be undone either. Boarders and policies can change but the damage done to the environment may never fully recover. Its a rather disgraceful action against nature and the balances of the government.
OK, I have to take an extra high blood pressure pill so that I don't explode while ranting about Bush & Co. and this, yet another example of their OI#$ ∂Í!!!¡¡¡¡# U ##$#@@@@$@#! ç¢@!//?¿##@%&&**#!!¡¡
Wait, I exploded back there, it didn't come out right. Maybe I should just down a pint of xanax with 3 or 4 gallons of grain alcohol so that I don't start ranting in the first place. Better to be medicated than blow out an aneurism.
I hate how aggrivatingly stupid certain government figures can be. Grrr.....
I miss you and and happy to have finally caught up with some of your posts. I am happy that you had so much fun in nature. But are you nature-y enough to go camping?
By the way, I stayed home on Monday and managed to clean my room, as well as Gwennie who had taken an unfortunate dive into the swamp.
Love you so much.
And now I'm angry. Sweet. It's not that Michael Chertoff wasn't elected that bothers me (I believe in the necessity of appointees) but the fact that THIS IS CLEARLY ILLEGAL. When Judges say you can't do something, that's a precedent. Which is the accpeted interpretation of the law. WHICH MEANS IT'S ILLEGAL.
Happy Halloween!
*angerangerangeranger*
Just some food for thought:
Some Constitutional scholars believe that the judicial branch's inability to enforce its rulings is an important check that the executive branch (the branch charged with upholding laws) has over the judicial branch. What do you all think of this idea and how does it affect our discussion?
Well the judiciaries inability to enforce it rulings is sort of a check. What they rule is the law and though it requires the executive to carryout and enforce the law, the executive branch is not above the law. Now while it can get away with not obeying the courts some of the time, the act is not quite legal and leaves those in the executive branch vulnerable to prosecution. The degree to which the executive can ignore the court is really determined by how much others care about it and how severe it is. It is a more de facto check and balance because it is an unwritten ability that conflicts with the law.
Though, to play devil's advocate, if we decide that the executive branch's ability to choose whether or not it enforces the judicial branch's decisions is a legitimate check, then we are required to agree that the executive can legitimately/legally violate the judicial branch's authority.
The executive can ignore or refuse to enforce rulings, but it is not immune to interpretations of legality. If the court decided that some action violated a law and the executive had done or continued to do such an action the civil officers involved could be impeached. In such a case the court cannot carry out any enforcement of its ruling but it does enable the legislative branch to take action.
And to me that is what this case is about. The court had ruled that the fence construction had not followed the proper authorization. And while the the Chertoff can ignore the courts ruling, because the court has stated what he is doing is illegal it seems that House could take some action.
there a similar issue with the excutive branch not enforcing the judicial branch's ruling with Andrew Jackson and Cherokees.
In 1831 the Supreme Court backed the Cherokees saying they had the right to self-government, and said Georgia's extension of state law over them was unconstitutional. Georgia refused to listen, and President Jackson refused to enforce the law.
and it was this major blow up with what's the point of the judicial branch if the executive branch wouldn't hold up it's end?
and here we go again...
This is a fascinating case. I'm afraid I'm not sure where I come out.
If the article is correct, the Bush Administration isn't violating the law. So we can't say that they are operating outside it. I did some fact-checking. Even judge Huvelle noted that "the Homeland Security Department has legal authority to waive all environmental laws and build the fence despite the restraining order."
The Judge's issue was that the government rushed through its environmental analysis.
I think that this is less an issue about Bush exceeding his authority (he didn't). I think it is more an issue of security versus the environment. Whether we agree with it or not, Congress sent the message that it wants this fence. It explicitly granted Bush the right to override environmental concerns.
I think that another interesting point (if true) is the question of environmental degradation from 17,000 illegal aliens passing through the area. While I'm not at all prepared to accept Bush's "facts", that is a significant number. If you are arguing strictly on environmental grounds, it would be hard to discount the impact of 17,000 people on a 1.5 mile stretch of protected woodlands. [Note: the judge's ruling had only to do with 1.5 miles of fencing.]
So Bush isn't over-reaching and the environmental case is up for grabs. I suspect that the real underlying issue is that of illegal immigrants. That's a tough one. But again, Congress seems to have spoken in authorizing this 1,200 mile fence.
Post a Comment