Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Utah Gov. OKs Eminent Domain Use on Federal Land
AP/Yahoo ^ | 3/29/10 | Brock Vergakis

Posted on 04/01/2010 3:26:12 AM PDT by ICAB9USA

Utah governor, aiming for court battle, approves use of eminent domain to take federal land

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Fed up with federal ownership of more than half the land in Utah, Republican Gov. Gary Herbert on Saturday authorized the use of eminent domain to take some of the U.S. government's most valuable parcels.

Herbert signed a pair of bills into law that supporters hope will trigger a flood of similar legislation throughout the West, where lawmakers contend that federal ownership restricts economic development in an energy-rich part of the country.

Governments use eminent domain to take private property for public use.

The goal is to spark a U.S. Supreme Court battle that legislators' own attorneys acknowledge has little chance of success.

But Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and other Republicans say the case is still worth fighting, since the state could reap millions of dollars for state schools each year if it wins.

More than 60 percent of Utah is owned by the U.S. government, and policy makers here have long complained that federal ownership hinders their ability to generate tax revenue and adequately fund public schools. Utah spends less per student than any other state and has the nation's largest class sizes. Under the measure Herbert has approved, the state will set aside $3 million to defend the law.

(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: eminent; government; land; waste
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
To: Brian C. Ledbetter

(”To whit?” I stink, and obviously need more coffee...)


21 posted on 04/01/2010 7:42:36 AM PDT by Brian C. Ledbetter (SnappedShot.com: Hated by both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Associated Press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Thermalseeker

right on


22 posted on 04/01/2010 8:31:36 AM PDT by ICAB9USA (If you want your dreams to come true, don't sleep quite so much ...............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

we’ll see..........


23 posted on 04/01/2010 8:32:48 AM PDT by ICAB9USA (If you want your dreams to come true, don't sleep quite so much ...............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ICAB9USA
we’ll see..........

We almost certainly will. It's probably something the Supreme Court needs to address sooner rather than later.

24 posted on 04/01/2010 8:34:31 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ICAB9USA
More than 60 percent of Utah is owned by the U.S. government...

And the Constitutional authority for the Fed Gov to own land other than national parks and the nation's capital is contained in Article.... Umm... Section... Uhhh....

Never mind.

25 posted on 04/01/2010 8:38:05 AM PDT by TChris ("Hello", the politician lied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Yes.

Looks like the Supreme Court is going to be doing a hell of a lot in the near future concerning Obama and his destruction of the country and the Constitution.

26 posted on 04/01/2010 8:42:09 AM PDT by ICAB9USA (If you want your dreams to come true, don't sleep quite so much ...............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Jabba the Nutt

Yes sir.


27 posted on 04/01/2010 8:42:54 AM PDT by ICAB9USA (If you want your dreams to come true, don't sleep quite so much ...............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Brian C. Ledbetter

Ya know it’s bad enough that they practically stole it to begin with, but then: Along come the envirowhacko’s and the groups that want to preserve it for people now unborn thereby keeping people who are already born off of it.

They want no recreational use of it. no commercial uses of it, they just want it to lay there untouched. Which in some cases is fine but in others is a colossal waste.


28 posted on 04/01/2010 8:45:12 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ICAB9USA
Looks like the Supreme Court is going to be doing a hell of a lot in the near future concerning Obama and his destruction of the country and the Constitution.

That's it's job. I can easily see them tossing the health care initiative. And I doubt this action on the part of Utah will stand either. Article IV is pretty specific.

29 posted on 04/01/2010 8:45:54 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
re: That's it's job. I can easily see them tossing the health care initiative. And I doubt this action on the part of Utah will stand either. Article IV is pretty specific.

_________

I guess we'll see (again).

I am to the point in life where I merely ask for God's miracles as solutions. Most of the "humans" in our government have little to do with God, as I see it today.

;-)

30 posted on 04/01/2010 10:15:02 AM PDT by ICAB9USA (If you want your dreams to come true, don't sleep quite so much ...............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

For the sake of fairness, justice, and the desperately needed Constitutional law, I hope to make sure Utah wins this fight on the behalf of All States! What the Feds are doing to Utah is truly an untenable threat to all Americans!

The history of State cessions being required to establish new States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_cessions

Seems to indicate the Federal Government did not simply acquire first ownership of any land until the Louisiana Purchase, where the Federal government for the first time directly acquired jurisdictional territory as defined in Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2.

While at the same time parts 2, 4, and 5 of Federalist #43
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa43.htm

Seems to be written in light of this development as the Feds had already acquired territorial jurisdiction of some of the land by cession of some but not all of the States, thus with the reality of overlapping clams particularly in the North the Article 4 Section 3 clause 2’s line: “nothing in the Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

Seems to make a lot of sense as James Madison explained it in part 5 of Federalist 43 in saying the Federal government cannot weld such territorial jurisdiction until such time as the all other such clams have been resolved.
See definition of the word “proviso”:
“ a clause in a document or contract that embodies a condition or stipulation”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proviso

Anyway the key issue here is the differences between federal territorial jurisdiction and that of state Jurisdiction, and whether or not the Federal government can Admit a state to the union and not recognizes the State as having full jurisdiction over all the territory the Federal government has recognized that state as having.

I would like to look further into the issue of the Eastern States and how they have managed to obtain full jurisdiction over so much of their land while the Western States have so little...

Were they granted full initial title to all of their land as well as full jurisdictional rights in their initial statehood?

Is it even possible for both the State and the Federal government to have such “State level jurisdiction” within the recognized bounds of a State?

If so why then do we have Article 4 Section 3, or Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17? Both of which clearly segregate the important of the difference between Federal State level jurisdiction as established by the 2 aforementioned sections, and State “State level jurisdiction” over their own recognized territoriality bounds.

Should we redraw the map of the Western States to exclude that which the Federal government seems to clam as is their “Territory” in jurisdictional power, just like we do with Actual Federal territories and the Federal district?

For that matter does Article 4 Section 3 clause 2 even permit the Federal government to weld power over such a duel clam?


31 posted on 04/01/2010 12:22:51 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ICAB9USA
Obama has talked about how Congress (ie Progressives) have been trying to 'give' the American People 'universal' healthcare for 100 years.

I look at that the American People have rejected a government takeover of healthcare for 100 years.

32 posted on 04/02/2010 8:22:33 AM PDT by Jabba the Nutt (Are they insane, stupid or just evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Jabba the Nutt
re: I look at that the American People have rejected a government takeover of healthcare for 100 years.

___

You're right.

33 posted on 04/02/2010 5:41:44 PM PDT by ICAB9USA (If you want your dreams to come true, don't sleep quite so much ...............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson