Posted on 03/29/2010 7:05:19 PM PDT by JerseyHighlander
Utah Invokes Eminent Domain Against the Federal Government By ELIE MYSTAL
This is the kind of story that sounds unbelievable — until you realize that it’s dealing with the people who run Utah. The WSJ Law Blog reports:
Utah Governor Gary Herbert on Saturday authorized the use of eminent domain to take some of the U.S. government’s most valuable parcels. A state is invoking the Takings Clause against the federal government? This reminds me of the time I came home and my dog told me to get off the couch. Sure, I was surprised that my dog was (a) talking and (b) ordering me off my own property. And so I resolved, right then and there, to never drop acid again.
Unfortunately, I don’t know what the hell Utah lawmakers are smoking …
I’m going to put some kind of latex protection around my brain before I get down into the muck and deal with Utah’s argument. I suggest you do the same. The Salt Lake Tribune reports:
Clinton sure did pay back that criminal Riady and in the process screwed us royally.
I have not checked yet but it would not surprise me if Obama’s new “Monuments” will tie up a bunch of that new oil we have found up toward the Bakken range.
The Democrats want us to move back toward the stone age and have as many of us as possible die. They will remain the leaders so they will still have all the energy, money, and riches while they then rule over the remaining serfs.
How am I making such a choice for others?
I’m expressing an opinion, which I believe is my inalienable right.
I have backpacked over large sections of SE Utah. While obviously this gave me no information about the possibility of mineral wealth, I can tell you I can’t think of any other possible economic use for the land.
Importantly, much of the western land takings were done by “presidential proclamation”. But this is on decidedly shaky constitutional grounds, compared to the State right of eminent domain.
In past, the courts have found that the US congress is superior to State legislatures, and that federal courts are superior to State courts. But they have *never* found that the president is superior to a State governor. This has meant that presidents in conflict with governors in the past have often resorted to the threat of violence to get what they wanted.
But there is no such thing as “presidential eminent domain” in the US constitution. But eminent domain *is* a right of State governments through their executive.
Unless I’m mistaken, the government isn’t taking private land in Utah.
They’re shifting it from one category of federal control to another, usually from a less restrictive to a more restrictive category.
I adore the SE canyon country of Utah, but I can’t imagine wanting to actually live there.
I don't think this is entirely correct. These areas are not private land "taken" by the federal government. These areas have never been private property.
What Clinton and others did is take BLM or other federal land and make it a National Monument, administered by the Park Service. Or BLM or Forest Service land is reclassified as wilderness area.
None of these changes take private land away from owners, although sometimes private owners unfairly lose access to their land when roads leading to it are closed.
The land in question, with which I’m quite familar, was federal BLM land, not private property, that was made a National Monument and thereby removed from possible mining claims.
The primary group affected was a Dutch company that was trying to get permission to mine coal on leased land in the area.
This area, BTW, includes some of the most spectacular country in Utah, right up there with Zion and other National Parks.
Well then Fido got up off the floor, and he rolled over
and he looked me straight in the eye
And you know what he said?
"Once upon a time, somebody say to me"
This is the dog talkin' now
"What is your conceptual continuity?"
"Well I told 'em right then," Fido said,
"It should be easy to see:
The crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe."
Well you know, the man that was talking to the dog
looked at the dog and he said,
Sort of staring in disbelief,
"You can't say that."
And the dog said
"It doesn't, and you can't, I won't, and it don't
it hasn't, it isn't, it even ain't, it shouldn't, and
it couldn't."
I told him, "No, no, no."
He told me, "Yes, yes, yes."
I said, "I do it all the time.
Ain't this boogie a mess?"
1) There doesn't seem to be anything worth "taking" in Kansas.
2) The Feds "don't mess with Texas.
I like this, good one.
The author is very dismissive of the idea but with SCOTUS’ ruling in the Kelo case it would be poetic justice for a state to take some Fed property.
Zappa.
I wouldn't say that. Nat. Forest and Nat. Park land is some of the most beautiful, forested and water laden lands in states like Utah, Colorado and Idaho. Not to mention energy and mineral resources.
I believe this is correct, although I’m willing to be corrected if wrong.
You have to keep in mind these areas are unbelievably remote, rugged and dry.
Parts still had mail service via pack train till 1940. Most of it is completely uninhabited.
The treaty by which TX entered the Union left its land in state title.
All other states (after original 13) had most or all land in federal control until sold or otherwise transferred to private ownership. Much of the federal land in the West is federal because nobody wanted to buy it during the period when it was still up for sale.
You should check out north eastern and central Utah where there are beautiful forested mountains with lots of water.
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.