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
Nice article and a few good comments until the comments got way off track. I so hate it when my autologin fails and I can see the posts from folks who are ignored normally. Thanks Lee for reminding me to relogin. Just remember folks, trolls are not constitutional scholars and arguing with the uninformed is a pointless exercise.
How could the "Founder intent" be anything but correct? They wrote the document. We certainly can argue what their intent was - though I believe in most cases it is clearly defined - but I can't fathom how someone could argue that their "intent" isn't what the Constitution stands for.
How could the "Founder intent" be anything but correct? They wrote the document. We certainly can argue what their intent was - though I believe in most cases it is clearly defined - but I can't fathom how someone could argue that their "intent" isn't what the Constitution stands for.
Where have I ever stated that the intent itself could be incorrect? (The quotation marks, as well as the context of this exchange, clearly indicate that I'm referring to the method of interpretation--e.g. reconstructing the intent of the Founders.)
Yet again, you have refused to provide any basis for your claim that reconstructing the Founders' intent as a method of reading the Constution is right (despite all the well-known problems with reconstruction) and other methods of Constitutional interpretation are not. This about a dozen or so times now that you've refused or been unable to present a basis for this claim. So, now I'm off to meet my fellow GenXers for a beer. I'll leave you with my original response to Rick above , with which you took issue:
OK, so I think you have agreed that the Founders intent is correct and thus our disagreement is how to determine that intent. Is that correct?
Thanks for completely hijacking this site once AGAIN and throwing it so far off track.
World Heritage Sites.
Don't like 'em? Fine. Say it once and move on so others can discuss.
I'm a Mariners fan, but I sure don't insert myself into Yankees fansites and make a mess on the carpet.
Gary - Just to be clear, we got off on this tangent when you went on your attack of the Tea Party. I am more than happty to go back to WHS as I am still waiting for your explaination of wanting WHS status to attract the hordes while wanting all those sites to be Wilderness. Please explain how that works.