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
So you think the intent of the authors is irrelevant to the document they wrote but that the "interpretation" by someone 200 years later is? You can't really be serious. If an author of a book says "this is what I was trying to say" but someone 200 years later says that his interpretation is something different, was the author "wrong"?
But then this is all beside the point. The point is that the Tea Party stands for the Constitution as it was orginally written and implemented. The question isn't of right or wrong, the question is what end results are they seeking and that includes limited government and liberty.
Where have I ever expressed this?
But you've been saying that it is, in your repsonse above to Rick:
Again, why are the alternative methods of Consitutional interpretation not correct? On what basis?
On the basis that ec says so. Don't you get it?
Rick
Either you believe their intent should be followed or you don't. Your argument seems to be their intent isn't important. If you agree their intent should be followed, we have no argument.
On the basis that it isn't what the authors' intended. The authors wrote what they meant and explained what they meant. The fact that someone today doesn't agree with their intent and ignores it isn't "interpretation" it is perversion and/or rejection.
Guys -- speaking as a former wrestling-in-the-mud guy may I introduce you to the peace and calm of the Ignore Button? So what if some other blowhard claims "victory" by having the last word in an on-line argument? Reminds me of the little gecko who loudly proclaimed to all that he was a brontosaurus on his mother's side. It costs nothing to smile quietly and walk away.
Where have I ever expressed this as my argument above? How does this address the well-known problem of reconstructing "intent" (which would need to be prior to a belief in whether one should or shouldn't)?
In the context of my question, this states that reading the Constitution according to the authors' intent is correct and other methods of Consitutional interpretation are incorrect based on the author's intent. How could the object of interpretation be the basis for invalidating alternative methods of interpretation?
What method of Consitutional interpretation consitutes not "agreeing with their intent"? It's not textualism, originalism, strict constructionism. What is it that you are referring to here?
Once again, you haven't provided any basis for claiming that "Founder's intent" is correct and that (other) methods of Constitutional interpretation (e.g. textualism, strict constructionalism, etc.) are incorrect.
It seems to be the basis for your position. Perhaps I have interpreted that wrong. Let's set the record straight. Do you believe the original intent should be followed? Yes or no?
Once we get that established we can move on.
We can move on once you explain on what basis "Founders' intent" is correct and (other methods of) Consitututional interpretation are not. I was just responding to Rick; you initiated this exchange and made the claim.