pudge's Journal: Of Foxes and Henhouses

President Bush wants to give more latitude to federal agencies to determine for themselves whether projects might harm endangered species.

The author of the AP story doesn't understand what's going on: they write, in the lead, "Parts of the Endangered Species Act may soon be extinct." It's not true. They even tell us it's not true a few sentences later, saying the changes "don't require the approval of Congress." If they don't require the approval of Congress, then the Act is not being changed. I hate to say it, but, Duh.

The AP author shouldn't feel too badly, as the environmental attorney interviewed for the story, Eric Glitzenstein, doesn't understand it, or even the Constitution, very well either. Glitzenstein called this "the fox guarding the henhouse," but to the extent that's true, it has always been true, and it's no more true now than it was before.

Article II of the Constitution says: "The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." This means that the President has all the executive power, every bit of it, and everyone under him only acts directly subject to his constitutional authority. The President has every right under the Constitution to dictate to each of these people exactly how to do their jobs. As far as "who" is in charge of the process -- foxes or some other creatures -- nothing's changed, because it's still the President.

I should add though that if Glitzenstein were in charge, he'd probably put the hens in charge of the henhouse, which might sound fairly democratic, but since hens are pretty stupid and I actually might want to eat some of them for dinner, that seems like a pretty bad idea to me.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

not sure

[Bill Dog]

The President has every right under the Constitution to dictate to each of these people exactly how to do their jobs.

I'm not sure about your assessment. The prez may be able to tell his agencies *how* to do something, given a law enacted by Congress, but I'm not so sure he has the right to tell them *what* to do, if it for example flies in the face of the law.

I'm also not sure how that AP article could've been any more slanted. It's an advocacy piece -- it reads like a press release from the Sierra Club or

Re:

[pudge]

The prez may be able to tell his agencies *how* to do something, given a law enacted by Congress, but I'm not so sure he has the right to tell them *what* to do, if it for example flies in the face of the law.

What I mean is that any power that someone in the executive branch has, actually belongs to the President.