Of interest...de Federalizing America

[Gunner Asch]

https://spectator.org/trump-needs-to-transfer-all-federal-land-back-to-the-states/

The Utah and Bundy Ranch cases are a reminder of just how
constitutionally untenable and corrupting federal ownership is.

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 whistleblower
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.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[PaxPerPoten]

Excellent Read.. The Feds were just supposed to be a union of states and
not the el Supremo it has become. In the Movie "Amerika" The Russian KGB
Tells the Congress that has given the country away to disassemble.
Congress runs around like chicken with their heads cut off and tells the
Russians that congress in spite of having Russian rule, is still the
power on the country. KGB calls them into session and machine guns the
whole works. Shamefully, I cheered! I wonder if that isn't the only way
we can get back to basics again?

>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>

--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster

[rbowman]

On 01/15/2018 09:51 PM, PaxPerPoten wrote:
> The Feds were just supposed to be a union of states and not the el
> Supremo it has become.

That horse left the barn by 1798 if not before. The completely misnamed
Federalists won. The party died out but the Marshall court lived on. The
first Republican, Lincoln, drove the final nail into the coffin.