Nearly two dozen World Heritage Sites, which have been found by the United Nations Eduational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization to offer outstanding global value for their cultural and natural resources, can be found in the United States. And the National Park Service has just made it easier to locate them.
The Park Service's newest online travel itinerary page touches on the 22 World Heritage Sites located in the United States. On this site you can discover fun facts and interesting background information about sites across the country, from the Statue of Liberty National Monument to Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park, which have universal significance.
Most of the World Heritage Sites in the United States are administered by the National Park Service. They also are listed entirely or contain listings in the National Register of Historic Places, which is expanded and maintained by the National Park Service.
The World Heritage Sites in the United States itinerary is the 60th in the online Discover Our Shared Heritage Travel Itinerary Series. The series supports historic preservation, promotes public awareness of history, and encourages people to visit historic places throughout the country. The National Park Service’s Heritage Education Services and its Office of International Affairs produced this itinerary in partnership with the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers.
Comments
You are kidding with that one, right?
Yes, a very good example. The words and intent were quite clear and followed for 100+ years. Progressive have since tried to change it through "interpretation" rather than the amendment process, which was also quite clearly laid out.
You can find a list here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_delegates_to_the_Continental_Congress
It's a complete waste of time trying to respond to trolls. Use the IGNORE button and return to the subject at hand.
Not at all. Why should I be kidding? You've insisted that the intent of the Founders, etc. should be the basis for reading the Constitution but have not explained 1)why other theories of Consitutional interpretation are wrong. According to what criteria are they wrong and intent correct? 2) Nor addressed the well-known problem of gleaning intent.
Are you really claiming that the Delegates to the Continental Congress co-wrote the Constitution?
My mistake, picked up the wrong link.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marryff.html
And yes, I believe the intent of the authors should be the basis for reading the Constitution. For what purpose was it written if not to solidify the authors' intent?
You can certainly believe that "intent of the authors" (as wildly problematic as that may be) should be the basis for reading the Constituion, but what is that basis? What makes that belief correct and (other) theories of Constitutional interpretation "wrong"? According to what criteria is your belief in "Founder's intent" correct and, say, "structuralism" or "textualism" wrong? Or how is Scalia's rejection of "intent" in favor of "originalism" wrong?