Posted on 12/28/2016 8:45:29 PM PST by Brad from Tennessee
President Obama has created two new national monuments in southeastern Utah and southern Nevada totalling 1.64 million acres, despite intense opposition from American Indians living in the area.
Obama created the Bears Ears and Gold Butte national monuments using his powers under the Antiquities Act, adding to the 265 million acres of lands the president has already put under stricter federal regulation.
The White House set aside 1.47 million acres of land to create the controversial Bears Ears monument, which has been opposed by local Navajo tribal members despite being supported by tribal officials.
“Today’s actions will help protect this cultural legacy and will ensure that future generations are able to enjoy and appreciate these scenic and historic landscapes,” Obama said in a statement Wednesday.
The Interior Department also notes future drilling and mining activities will be banned in the region, which puts into jeopardy the fate of Energy Fuels Resources, the largest private employer in the area. The company has uranium mining claims in the region. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
If Congress, then yes, it can and MUST be undone. If Obama....then that's that and it can't be undone, as was the case when Clinton pulled this stunt.
There's something about it being a "national monument", which makes it different than just an ordinary Bill. Check out what Clinton did and what happened when W tried, with all his might, to undo that POS mess.
Trump should just do it and tell SCOTUS to TAFFAARD.
SCOTUS is not the senior branch of government.
I wish he would and undo the one that Clinton did as well, whilst he’s at it! But we don’t live in a monarchy...though we HAVE been living under a damned DICTATORSHIP for the past almost 8 years. *sigh*
“..who were murdered in tribal raids..”
I once asked an Indian (he agreed - he was Indian, not Native American!) what tribe he was. He said some Indian name and he said “It means ‘The People’ - all Indians call themselves that. The tribe names were made by the White Man.”
“Oh - but obviously you have different groups of Indians?”
“Well sure - you’re not going to steal and get slaves and new wives from your own people - but we didn’t have names for them like you do.”
Why should the Federal Government own any land other than that necessary for Military Bases and facilities needed for a limited Federal Government. Those lands should belong to the individual states to utilize as they see fit. I like National Parks but that can also be abused by the Federal Government. If they decree a new National Park or some protected wilderness area the individual states should be compensated for its full worth at the time of confiscation relative to mineral wealth, and all potential wealth in the future that it could provide in commerce.
It would amuse me greatly to see California liberals pay Utah hundreds of millions of dollars as their share of the national economy to Utah. Bill Clinton put the Escalante area of Utah off limits to coal production as it was designated a wilderness area.
ps
Coal is dirty if burned in technologically dated power production plants. In the new plants it is very clean. It does produce a hell of a lot of CO2 and the forests and crops and vegetation thank you. CO2 is plant food.
Rather misleading title. The Utah location had the support of state Republicans and strong support of the affected Indian groups.
See my post 26. You are correct.
From a Web site: Fifteen Presidents have designated National Monuments. President Bill Clinton designated 19 National Monuments, followed by Theodore Roosevelt with 17, then Jimmy Carter with 15. Presidents Nixon, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush are the only Presidents who have not created National Monuments.
My error, looking further, the White House Historical Association lists monuments and parks creating by virtually every president, including Reagan. This is bipartisan. Presidents love creating and visiting parks and monuments.
“But we don’t live in a monarchy...though we HAVE been living under a damned DICTATORSHIP for the past almost 8 years.”
Undoing acts of tyranny wouldn’t make this a monarchy.
“Well sure - you’re not going to steal and get slaves and new wives from your own people - but we didn’t have names for them like you do.”
That’s not true.
Sadly, SCOTUS wouldn’t agree; they sure didn’t when W tried to undo Clinton’s clean coal/NATIONAL MONUMENT grab.
Not sure what you meant by “that’s not true”. He was clear that they raided other Indian tribes (not getting slaves from your own “people” meant their own tribe) - but that they didn’t have another name for the other tribes. Not having another name for them seemed odd, but that’s what he said.
When he said getting wives from other tribes, it came to mind that they must have figured out the problems with too much inbreeding.
Perhaps we should put corrupt politicians under stricter controls. I dunno, like a Constitution? His decrees mean nothing, we are all just pretending together that it is the President makes laws not Congress.
Bammy is 100% bulls shirt since his first day, him and everything he has is are illegal.
We have lived under a damned dictatorship for almost a quarter century!!
We had unprecedented liberty under Reagan. Then relative indifference from Bush I. It's been tyranny that's grown incrementally worse from the day Clinton was sworn in. G.W. Bush did us NO favors whatsoever: he paved the way for Obama's abuses of office.
And had Hillary won, America as we have come to know her would have been destroyed within two years.
Clinton was a diosaster, Obama has been even worse, and IF Hillary had been elected * spit *, it would have been the END of American in less than 2 years! But look on the bright side...soon it'll be PRESIDENT TRUMP, who LOVES America and her populace, and he IS going to be a GREAT president!
And don't glorify Reagan! He was good, but he DID allow himself to be taken in/over by the damned Dems in Congress...re that damned AMNESTY crap.
Trump's NOT "perfect"; nobody is and I'm sure that he'll manage to do some things that we won't be happy about; however, he HATES the PC crap, won't be taken in by the GOPEers, and the Dems have virtually NO power at all in D.C. now. :-)
It has been progressivism/liberalism/statism ever since. And George W. Bush absolutely was a major part of that. That he had an "R" stamped next to his name on the ballot is immaterial. In retrospect, it probably wouldn't have mattered who won the '04 election. Obama was a lock for '08 already anyway. Bush II had done enough damage in his first term, enough precedent-setting with executive orders, signing statements and the like. That he along with the rest of his family opposed Trump, should tell you everything.
Hyperventilating? No. Just looking at reality. We have had nearly thirty years of presidents in name only, without exception. Every one of them has caused more harm to America than good.
I'm expecting better from Trump. He has already shown more decisive leadership than every president since Reagan, COMBINED. And he hasn't even been sworn in yet.
This nation has suffered through a whole LOT of mediocre to absolutely TERRIBLE presidents and Obama has been THE worst of the worst; bar none!
Now mind, I'm not putting Reagan down, I worked long and hard to get him elected president...TWICE. But Trump SHALL surpass him.
algi Bush the elder wasn't up for the job and a bit of a fool.
We all know what a rotter Slick Willie was; with a lot of help from that beard of a sort of wife of his.
And HELL NO....algore would have been far worse than W ever was; ditto re John, I WAS IN NAM, Kerry. So yes, you are hyperventilating and misrepresenting/spewing revisionist history.
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.