LEGISLATOR CALLS ON FEDS TO
GIVE UP LAND OWNERSHIP, No constitutional right to 'grazing,
mineral development, agriculture, forests, or even national parks', by Bob
Unruh, 1/13/18, WND
If President Trump wants to be known as a president seeking the restoration of the U.S. Constitution, one of his goals should be to turn federal lands – the millions of acres run by the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service and National Park Service – over to the states.
It’s because the Constitution
doesn’t allow for federal ownership of land unless it’s for certain
limited purposes, argues a former California lawmaker.
Steve Baldwin served in the
California Assembly from 1994 to 2000 and was minority whip during that time.
He’s argued in a new report in the
American Spectator that two recent cases
highlight the problem with the federal government owning vast acreages.
And he says the solution is in
the Constitution. “Most Americans have no clue what our founders said about
federal land management. The Constitution’s Property Clause (Article IV,
Section 3, Clause 2) gave Congress the power to dispose of property, but does
not mention a power to acquire property. However, under the Necessary and
Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18), the federal government was
given the power to acquire land but only for the purpose of carrying out its
enumerated powers. This would include parcels for military uses, post offices,
etc.
“Nowhere does the Constitution give
the federal government the power to retain acreage for un-enumerated purposes
such as grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or even national
parks. This was wisely left up to the prerogative of the states and the
people.”
He noted the issue has arisen before. Sen. Tom Coburn has come up with the answer to a Washington bureaucracy that doesn’t seem to care about the Constitution, or American people: An Article V convention, which he describes in “Smashing the DC Monopoly: Using Article V to Restore Freedom and Stop Runaway Government.” “Most Americans have forgotten this, but the shady tactics of federal land management agencies were a big issue in Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign. At the time, the movement of those fighting such abuses was called the ‘Sagebrush Rebellion,’ and this issue propelled tens of thousands of voters to support Reagan’s candidacy. To be honest, though, Reagan was unable to carry out any substantial reforms regarding federal land ownership.
“If Trump wants to go down in
history as a president who restored the federal government to its proper
limited role, then he should revitalize this forgotten section of the U.S.
Constitution and transfer all non-enumerated federal land back to the states.
Such action will allow states to control their own destinies, create better
managed parks and preserves, and create tens of thousands of new jobs by
energizing natural resource industries such as oil, natural gas, mining, and
timber. “This is a perfect issue for him. Be bold, Mr. President, and just do
it.”
The two issues that came up
recently, he explained, were Trump’s decision to reduce the size of federal
land grabs under Bill Clinton and the fight over the Bundy Ranch grazing
rights. “Both events illustrate how the federal government has used its massive
land holdings to control the lives of Americans,” he said.
At this point, the federal
bureaucracy has acquired some 640 million acres of the nation, about one-third.
“The majority of land in Nevada, Alaska, Utah, Oregon and Idaho is owned by the
feds. In Arizona, California, Wyoming, New Mexico and Colorado, federal
ownership exceeds a third. Indeed, if all 11 Western states were combined into
one territory, the feds would own nearly 50 percent of it,” he wrote.
The Utah land fight saw Trump knock
down the size of the lands demanded under Clinton and Barack Obama from 3.2
million acres to about 1.2 million.
Not surprisingly, the left went ballistic, but the truth is Trump is the one acting in accord with the Constitution and in the best interest of the people of Utah, and even the environment,” he pointed out.
“Both of these land grabs were
initiated with little or no input from Utah’s civic, political, and business
leaders. And, of course, as with most Democrat ‘environmental’ initiatives,
cronyism and corruption are evident. For example, Bill Clinton’s Utah land
grab, the ‘Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument’, placed off-limits all
energy development, including the world’s largest known deposit of clean
burning coal. Not coincidentally, this proviso also quietly benefited the
owners of the world’s second-largest deposit of clean burning coal: the Lippo
group, owned by the Indonesia-based Riady family and, of course, large donors
to the Clinton Foundation (and huge Clinton donors going back decades).”
In the Bundy case, in which a
federal judge recently dismissed counts and ordered the government not to file
more charges because of massive prosecutorial misconduct in the first case, the
Bureau of Land Management launched a police-state action against the ranching
family over payment of grazing rights fees. The family argued the land belonged
to the state and the feds had no right to charge fees.
Baldwin’s report explained how
former BLM Special Agent and whistleblower Larry Wooten pulled back the curtain
on the government’s nefarious activities. Wooten wrote, “the investigation
revealed a widespread pattern of bad judgment, lack of discipline, incredible
bias, unprofessionalism and misconduct, as well as likely policy, ethical, and
legal violations among senior and
supervisory staff at the BLM’s office of Law Enforcement and Security.”
For example, Wooten explained, the
BLM posted photos of the Bundy family with x’s on their faces “as if they were
to be eliminated.” His report includes statements attributed to officials such
as “Go out there and kick Cliven Bundy in the mouth (or teeth) and take his
cattle.” Other comments by the government included, “rednecks,” “retards” and
“douche bags,” the report said. Baldwin explained that there certainly were
nefarious components to the Bundy ranch fight.
“Reports indicated that former
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had teamed up with Chinese billionaire Wang
Yusuo in an effort to create a massive 9,000-acre solar energy farm on the same
federal land apparently used by Bundy to graze cattle. And Yusuo’s company, the
ENN Group, contributed over $40,000 to Reid over the course of three election
cycles. One BLM document makes clear that Bundy’s cattle grazing negatively
impacted potential solar farm development on this land,” he explained.
When that plan fell apart, Reid
began working on another project “which, again, targets the area Bundy’s cattle
grazes on.”
According to Courtwatcherblog,
“Harry Reid’s interests are clear. He doesn’t care about public lands, but what
he stands to profit off of their sale, no matter if it’s sold to China, Saudi Arabia,
Russia, or even South Africa… the facts show Harry Reid’s interests in the
Bundy men being in jail, make it a lot easier to grab their land…”
Baldwin said returning land to the
states would restore the constitutional standard, and would energize the
economies of many states. Baldwin explains that it was during federal
convention debates in 1787 that Elbridge Gerry, later vice president, issued a
warning. He said federal ownership of land “might be made use of to enslave any
particular state by buying up its territory, and that the strongholds proposed
would be a means of awing the state into an undue obedience.”
Comments
This is
the first non-blog article I’ve seen that explains the unconstitutional federal
lands problem. I’ve been writing about this for years. I have suggested that
Trump tell the Congress that if they want to keep federal land, they need to
write an Amendment adding this to the enumerated powers and submit it to the
States for ratification. It wouldn’t pass. I am against holding an Article V
Constitutional Convention because it would put our US Constitution (as written)
in danger of being replaced with the “New States Constitution” written by
Communists years ago.
Norb
Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment