Skip to comments.Utah Gov. OKs Eminent Domain Use on Federal Land
Posted on 04/01/2010 3:26:12 AM PDT by ICAB9USA
Utah governor, aiming for court battle, approves use of eminent domain to take federal land
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Fed up with federal ownership of more than half the land in Utah, Republican Gov. Gary Herbert on Saturday authorized the use of eminent domain to take some of the U.S. government's most valuable parcels.
Herbert signed a pair of bills into law that supporters hope will trigger a flood of similar legislation throughout the West, where lawmakers contend that federal ownership restricts economic development in an energy-rich part of the country.
Governments use eminent domain to take private property for public use.
The goal is to spark a U.S. Supreme Court battle that legislators' own attorneys acknowledge has little chance of success.
But Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and other Republicans say the case is still worth fighting, since the state could reap millions of dollars for state schools each year if it wins.
More than 60 percent of Utah is owned by the U.S. government, and policy makers here have long complained that federal ownership hinders their ability to generate tax revenue and adequately fund public schools. Utah spends less per student than any other state and has the nation's largest class sizes. Under the measure Herbert has approved, the state will set aside $3 million to defend the law.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
I wish them luck, perhaps Holders incompetence will work in our favor for once.
I wish Utah luck. They will need it with this.
Even if it doesn't work out, it's good to see someone trying to gum up the feds with litigation rather than having to play defense all the time.
The states should take cues from the Scientologists on how to use the legal system to thwart their federal enemy. Get ready to be punished with repeals of subsidies however.
Maybe they can get Grande Staircase Escalente back (damn Clinton and his Chinese pals).
The federal government gets away with a lot of stuff because they control the purse strings. And while it is true that some states receive more back then they send to Washington, it is still a bad deal.
There are so many "strings" attached to the money that comes from the Federal Government that the states are forced (under the threat of losing said money) to do things that our contrary to their own (and their citizens) best interest.
I can’t tell you how mad people are here in Utah over these land grabs. The Feds have tied up virtually every inch of productive land with natural resources, denying the state of tax revenue.
If Utah weren’t a “good government” type state, we’d be in horrible shape. Very little waste, a slavish attention to budget details and no appetite for big tax increases.
I am from Ohio, and have to say that how they run things in Utah is a breath of fresh air.
But I believe the real big, big grab was by Roosevelt..
For acquiring private property for public use. The state could not use eminent domain to take possession of a Salt Lake City police station and it can't use it to take federal property either. Article IV, Section 3 requires congressional approval.
You’re right about Clinton. I imagine you’re right about FDR too.
What burns me up is GWB didn’t do a thing to lift the EO regarding Utah, which was done in the waning days of the Clinton administration.
(I hope whomever serves after Obama has a pen with a LOT of ink, to reverse some of this crap!)
The pushback on 100 years of Progressivism has begun.
“Maybe they can get Grande Staircase Escalente back (damn Clinton and his Chinese pals).”
I thought he locked it up for his Indonesian pales.
The name of our country is UNITED STATES. It is NOT the Federal Republic of America. Each State is sovereign. I wnat to see a bill in Congress requiring the Federal government to turn over ALL land it “owns” to the State and IF THE STATE AGREES to lease back the land t the Federal Government. This Federal takeover of every aspecty of our country needs to end and end now!
How did the Federal Government get that land in the first place?
The SCOTUS Kelo decision should grease the skids on this one big time. Utah can easily show that by seizing Federal gubmint land more tax revenue will be generated for the state, just like the Kelo case.
What a great way to stick a thumb in the eye of Obamalamadingdong!
It’s been that kind of week, if you know what I mean. LOL
Thanks for the clarification.
Right now, I’m in the “they all suck” mode.
Raidy’s company is half owned by Chicoms.
All for taxes. That’s the issue these days, taxes, taxes, taxes.
The same way the Federal Government obtained title to the rest of the land in the WestThey declared all "surplus" land in Utah to be federally-owned as a condition of it being admitted into the Union. To whit:
Second. That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States; that the lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without the said State shall never be taxed at a higher rate than the lands belonging to residents thereof; that no taxes shall be imposed by the State on lands or property therein belonging to or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States or reserved for its use; but nothing herein, or in the ordinance herein provided for, shall preclude the said State from taxing, as other lands are taxed, any lands owned or held by any Indian who has severed his tribal relations and has obtained from the United States or from any person a title thereto by patent or other grant, save and except such lands as have been or may be granted to any Indian or Indians under any act of Congress containing a provision exempting the lands thus granted from taxation; but said ordinance shall provide that all such lands shall be exempt from taxation by said State so long and to such extent as such act of Congress may prescribe.
Quite a noxious practice, but unfortunately, Utah agreed to it. While I definitely enjoy seeing such Federalist moves like this, I'm afraid this trial is doomed to failure.
The right approach is to officially entreat the Federal Government to begin placing their massive land holdings on the market for private purchaseAn act which would pay off all of our debts and provide trillions of dollars in hard cash to help stabilize our economy. (This is intolerable to the action-controlling Progressives we suffer under today, unfortunately.)
(”To whit?” I stink, and obviously need more coffee...)
We almost certainly will. It's probably something the Supreme Court needs to address sooner rather than later.
And the Constitutional authority for the Fed Gov to own land other than national parks and the nation's capital is contained in Article.... Umm... Section... Uhhh....
Looks like the Supreme Court is going to be doing a hell of a lot in the near future concerning Obama and his destruction of the country and the Constitution.
Ya know it’s bad enough that they practically stole it to begin with, but then: Along come the envirowhacko’s and the groups that want to preserve it for people now unborn thereby keeping people who are already born off of it.
They want no recreational use of it. no commercial uses of it, they just want it to lay there untouched. Which in some cases is fine but in others is a colossal waste.
That's it's job. I can easily see them tossing the health care initiative. And I doubt this action on the part of Utah will stand either. Article IV is pretty specific.
I guess we'll see (again).
I am to the point in life where I merely ask for God's miracles as solutions. Most of the "humans" in our government have little to do with God, as I see it today.
For the sake of fairness, justice, and the desperately needed Constitutional law, I hope to make sure Utah wins this fight on the behalf of All States! What the Feds are doing to Utah is truly an untenable threat to all Americans!
The history of State cessions being required to establish new States.
Seems to indicate the Federal Government did not simply acquire first ownership of any land until the Louisiana Purchase, where the Federal government for the first time directly acquired jurisdictional territory as defined in Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2.
While at the same time parts 2, 4, and 5 of Federalist #43
Seems to be written in light of this development as the Feds had already acquired territorial jurisdiction of some of the land by cession of some but not all of the States, thus with the reality of overlapping clams particularly in the North the Article 4 Section 3 clause 2’s line: “nothing in the Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”
Seems to make a lot of sense as James Madison explained it in part 5 of Federalist 43 in saying the Federal government cannot weld such territorial jurisdiction until such time as the all other such clams have been resolved.
See definition of the word “proviso”:
“ a clause in a document or contract that embodies a condition or stipulation”
Anyway the key issue here is the differences between federal territorial jurisdiction and that of state Jurisdiction, and whether or not the Federal government can Admit a state to the union and not recognizes the State as having full jurisdiction over all the territory the Federal government has recognized that state as having.
I would like to look further into the issue of the Eastern States and how they have managed to obtain full jurisdiction over so much of their land while the Western States have so little...
Were they granted full initial title to all of their land as well as full jurisdictional rights in their initial statehood?
Is it even possible for both the State and the Federal government to have such “State level jurisdiction” within the recognized bounds of a State?
If so why then do we have Article 4 Section 3, or Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17? Both of which clearly segregate the important of the difference between Federal State level jurisdiction as established by the 2 aforementioned sections, and State “State level jurisdiction” over their own recognized territoriality bounds.
Should we redraw the map of the Western States to exclude that which the Federal government seems to clam as is their “Territory” in jurisdictional power, just like we do with Actual Federal territories and the Federal district?
For that matter does Article 4 Section 3 clause 2 even permit the Federal government to weld power over such a duel clam?
I look at that the American People have rejected a government takeover of healthcare for 100 years.