To the editors of the Tulane Environmental Law Journal, circa 2001.

I am currently researching the "Roadless Rule." Like you do. As part of that research, I stumbled upon a comment by a 2002 JD candidate at Tulane named Alison S. Hoyt entitled "Roadless Area Conservation: How the 'Roadless Rule' Affects America's Forestland." Now you must understand that I am reading it primarily to avoid conducting background research; I was hoping Ms. Hoyt found sources of relevant information, allowing me to slack off for a few more days.

Unfortunately, I no longer trust Ms. Hoyt's research. In the second paragraph of the introduction, Ms. Hoyt claims "the Property Clause of the [U.S.] Constitution...grant[s] the President and the [Forest] Service the ability to implement regulations protecting the public land." Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states "The Congress shall have the Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting...other Property belonging to the United States." While this power has been held to be delegable--and so the Forest Service in fact does have certain powers, defined by statutes, to "implement regulations protecting the public land"--the aforequoted Property Clause does not grant any powers to the President or the Forest Service.

I am nit-picking here, of course. My real beef is not with Ms. Hoyt. I would not be at all surprised to know that, if confronted with this error, she would recognize immediately the poor phrasing. My beef is, rather, with the 2001 editorial staff of the Tulane Environmental Law Journal. For their failure to catch this error. And I think whoever was assigned this comment to edit should have her Constitutional Law grade reduced accordingly.