Posted on 09/19/2010 4:41:32 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
Sen. Jim DeMint argued for a “devolution of power out of Washington,” saying Sunday that “the fact is, education probably would work a lot better without the Department of Education.”
The South Carolina Republican had been asked on CNN’s “State of the Union” whether candidates whom he and the tea party movement have endorsed are too far out of the political mainstream. When host Candy Crowley gave Sharron Angle’s call to abolish the Education Department as an example, DeMint said, “She’s very bold to say it.” Angle is the GOP candidate challenging Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) for his Senate seat in Nevada.
“I would support a devolution of power out of Washington for education, health care, transportation, and I’ve introduced a lot of legislation for that, too,” DeMint added, saying the power should go to the states. “And you can do it in a common-sense, reasonable way that doesn’t disrupt any of the activities that we support.”
Glad so many freepers are seeing the light with DeMint, he really is the best we’ve got.
Get on board Sarah!
If Sarah Palin starts speaking openly about abolishing the government agencies then people will start listening.
It does remind be of a story though. I had a discussion with an old farmer once about the cattle industry coming back to Iowa. I forget what was going on but it looked like an opportunity at the time for it to begin to happen. This was one of those sharp old farmers who had spent a lifetime in the cattle yard. He could walk out there and sense when something was not right and then begin to correct the problem. He OWNED those cattle so was very subject to risk and reward.
He looked at me when I proposed that and then said. “But who knows how to raise cattle in Iowa anymore?” And he was right!
The point I am making is that states don't know how to OWN the power anymore. There will be a huge learning curve with many mistakes on the state/local level. Will we as conservatives allow them to learn or cut them off at the knees when they don't do it perfectly? I guess for me, knowing what the touch stone is will be important. What do they test every decision against? Applies to us for that matter also. For me, this is why getting rid of RINOS is important. Doesn't matter if you win if the touch stone is wrong. We have a GOP platform yet no one discusses it...................
Just so you know where that is targeted, inside the beltway the Department of Education is just called education, or ED. DOE is the Department of Energy, and I am sure you meant no slight against that august department /s/
Wow, I can actually read the whole bill
While I don't want to see Yosemite or Grand Canyon or many other wonderful sites be developed, I believe it should be up to the States to decide what to do with their land.
If the Fedgov got out of the business of controlling/owning land tomorrow and handed over Fed forests/parks/monuments/land to the States, there would still be plenty of States and municipal govs that would preserve those areas. If Arizona actually owned the Grand Canyon, do you really think anyone would allow developers to build anything down in the Canyon? Of course not.
As an aside, what is your opinion of clinton declaring a national park (monument?) area in Utah that eliminated all mining for clean coal? (Riady payback) Shouldn't Utah have had the say in that? And what about obambi instituting a drilling ban for no good reason that has killed thousands of jobs? It goes on and on, not to mention the United Nations declaring some of our national areas as "Heritage Sites". You okay with that? I'm not.
PS. Do a Google search for federal owned land. You will be surprised how much it owns or controls. BTW, the EPA has become an obscenity to private property. It has grown way past its original purpose. I say downsize that to about 20%. I don't say eliminate it because we should have some Fed oversight on our environment. Sure I'm going to catch hell from the hard core Constitutionalists on that one.
“However, I would prefer to allow a woman (conservative, of course) the opportunity to finally lead this country.”
I agree— a Palin/DeMint or DeMint/Palin ticket would work well. Especially if Hilary ends up running in 2012, though, giving Palin top billing would be a great way to throw the Left’s mindless identity politics back in their faces.
I thought you were wrong, but just to make sure I just re-read the 5th Amendment again from my pocket Constitution I keep right here on my desk. You are extrapolating. You are using the last phrase to attempt to justify Fedgov ownership of land, but that is not what that clause addresses. It is very clearly about "eminent domain" and the rights of owners to be "compensated". It is NOT about the right of the Fedgov to own land in perpetuity. See below:
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
That in NO way "anticipates" Fedgov ownership of open lands in that Amendment.
Then again, maybe I need to re-read the Body of the Constitution where it says that the Fedgov can own land. I may be remiss in my understanding. After all, the Colonists and newly formed Union did buy Manhattan, Louisiana Purchase, parts of Arizona and New Mexico from Mexico (Gadsen Purchase), amongst others.
No Kidding. We need 60 of him in the Senate.
Nothing wrong with owning military bases, office buildings, real estate that is tied to a proper federal function. But out west they own large percentages of entire states. This is not proper and in my opinion is unconstitutional.
you have raised a losing argument and I would drop it.
In fact they keep expanding their ownership of federal lands and those lands they hold, they continue to make more and more of them off limits to use by the public.
There is nothing wrong with reserving some lands as parks and forests, but federal parks and federal forestland should be state parks and forests.
BLM land likewise should be handed off to the states. My belief that much of this should then be privatized is perhaps a separate issue, but since much of this is leased to private parties anyway, I don't see the problem in simply privatizing it.
The feds should properly own land required for military bases, government office complexes, any proper federal function. They should not hold entire swaths of land that should properly belong to the state. In a lot of areas the government uses its control of federal lands as a means of controlling ranchers and private landowners, and for that matter, the states themselves.
Maybe this is a loser for electoral politics (especially back east) but between you and me, this is what we need to do to distribute power back to the states. You could say that a campaign to eliminate the Education Department is a loser politically, but again, its what we need to do.
Further expansion of land ownership is an issue with which I have a lot of sympathy, and the distribution of a lot of BLM land is probably quite reasonable.
Disestablishing national parks in particular and national forrests, with I will grant arguable exceptions, is a losing issue. I am otherwise pretty conservative, but I think that there is nothing uncostitutional, or harmful, in holding public lands for public recreation. Indeed, this kind of conservation is something that a lot of even conservatives will support, and do support. There is a strong argument for the federal government holding the land. There is no pressure to sell it to a property developer. If Rock Creek Park were owned by the DC city it would be highrise condos right now, with Marion Barry the beneficiary of the deal. The residents of DC are pretty uniform in support of the existence of the park and its maintenance by the NPS.
Good point. Taken under advisement. :)
Maybe they (Congress) actually would read it as well!
As ridiculous as I thought a lot of environmental regualtion in my younger years, I have come to appreciate breathable air (and from Deleware to NJ to somewhere west of Gary IN the air was not breathable) and clean water for recreation (the Charles River in Boston, the Potomac in DC, SF Bay, Cheasapeake Bay) and fishing. I would argue that there is nothing conservative in a free market in poisoning ourselves.
I would also agree that USG should divest itself of a lot of BLM land. I would draw the line firmly at National Parks, however. Conservatism will fail if conservatives propose to divest its national parks. Only a few of the hillucinatory branch of libertarians would be willing to die on that battlefield.
Now we’re talking. Of course, we’ve heard all this before more than once, so I want to hear some more details.
If he runs for President and makes this a, no THE, central theme of his campaign, things could get interesting.
But that exactly anticipates public ownership of land.
In the second point, remember that our constitution is built on the common law of Britain, which was our legal system at the time of founding the country. "real estate" means, literally, land owned by the crown, and granted as an estate to an individual in fief to the crwon. The notion of crown lands or government land is so pervasive in law that it was not considered worthy of separate mention. Some things are so fundamental they do not merit mention in the constitution - your right to breath the state's air for one.
I agree with you. I remember how bad the industrial part of town used to be in my youth (driving by some plants you'd almost vomit) and the fish caught in some bays were not edible.
I am worried, though, about the way EPA has become a power in its own right, beyond the reach of legislators. You've noticed how they are being used to implement rules that Obama knows he can't get through congress.
So there has to be a way of pushing back.
Get rid of Health and Human Services! That’s one of the first that should go!
And all those agencies like “National Endowment for the Arts” etc.
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.