States compete with each other for economic development,
population, tourism and GDP, but many Western States are denied their
constitutional right to State sovereignty. States are demanding the return of
federal lands and should be in a better position to administer these lands
going forward if they are able to sell land appropriate for private sector
ownership.
The annual Forest Fire Festival is winding down for 2019 and
needs to be ended by privatizing our forest land to establish family-owned tree
farming.
Grazing land should also be privatized by rancher owned co-ops
to compete with global food companies. Imports of live animals should be
curtailed. In 2018, US ranchers had 94.4 thousand cattle.
https://www.beef2live.com/story-top-10-states-cattle-0-110713 Cattle imports in 2019 are 1.63 million. The
US could end the live animal imports and give US ranchers a break.
Lobbying the federal government for subsidies would end and
States would be free to maintain and enhance “State Parks” without federal
funds. Mineral, drilling and mining rights should be allowed by law.
Trump Needs to Transfer All Federal Land Back to the States, by Steve Baldwin,
1/11/18.
With President Trump’s recent order to “shrink” two massive
federal land grabs in Utah and a shocking turn of events in the Bundy Ranch/BLM
controversy, the issue of federal land ownership is back in the news. Both
events illustrate how the federal government has used its massive land holdings
to control the lives of Americans. And lurking in the background of these
events is the constitutionality of federal land ownership, an issue that has
been ignored for generations by politicians, the courts, and the media. Indeed,
the evidence is fairly clear that our founding fathers did not design the
federal government to be America’s largest landowner with all the abuses that
entails.
The federal government now has a total of 640 million acres
under its control — almost a third of the nation’s land. 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% of it. This land is primarily administered by the
United States Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service (NPS), the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The
Department of Defense also owns 20 million acres.
But if liberals had their way, even more land would be
seized by the feds. Fortunately, it is unlikely this administration will engage
in any state land confiscations. Indeed, Trump’s action to decrease the acreage
of the two Utah “monuments” is a good start in rolling back this abuse of
federal power. These monuments were created by decree under President’s Clinton
and Obama by abusing the narrow intent of the 1906 Antiquities Act. Combined,
the two preserves originally encompassed 3.2 million acres, but Trump knocked
them down to 1.2 million acres. 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.
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 other words,
Clinton crippled America’s energy capabilities in order to enrich his friends
and himself. As with nearly everything the Clintons do, their operating
principle has remained remarkably consistent: “Big donors first; America last.”
The history of federal land management is not a pretty one.
Heavy-handed federal land seizures have been ongoing for decades in
coordination with radical environmentalist groups and almost always without the
support of state leaders, Native American tribes, and the people who work the
land such as miners, ranchers, farmers, loggers, etc. Indeed, a report by the
Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), titled Divided
Lands: State vs. Federal Management in the West, concluded that “By nearly all accounts,
our federal lands are in trouble, both in terms of fiscal performance and
environmental stewardship.”
The report says that states “produce far greater financial
returns from land management than federal land agencies. In fact, the federal
government often loses money managing valuable natural resources. States, on
the other hand, consistently generate significant amounts of revenue from state
trust lands. On average, states earn more revenue per dollar spent than the
federal government for each of the natural resources we examined, including
timber, grazing, minerals, and recreation.” Incredibly, states “earn an average
of $14.51 for every dollar spent on state trust land management,” while the
USFS and BLM “generate only 73 cents in return for every dollar spent on
federal land management.”
That’s a 20-to-1 ratio. In other words, the feds couldn’t
responsibly manage a garden, let alone the millions of acres they control. No
one should be surprised. That’s why Trump’s action on the Utah monuments will
be good for Utah, good for the state’s budget, and good for the environment
because Utah will manage that land far more efficiently than will the federal
government.
But back to 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 unenumerated 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.
Moreover, the Constitution even details what to do with
federally owned property inside newly acquired states. It declares that the
federal government has a duty to dispose of this land unless it is being used
for an enumerated purpose, meaning that all federal land not being
used for activities specifically authorized by the Constitution should be
transferred back to the states. An in-depth analysis of these clauses by the 10th Amendment
Center can be found here.
At no time did America’s founders ever envision a system of
land ownership that granted the federal government ownership of almost a third
of the nation’s land. And this is totally logical and consistent with
everything the founding fathers wrote and said about federal power. They feared
federal power so much they divided it into three branches and did everything
they could to protect the rights of states. Our founders knew that widespread
federal land ownership would be used to blackmail states and compromise their
independence.
Indeed, during the federal convention debates of September,
1787, Elbridge Gerry — the future VP under President James Madison — argued
that 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.” Even the Federalists, who
advocated a slightly stronger central government, did not favor federal land
ownership outside of the Constitution’s enumerated purposes. We know that
because they voted to ratify the Constitution with the aforementioned
restrictions on federal land ownership.
It is clear that generations of politicians and even
federal judges have ignored the constitutional restrictions on federal land
ownership. Over the last 150 years, the federal government, using the BLM,
USFS, FWS, NPS and even the Department of Defense, has held on to millions of
acres that should have been turned over to the states once they joined the
union. And the feds have increased this acreage with various seizures over the
years, usually under some type of “environmental” pretense. Then they erected a
vast array of outrageous regulatory and land use controls over mining, farming,
logging, oil exploration, and so forth, in most cases with no input from local
governments or the people affected. This abuse has come at the expense of state
governance and is a total rejection of Republicanism and decentralized power as
clearly advocated by our founders. This is precisely the type of federal abuse
many of the Constitution’s signers feared would occur.
Indeed, in the Western states, clashes between federal land
management agencies and those who live and work on or near these land holdings
are frequent, but the mainstream media often ignores such stories. However,
most readers will remember the Cliven Bundy incident, the Nevada rancher who
refused to pay $1.2 million in grazing fees to the BLM on grounds the land
belonged to Nevada, not to the feds. When the Bureau threatened to seize the
ranch in 2014, hundreds of cowboys and militia members poured in from all over
the country to defend the property. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed and the
feds backed down. Many Americans were shocked at the appearance of armed
citizens, but the reality is that our founding fathers argued in favor of gun
ownership precisely for the purpose of resisting government tyranny.
The Bureau of Land Management’s police-state actions at the
ranch were recently exposed, thanks to former BLM Special Agent and
whistle-blower Larry Wooten, whose shocking report details the agency’s complete
disregard for the rights of the Bundy family. In his report, which became
public in early December, Wooten wrote that “… 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.”
Wooten wrote that the BLM had photos of Cliven Bundy and
Eric Parker on its “arrest tracking wall,” but with x’s marked through their
faces and bodies, as if they were to be eliminated. He also reported that the
Special Agent in Charge, Dan Love, had boasted that his actions in a previous
BLM controversy led to a number of people committing suicide.
Wooten’s report
details outrageous statements by officials such as, “Go out there and kick
Cliven Bundy in the mouth (or teeth) and take his cattle.” And the report says
that the agents commonly referred to the Bundys and their supporters as
“rednecks,” “retards,” and “douche bags.” One agent even boasted about
“grinding” a Bundy family member’s face into the gravel.
There were also descriptive titles given to body cam videos
taken of the Bundy ranch, such as “Are you f–king people stupid or what,”
“Pretty much a shoot first, ask question later,” and “Shoot his f–king dog
first.” Indeed, the Wooten report exposes the agency as full of arrogant
do-gooders who think they are better than the rural folks they obviously
detest, a mentality similar to the attitudes held by some ATF and FBI agents at
Waco and Ruby Ridge. Indeed, Wooten wrote that he thought the Bundy ranch
confrontation very well could have turned deadly due to the attitude of the BLM
agents. One can just envision the thoughts of these agents: Hey, the FBI and ATF got
to shoot civilians at Waco, why can’t we?
This report and more were part of a cache of 3,000
documents that Bundy’s attorneys proved to the court were illegally withheld
from them by the BLM and the U.S. Attorney’s office. As a result, on December
20, Judge Gloria Navarro dismissed the case, although Cliven Bundy could be
tried again. Two other trials against other Bundy ranch defendants ended in
hung juries. Bundy has always maintained that his case was all about Obama’s
hatred for those who work the land and by, extension, an out of control BLM
that thrives on harassing hard-working Americans. It appears he is correct.
The Wooten report can be
read here, but be forewarned: it has descriptions of behavior too
obscene to quote here. Trump should not only order the BLM to drop its
persecution of Cliven Bundy but, on misconduct grounds alone, he should fire
everyone involved with the Bundy case.
Lastly, it should be pointed out that the Bundy
confrontation was likely about Democrat cronyism and fundraising. Reports
appearing in Bloomberg,
Breitbart, and Reuters in 2014 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.
Although the Chinese deal apparently fell through, at the
time the BLM was trying to shut down Bundy’s ranch the deal was very much
alive. Incidentally, the BLM has to approve any deal allowing a private company
to profit off of its land holdings, but not a problem. The BLM director was
Neil Kornze, an Obama appointee and Reid’s former senior adviser. The fix was
in.
But not to worry. After the Chinese deal fell apart, Reid
began working closely with a company called First Solar on a project called the
Moapa Southern Paiute Solar Project, which, again, targets the area Bundy’s
cattle grazes on. As reported by
the Courtwatcherblog that
monitors Reid’s shady solar power/public land dealings: “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…”
First Solar, by the way, was funded in part by Goldman
Sachs, a million dollar Obama contributor. Other investors include Obama
bundlers Bruce Heyman and David Heller, two Goldman Sachs executives who served
on Obama’s 2008 Finance Committee. Yet another Obama bundler, Paul Tudor
Jones, was a major investor in First Solar and First Solar’s CEO, Michael
Ahearn, is also a big Democrat donor.
In other words, the effort to close down the Bundy ranch
probably had less to do with grazing fees than with Harry Reid figuring out a
way to convert cattle grazing land to a solar farm, thereby rewarding Democrat
fat cats who in turn fund Democrat politicians. This is what the BLM has
become: an agency that facilitates the creation of projects that financially
benefit the Democrats.
Trump’s action to shrink federal land seizures is
admirable, but there is much more he could do if he really wants to restore the
Constitution’s restrictions on federal land ownership. He should abolish the
BLM and all other land-managing federal agencies and transfer all their
holdings back to the states, included federal preserves and national parks,
with the only exception being land needed specifically for military use and
federal offices of various kinds. This action would be on solid constitutional
grounds. Moreover, the states already have competent land management agencies
that can easily, and more efficiently, manage this land.
Certainly there has been litigation over the years
involving the constitionality of federal land ownership but most of these cases
feature liberal judges turning themselves into pretzels trying to ignore the
plain meaning of the constitution. Typically, these judges managed to find
phony “rights” that allow the feds to justify its ownership of a third of
America’s land. There’s no doubt any effort by Trump to end the federal
government’s illegal land ownership regime would be challenged in the courts
but such a case would likely end up in the Supreme Court and there’s a good
chance the high court would rule in his favor. There is simply no body of
writing by the founders that justify federal control of so much acreage that
have absolutely zero nexus to the Constitution’s enumerated powers. It’s that
simple.
Aside from restoring proper constitutional restrictions on
federal land ownership, such a massive transfer of federal land would do a number
of things. First, it would energize the economy of many states. Over the last
50 years, millions of acres of land with potential oil and gas reserves,
timber, mining deposits and so forth were foolishly placed off limits by
federal land confiscations created by presidential orders or congressional
action. The long-running federal war on cattle, farmers, loggers, ranchers, and
miners would largely come to an end as state agencies and politicians would be
far more accountable to the people who live off these lands.
Secondly, contrary to the inevitable hysteria of the
environmentalists, there is little doubt some of this land would become state
preserves as the citizens of each state will want to preserve environmentally
sensitive land and historic landmarks. And the states will do a better job
managing environmentally important land than would federal agencies that take
orders from distant bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. The point is, it will be
the citizens of each state who, through their legislatures and state agencies,
would make the decisions as to how best to manage their own land.
The National Parks may be a special issue. While they also
lack a constitutional basis, they could be transferred back to state control on
the condition they continue to operate them as parks. Indeed, states wouldn’t
have it any other way since there is much money to be made from the national
parks in the way of tourism, camping, hiking and so on.
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.
Norb
Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment