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.
Tootie,
The use of eminent domain for enrichment is always wrong. What belongs to others (in this case all the citizens of the US) cannot and should not be taken by the the people of the State of Utah just because it will help them pay their bills. That’s where emminent domain abuse started.
I am totally against taking what belongs to other, because taking it will make your life better.
If Utah was to make a legitimate offer at fair market value, for the purposes originally stated in the Bill, (i.e. to build a much needed road) I would tend to support such use of emminent domain, but to do so because they want to assume the natural resources that belong to the citizens of the US, for personal/state enrichment of those in Utah, is wrong.
Duh: Okay, I’m breathing. Thanks for the tip:
Here is my post with only 1 link in it:
Let’s dig into this story.
What was the purpose of eminent domain? The purpose was to assure the federal government had that which it needed to remain a federal government: highways, places to build buildings, installations, and etc.
But no one in their right mind thinks the feds need 60 percent of Utah in order to remain a federal government. No one.
Okay, then there is this:
“Estimated U.S. oil shale reserves total an astonishing 1.5 trillion barrels of oil – or more than five times the
stated reserves of Saudi Arabia.” (Daily Reckoning Online)
And:
“There is an estimated 2 trillion barrels of oil buried beneath parts of Colorado, UTAH and Wyoming. Geologists, petroleum companies and the federal government have known about these massive deposits for nearly a century.” [my emphasis] (American Free Press online)
So what is going on (outside of theft) with the feds seizing all that territory loaded with shale oil?
That land has the money we need to wipe out our debt and/or provide us with the fuel we need to function. But that’s a good thing, yes? If criminals weren’t running D.C. The problem with giving the criminals in congress control over all that wealth is that they are still criminals who promote slavery/Marxism/theft and so they will not fix what was broken and causing economic chaos.*
Resources:
* Google: The Perils of Economic Ignorance by Ron Paul
http://www.nationalatlas.gov/natlas/Natlasstart.asp
(a Map of federally owned land, once you go to this link it won’t let you back to this website, so open up another page, bring up Turley and this thread, then go to the link, if you wish)
Tootie,
Don’t hold your breath while awaiting moderation. If you put more than 2 hyperlinks in your post, it will probably be awaiting moderation for a long time. When it does get approved, it will show up at the time you submitted it. Chances are nobody will ever go back and respond to it.
I’m not so sure this can’t go anywhere. My reading of the Constitution would tend to agree with what Vince Treacy stated above. Then I started doing some more research on the subject and came across this;
“It is not questioned that land within a state purchased by the United States as a mere proprietor, and not reserved or appropriated to any special purpose, may be liable to condemnation for streets or highways, like the land of other proprietors, under the rights of eminent domain.”
~ United States v. Chicago, 48 U.S. 7 How. 185 185 (1849)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/48/185/case.html
Is a National Park a specific enough purpose to prevent Utah from condemning the land in order to use it for the purpose of building a road?
I’m sitting here awaiting moderation.
😮
So, [March 30, 2010 at 10:29 am] “The AG of Utah is claiming that the Federal government hasn’t held up its end of the contract in which Utah’s statehood was granted.”
So let’s see that contract before denouncing JT’s constitutional analysis. Let’s have a link. What were the terms? What was the consideration for the contract?
In the end, it is clear that contractual undertakings cannot nullify or supersede an express provision of the Constitution.
The Congress has the power to dispose of federal territory property. That is spelled out in certain terms. All the States are bound by those terms. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Utah is no better than any other States. It is one of the United States, and it is governed by the Constitution.
Some have argued that Utah never lived up to its own contractual obligation to eliminate polygamy.
Joe, up at the top of the thread, said “How is this unconstitutional when the Constitution was written to protect us from the fed not the other way around?”
No part of the Constitution provides that it “was written to protect us from the fed not the other way around.” That is just his interpretation, whatever it means.
The Framers actually set forth the purpose of the Constitution in writing: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The Framers attained these objectives when they empowered the Congress to administer and control the territories and property of the United States for the benefit of all Americans in order to “promote the general Welfare.”
Mespo:
wouldnt that be “Who’s mashing whom?”?
Puzzling wrote, March 29, 2010 at 9:47 pm: “The federal government owns 60% of the land in Utah and 98% of the land in Alaska.
“Was that the long-term intention?
Since a professor of constitutional law conducts this blog, let’s take a look at the actual text of the Constitution. Article IV, sec. 2 provides “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”
This language is plain and unambiguous. Congress has the power to dispose of the territory and other property belonging to the United States. Until then, it makes all needful rules and regulations. That is what the Framers wrote and the voters ratified, and it has not been amended.
The States retained many rights under the Constitution, but they expressly ceded the right to control the property of the United States to the Congress. History shows that one of the major aims of the Constitution was to resolve the conflicting claims of the 13 States to the western territories. The Constitution successfully resolved that problem.
So an individual State cannot upend this constitutional system unilaterally. The consent of Congress is essential to the disposition of federal property.
That is why JT called this grafitti legislation. It is frivolous in the extreme. It is the legislative equivalent to an Orly Taitz lawsuit, or to a bill to make the value of “pi” 3.0. Abraham Lincoln would have compared it to the Pope’s Bull against the Comet.
Puzzling has a lot more questions: “Who knows better how to utilize and develop the natural resources in Utah? Washington DC, or the people of Utah?
“Why should this wealth remain frozen while ever higher taxes extract earnings from individuals and government debt forces future generations into a lifetime of debt slavery?
“The goal should be to remove these resources from government control entirely.”
Very sorry, puzzler, but the Constitution provides that Congress has the power to determine the fate of those natural resources, since it has the express power to make all needful regulations.
Don’t like it? Get the Senators and Representatives to adopt the desired goals.
The folks in Utah might like to strip mine most of their state, or sell it to developers, but they were not given that choice under the Constitution. If they didn’t like it, they didn’t have to become a state.
ALL the people of the United States elect the representatives in Washington. They administer its territories and property in trust for the benefit of all Americans.
Some may think that the people of Utah would better care for the property. Well, it that is the case, then PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.
That’s right. If you don’t like it, amend the Constitution.
In the alternative, have Senators Hatch and Bennett and Rep Chafetz propose legislation and get it passed by the representatives of all the people. If it is such a good idea to “unfreeze” all that wealth, then put a bill in the hopper to sell all the federal lands, and let the representative of all the people decide.
Secretary Seward purchased Alaska for the United States for the benefit of all Americans. All American should have a say in its disposal. That is what the Constitution provides, and that is the way it should be.
Maybe the Utahns have all the answers, but the Framers thought otherwise.
Much of the territory of the U.S. has been preserved for all time for the benefit of all future Americans in the form of National Parks.
I for one would not like to see Utah pave over our national heritage.
pacman:
“Again, I’m surprised at the shallowness of Turley’s analysis and the gullibility of a great many cynical posters. For those that read the link rather than gulp down Turley’s light treatment,…”
*********************
Because we can and do read we noticed this in the article:
“The goal is to spark a U.S. Supreme Court battle that legislators’ own attorneys acknowledge has little chance of success.”
We call that a frivolous filing made in bad faith down at the courthouse, and that is precisely what Professor Turley’ “shallow” analysis concluded.
Who’s mashing who?
Again, I’m surprised at the shallowness of Turley’s analysis and the gullibility of a great many cynical posters. For those that read the link rather than gulp down Turley’s light treatment, the AG of Utah is claiming that the Federal government hasn’t held up its end of the contract in which Utah’s statehood was granted – that allegedly being a sale of much of these lands to the state. I haven’t seen the briefs, but such grounds seem pretty darn reasonable. Much more than many of the fools that frequent this board that would rather turn substance in political mash simply because they are…being political.
I’m not totally opposed to drilling and mining, but the way these things usually work out is for the state to lease the land out to politically-connected contractors at bargain-basement rates, with no environmental protections, with the result that the states gain little or no net revenue and the land is completely trashed and useless for anything else in the future.
This reminds me of the “Sagebrush Rebellion” of thirty or so years ago, in which ranchers who had grown fat grazing cattle on BLM land for free or at absurdly low lease rates, got upset when the rates were increased to near market levels and restrictions were placed on the number of cattle that could graze in a season, and wanted the states to take over the land so they could go back to the good old days.
As long as there is a consistent effort in following this on the dot then maybe this can be a good news. However, just like any other ought to be helpful stuff provided by the government, poor implementation will simply trash everything out
Joe ..
1. Who’s “us” in “How is this unconstitutional when the Constitution was written to protect us from the fed not the other way around?”
And
2. who’s going to protect this “us” from the governor?
Fact is the governor might just as easily have signed a law declaring him POTUS. It would’ve had just as much legislative power…
Talk about having an idiot for governor…
Paul, you are funny.
I travel in conservative circles and I don’t of anyone who approaches the Constitution as if it were inerrant or unchangeable. I’m not sure why you want to portray them in that way.
Mass murder of unarmed citizens by government has proven over time to be the more dangerous to citizens.
http://www.jpfo.org/pdf02/genocide-chart.pdf
I am perpetually bemused and puzzled by those that see the Constitution as a parallel to the Bible. To them, the Constitution is the inerrant word of the founders, just as the extreme Christians believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. What they both are, in fact, are the products of men, written during a certain time and age.
Fortunately for us, the authors of our Constitution had the foresight to know they wouldn’t get it perfect, and made provisions for its amending. (If only Biblical scribes had the same wisdom)
I think it is important to try to ascertain the intent of the founders, and then use our best wisdom to see if it makes sense in this time and age. Anyone who thinks we don’t have a problem with guns in this country had never been outside the US, or is in some state of delusion. And by the way, for the so-called originalists like Scalia, who don’t see a right to privacy expressed in the Constitution, I would love for them to point to where the Constitution says that corporations are persons.
We need to cut military spending (more than the rest of the world combined), raise taxes back to where they were, start cutting unnecessary programs, and get with the 21st century.
Amazing that the tea-baggers, whose big issue is taxation, cannot correctly answer whether or not their taxes have gone up or down under the Obama administration. Who knew the cry-babies, whiners and sore losers would turn out to be the Republicans?
rafflaw,
We have $12.6 trillion in federal debt, and probably $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities not counting the impact of a new health care entitlement.
We can:
1. Print up trillion dollar bills to pay back our debt, destroying the currency and anyone who has savings or a paycheck in US dollars
2. Plan to default on the debt (since we have so many nukes)
3. Honor the debt plus interest, thereby allowing foreign debt holders to buy up much of America with the cash
4. Put frozen government assets (like Alaska’s energy resources) to use, end the petro-wars, radically reduce government, and stop the debt enslavement of our grandchildren
5. Pretend nothing is wrong and keep digging
Puzzling,
In light of the brain power of the Utah Governor, maybe the Feds will do a better job protecting the natural resources. To put Federally protected areas leads to the States trying to auction them off to the highest bidder and the open land will soon be gone.
The federal government owns 60% of the land in Utah and 98% of the land in Alaska.
Was that the long-term intention?
Who knows better how to utilize and develop the natural resources in Utah? Washington DC, or the people of Utah?
Why should this wealth remain frozen while ever higher taxes extract earnings from individuals and government debt forces future generations into a lifetime of debt slavery?
The goal should be to remove these resources from government control entirely.