Posted on 03/28/2010 7:56:28 PM PDT by george76
Two measures OKd by Gov. Gary R. Herbert would allow use of eminent domain to take valuable sites. A long court fight is likely.
Supporters hope the bills, which the Republican governor signed Saturday, will trigger a flood of similar legislation throughout the West and, eventually, a U.S. Supreme Court battle that it hopes to win -- against long odds.
More than 60% of Utah is owned by the U.S. government, and policy makers complain that federal ownership hinders their ability to generate tax revenue and adequately fund public schools...
Initially, the state would target three areas, including the Kaiparowits plateau in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, which is home to large coal reserves...
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
The federal government shouldn’t be allowed to own any land outside of Washington DC. Anything else it has a legitimate need for, it should lease from states or private parties. There’s absolutely no reason a major military base can’t be run on land held under a long term lease from the state it’s located in.
BTTT
Then there’s this vein of black oil shale which also contains uranium ~ runs down the middle of Indiana. About 200 miles North to South, and 50 miles wide.
I respectfully disagree to a point - I think it is a little of both.
Gary Herbert is an awesome Governor. He would be a great National politician. He is great at speaking ‘off the cuff.’ Oh yes, and he is conservative!
There’s also a whole lot of natural gas under New York.
If we were to have a weird tectonic movement though, don’t come to visit. All of that plus lava = no more New York.
Go UTAH! :-)
-----
Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that governments established by compact should not be changed for light or transient causes; but should a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evince a design in any one of the confederates to usurp a dominion over the rest; or, if those who are entrusted to administer the government, which the confederates have for their mutual convenience established, should manifest a design to invade their sovereignty, and extend their own power beyond the terms of compact, to the detriment of the states respectively, and to reduce them to a state of obedience, and finally to establish themselves in a state of permanent superiority, it then becomes not only the right, but the duty of the states respectively, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.[60]
View of the Constitution of the United States / Preliminary Remarks / Section XIII
*****
From St. George Tucker, Northwestern University Law Review
Largely forgotten today, Tucker returned to some legal prominence last Term, when the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller cited his annotated Blackstone’s Commentaries as proof that the Second Amendment had originally been understood as an individual right to arms.
--------------------------
Tucker's View of the Constitution is part of his annotated Blackstone's Commentaries written in 1803.
I encourage anyone who is interested in original intent to read it. It was a booklet distributed at the request of and with the approval of Congress specifically to explain the newly created Constitution to the People.
“And 20 years later we always look back and agree that conservation was a wise idea.”
What you mean “We”, CommieBoy?
I could swear the federal government was prohibited from owning lands outside of DC. How the Hell does it own significant portions of the West?
.
I was in no way trying to diminish their impact elsewhere!
You are correct; the tyrants are in our shorts deeply.
.
They also have more than their fair share of the Mob.
This was a big issue "way back when". Part of the problem had been the question of turning on a former Revolutionary War ally, Spain, to acquire more land. Napoleon solved the problem by seizing Spain, and then selling off Louisiana.
In the meantime, after Napoleon, the Mexicans rebelled against Spain and tried to claim control of former Spanish land claims in the West that actually overlaid former English land claims in the same aras (The Sea to Sea claim deal).
The US extinguished the Mexican land claims, took the property, sold off fertile areas in California, etc., and ended up owning a whole lotta' desert.
Utah is an anomaly. A substantial body of settlers moved there prior to "organization" and set up their own government. Later on the territory was organized, and this led to statehood.
If you'd like we can go back to the days when the Brits were buying Indian land claims prior to organizing territory to subdivide and sell to new settlers (in what is now the East). Jefferson, et al, had actually conducted their war against the Brits, in part, to put an end to the deal where the government paid off Indians with little claim to the land, and delayed settlement until those Indians accepted the money.
In the end, Jefferson and his friends found themselves adopting the British policy. Federalists in New York went a step further and declared all the Indians to be white people. They then seized all allied Indian owned land on the grounds that white people were not allowed to own Indian land. They then sold the land to illegal alien immigrants.
Yes, the federal government can own land, sell land, buy land, give away land ~ and so can the state governments.
Notice that Texas which was admitted the same time as California (to balance the number of free/slave states) is not on that list. Texas has almost no federal land.
Many western states ceded land to the gov’t for the “benefit” of being in the Union. Texas somehow escaped that deal. The rest should have held out too.
Good move.
Current Admistration will certainly fight that....doesn't seem to be true relative to your healthcare.
CNBC has been running specials on the pot growing in California ...mainly by Mexican Drug Organizations.
Frankly all this regime wants to do is take a good close look at the inside of my intestinal tract ~ but that’s their problem, not mine. They get too close they will definitely get in trouble.
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.