In the latest sign of how American politics has descended into virtual graffiti legislation, the governor of Utah has signed legislation authorizing the state to exercise eminent domain over federal lands. It is clearly unconstitutional but that seems to matter little to legislators or Gov. Gary Herbert who signed the two bills.
What is truly amazing is that the state is setting aside $3 million dollars to litigate the frivolous claims at a time when the state is facing budget shortfalls and other economic problems.
For the full story, click here.
the state could reap millions of dollars for state schools each year if it wins.
But if the law is as bad as Democrats say it is, a court will quickly overturn it and the state won’t have to spend much money defending it.
You go Guvner I hope you win.
I shouldn’t be snickering about this but I am. Eminent domain has been too easily abused since Kelo, and maybe now that the federal government gets to be on the receiving end (legally or otherwise), they’ll do something to dial it back a little.
Incidentally, I’m with the confused parties: given Kelo and other case law on the subject, I’m not sure how any land within Utah’s borders is protected from a compensated claim, regardless of the fact that the current owner is the federal government.
Skepticrising:
what is idiotic about what he said? A good many people believe that we have become way too progressive and are abandoning our founding principles.
Personally I think many left/progressive views are wrong but I dont tell them they are moronic or have a brain injury.
Buckeye:
But Bill Clinton can make a vast expanse of Utah off limits to development by designating it as a National Park to pay back his Sierra Club buddies for supporting his election and that is constitutional?
And who says having a college degree is necessary to understanding the constitution? From what I can see 4 or 5 individuals sitting on the Supreme Court currently dont understand it or if they do they subvert it to their personal desires.
I have plenty of both, Byron. I have just grown tired of having to treat idiocy seriously.
Governor Herbert doesn’t even have a college degree, let alone a law degree, so maybe he can be excused for not knowing that what he proposes is unconstitutional.
He also thinks municipalities should be able to file the same types of lawsuits against the state. Now maybe that was before he became the Governor, but you can see where this is going. The next step is citizens can sue the municipalities to gain their portion of the local park, school, and library properties.
He is a Republican, but sounds more like a tea party fan to me.
Skeptic Rising:
Is there any hope you will develop a conscience or human decency?
Mac,
Sorry to hear about the head injury you suffered in Viet Nam. Is there any hope of even a partial recovery?
Well of course they weren’t originally federal lands, Joe. They belonged to the aboriginal people that lived in what is now Utah before the land was taken from them.
This Governor is trying to score points by aligning himself with the so-called “tenthers.”
Where the hell were all the whiners and complainers when the Bush administration was running things into the ground?
Foo:
I hope you are not studying Constitutional Law, it is fast becoming irrelevant.
Mac,
How do you feel about the fact that Viet Nam is Communist now, and that the US has more or less normal relations with it?
This law suit is much like the law suit by various AG’s contending that the new health care plan violates Congress’ Commerce Clause powers.
I do agree with you Mac to some extent about having money and lawyers, even though I’m going to be a lawyer myself.
The USA is fair if you have money for endless lawyers or you are a lwyer with endless available time & money. This country is what I thought I was fighting (in Viet Nam) to keep our country from becoming…Communist! It seems more so all the time, and it’s very troubeling.
My thought is that this may just be the beginning of this type of frivolous law suit and we should see more and more as we progress
Quotes from the article:
“The goal is to spark a U.S. Supreme Court battle that legislators’ own attorneys acknowledge has little chance of success.”
“Utah lawmakers contend the federal government should have long ago sold the land it owns in the state. Because it hasn’t, the federal government has violated a contract made with Utah when statehood was granted, they say.”
I’m not that familiar with this aspect of the 5th Am, but for starters I’d say the Supremacy Clause trumps this. No explanation why the federal government “should” have sold the land, and it’s certainly not clear that there is any “contract” between the Utah and the Feds as a result of entering the Union. All states gave up some sovereignty upon joining.
Summary: waste of time and Utah tax payer’s money.
Ahhh, an election for governor is coming up. Now it make sense. Using tax money to fund what is essentially a political ploy, priceless.
I believe the rest of the story is that these were not originally federal lands. However, I do not share in the belief that the government has any right to enact blanket eminent domain, but my belief extends to both federal and state governments. My point is that the state of Utah “appears” to be merely using the law in reverse to the advantage of it’s citizens. You know, the people that actually live in Utah not Washington DC. I was hoping that Prof Turley would explain why this “unconstitutional”? This also presupposes the belief that the federal government actually owns anything as if it were an entity unto itself. Cause if that’s the case, I’d like to see it pay it’s own bills just once.
This story deserves an abundance of coverage. I think that “graffiti legislation” is too mild a term for what is occurring in Utah and elsewhere in the *United States of America*.
Perhaps a more descriptive term is roadside Rest Area bathroom wall scribbling legislation via backed-up cesspool politics.
“Graffiti Legislation” – Great term, Prof. Seems like that’s all there is these days.
Joe, you’re right about the nature of the Constitution, but the lands in question are OWNED by the federal government. It would be like the state enacting blanket eminent domain legislation on a private person or corporate entity, like Walmart.
The GOP is like a bunch of children who’ve eaten too much sugar. Their behavior is increasingly out of control and they don’t seem to have the sense (as a friend used to say) god gave a crow bar.
How is this unconstitutional when the Constitution was written to protect us from the fed not the other way around?