Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The original section 24 was a rider added at the last minute to "An act to repeal timber culture laws, and for other purposes," a massive bill intended to reform public land law. It was added by a joint House-Senate conference committee, but was not referred back to the originating Public Lands Committee of either chamber and instead went ...
The customary method by which agencies of the United States government are created, abolished, consolidated, or divided is through an act of Congress. [2] The presidential reorganization authority essentially delegates these powers to the president for a defined period of time, permitting the President to take those actions by decree. [3]
In United States government, the line-item veto, or partial veto, is the power of an executive authority to nullify or cancel specific provisions of a bill, usually a budget appropriations bill, without vetoing the entire legislative package. The line-item vetoes are usually subject to the possibility of legislative override as are traditional ...
The initiative, a collaboration between the Norwegian government and United States Forest Service's international program, will initially focus on creating a database for the bigleaf maple tree on ...
A West Virginia bill approved by the House of Delegates on Tuesday that limits counties from regulating agricultural operations is stoking fears that a logging company could resurrect plans to ...
Illegal logging is the harvest, transportation, purchase, or sale of timber in violation of laws.The harvesting procedure itself may be illegal, including using corrupt means to gain access to forests; extraction without permission, or from a protected area; the cutting down of protected species; or the extraction of timber in excess of agreed limits.
Illegal logging has taken a huge toll in recent years on the forest-covered southern half of the city of 9 million inhabitants. “They have finished off the forest,” Alfredo Gutiérrez, 43 ...
This view was rejected by the United States Supreme Court in 1984: Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues. [18] See also Smith v.