The Volokh Conspiracy Bits: Today will include a look at a couple things discussed (12/29) on this conservative/libertarian blog, linked along side these remarks. First off, it notes the thirty year anniversary of the Endangered Species Act, which it feels has not done much to further the ends sought. The core problem is the fairly absolute wording of the law (traditional in this country, as shown by the First Amendment, but much worse in the reformist 1960s era), impossible to uphold in the real world, and the emphasis on private lawsuits to enforce it (this too is fairly traditional in this country of limited government, especially in the tort area, however broader it might be in recent years).

This leads the Washington Post (linked by blog) to suggest: "Clearly, the act would benefit from constructive congressional attention: The law could be made simpler, the costs more predictable." The bloggist suggests on the other hand that many of the things the ESA is thanked for really was achieved in another fashion. Furthermore, the general sentiment by such individuals is that we are better off working with property owners and businesses and balancing, resulting in more protection to the environment (e.g. hunting kills animals, but hunters tend to be one of the groups most concerned with the environment).

Given my recent reading material (see yesterday), it bears noting that Gov. Dean is said by some to believed in such a philosophy. In the end, suffice to say, a mixture of the two works, but I do think some liberal leaning environments should respect more the sort of Theodore Roosevelt conservatism that works with the "bad guys" (so to speak). On the other hand, such individuals are loath to trust those currently in power; the saving grace is that there are enough conservationist minded Republicans out there that some good reforms probably can be done if we managed to accomplish it. Unfortunately, I doubt the President is quite in this category.

On the other hand, given the current "whatever is needed to get re-elected" strategy, perhaps the overall popularity of such interests will encourage enough members of Congress to work on the matter.

---

"This is an assertion of theological belief, not of historical or sociological fact. Someone who says the Pledge is literally endorsing the existence of God (though, as with many conventional statements, people may say it as a symbolic statement without really meaning each of its components). The Pledge itself likewise literally endorses the existence of God."

Eugene Volokh supports the legality of teacher led recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance to public school children, though opposes the idea that it is correct because it respects that the nation was founded by religious people or are religious now. No, he says what one must: it is a theological statement. He earlier discussed how this is somehow okay, but his suggestion that the fact that we did it for awhile (not really ... the Pledge as written is less than fifty years old) doesn't seem to "cut it." Volokh also brings up the slippery slope argument (such slopes are one of his famous concerns ... he's kind of the skiing law professor ... okay, sorry).

How about the Star Spangled Banner? You mean the one not said daily and when said often does not include the stanza with mention of God (for instance, at ball games, only the first stanza is usually sung)? Short and pithy daily recitations of theological beliefs is of a different kind. I doubt it will be overturned, pragmatically it probably should not be, but sorry, it is unconstitutional.

---

Sound Clips:CSPAN is great for political junkies and on weekends for book junkies. Some of the top events can be viewed on its website, including (currently) the Hudson Institute Panel on Neoconservative Movement (Talking Points Memo bloggist, Joshua Marshall is on hand for the other side) and recent Washington Journal episodes, which have guest journalists and others commenting on what is in the current papers.