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.
Byron:
“It seems to me the federal government has taken too much power for themselves. What is happening now is a very large federal power grab. It is troubling.”
*******************
We are right to be concerned with all concentrations of economic and political power. Sadly, in this shrinking world, we may need amalgamated national political power to counter-balance amalgamated multi-national corporate power. I find governments step in when there exists too little rival power (opportunism) or too much rival power (fear). Health care reform represents the latter in my view, and while I fear the governmental beast, I fear its amoral corporate adversary even more.
Mespo:
“enjoy no privacy rights in your bedroom, and have a large segment of the population in many southern states unable to vote, marry as they choose, or fully participate in the democratic process.”
You got me on that. But I dont think it is a dead document, but then I haven’t been to law school. It seems to me the federal government has taken too much power for themselves. What is happening now is a very large federal power grab. It is troubling.
AY:
Anyone for IQ floors applied to current citizens to maintain their status as such?
Is this a step towards insurrection, sufficient to try them for treason? Mutiny Anyone? Is Utah trying to out stupid Texas?
Hello all……
Foo how goes you last year of mini quiz’s?
Byron:
“Oh and why can’t a citizen spend a little time and energy and determine what the constitution says? It was written in pretty straight forward language by a group of individuals that knew the English language. And it was first and foremost designed to protect the “individual rights” of citizens, it wasn’t written with the collective in mind. But maybe I misread the Declaration.”
****************
Well, maybe so. The Constitution was written for the collective originally since its body and main provisions sets forth the structure of government for the nation with no regard for “individual” as opposed to certain states’ rights which are included. Only in the amendments, which Madison drew as a Bill of Rights, and which he unenthusiastically introduced, do we see some protection for individuals, and then only from the federal government originally. But for those judges you disparage looking for both intent and logical extensions of the Enlightenment-inspired ideas embodied in the Constitution, you would be subject to persecution from state governments, enjoy no privacy rights in your bedroom, and have a large segment of the population in many southern states unable to vote, marry as they choose, or fully participate in the democratic process. Still think that the American democracy is found within the four corners of that old “dead” document?
They have only set aside 3 mil. Doesn’t mean it will all be spent.
Buckeye:
I would be happy if most judges spent more time looking at the intent of the Founders instead of making up stuff from “emanations from the penumbra”.
Oh and why can’t a citizen spend a little time and energy and determine what the constitution says? It was written in pretty straight forward language by a group of individuals that knew the English language. And it was first and foremost designed to protect the “individual rights” of citizens, it wasn’t written with the collective in mind. But maybe I misread the Declaration.
Bdaman,
Mr. Wiser was writing about “these states.” That means plural, while additionally referencing the several points he stated that well-read, unbiased readers would readily understand.
Your commenting style—neither supplying quotes nor attributions with contextual relevance—is tiring and easily recognizable for its outstanding disingenuousness.
mespo … that sums it up, nicely!
Mike A. and Alec W.,you both hit the nail on the head.
This is a ploy by the Utah governor to score some tea bagger points because the Constitution is whatever they want it to be.
Bdaman, I believe that Alec Wisner’s point is that we all know what programs will be cut to ante up the $3,000,000.00 (or more).
Mespo, outstanding analogy.
Byron
Sounds like sour grapes all around. First “Bill Clinton did it so it must be wrong(as well as unconstitutional)”; then “Supreme Court Justices wouldn’t know a constitutional precept if it jumped up and bit them; and any citizen can do as well or better at constitutional interpretations than any “liberal” (one you don’t agree with) Justice, any day)”.
And did you like the idea of municipalities suing the states – and individuals suing the municipalities?
As with the tea party members, you are NOT authorized interpret the constitution to fit your individual notions. Sorry about that. I wish it were otherwise – for entirely different reasons, I suspect.
Alec:
You miss the literary quality of these Republican Ahab’s cursing at the tides of history and pushing the ship of state ever closer to the rocks in some some misguided attempt at slaying the great “communist” whale:
“Come, Ahab’s compliments to ye; come and see if ye can swerve me. Swerve me? ye cannot swerve me, else ye swerve yourselves! man has ye there. Swerve me? The path to my fixed purpose is laid with iron rails, whereon my soul is grooved to run. Over unsounded gorges, through the rifled hearts of mountains, under torrents’ beds, unerringly I rush! Naught’s an obstacle, naught’s an angle to the iron way!”
Turley is exactly correct when he notes that the most frivolous thing of all is that these states, facing financial crises of their own, have chosen to reduce public services even further in order to spend hundreds of millions on lawsuits that only have one purpose:
What he actually said
setting aside $3 million dollars to litigate the frivolous claims at a time when the state is facing budget shortfalls and other economic problems.
Joe,
These lawsuits are frivolous because, among other things, they were resolved by the Civil War. For example, all of these Attorneys-General ought to know that state nullification of a Federal law is clearly impermissible. That’s something they learned, or should have, in the first year of law school. But, of course, this is just grandstanding to get the votes of the ignorant who actually believe this crap.
Turley is exactly correct when he notes that the most frivolous thing of all is that these states, facing financial crises of their own, have chosen to reduce public services even further in order to spend hundreds of millions on lawsuits that only have one purpose: to stir up the ignorant who believe what they are told by their “leaders.”
‘Tis just silly.
This is another rather simple issue. My view is that the Utah legislation and the pending challenges against the health care reform legislation are examples of alternative campaign fundraising. Although the litigation will be lost, Republicans will be able to campaign strenuously against the Democratic controlled federal government, and all of the cost will be borne by taxpayers. Were a private individual to pursue such claims, the result would be not only dismissal, but the imposition of sanctions in the form of attorney’s fees. I seriously doubt that either the Utah legislature or any of the attorneys general pursuing the health care case are willing to write checks out of their own accounts to finance this legal nonsense, but in a just world, they would be required to do so.
PaulThomson
1, March 29, 2010 at 4:21 pm
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.
Paul, the aboriginal people who lived there didn’t believe in property ownership of the land and that is waaaay beside the point. As stated earlier this is just the beginning, we will see more and more of this until the court system simply collapses under the weight. You think waiting for a doctor is going to be bad wait until you have to wait for your day in court, let’s say within the next three to five years.
Bdaman:
he is using schools as an excuse because he thinks it will play better in the courts. He should be using a broader brush and say it is unconstitutional for the federal government to be able to set aside vast tracts of land for public parks. The land should be made available for development by American citizens.
But that land is going to go to the Chinese for collateral on our debt as is all land that has any mineral wealth or economic potential owned by the federal government. In a few years the good people of Utah will wake up to Chinese companies mining coal and drilling for oil and gas on federal land