Posted on 04/23/2014 2:15:17 PM PDT by Kaslin
One of the biggest land grabs in American history occurred in 1976, when President Jimmy Carter signed into a law the “Federal Land Policy and Management Act.” That stroke of the pen transferred hundreds of millions of acres of land, located primarily in the western states, into the control of the federal government. In reaction, an alliance of ranchers, farmers, and other concerned citizens – the “Sagebrush Rebels” as they came to be known -- challenged the move and sought to return the land back into the hands of the states. Ronald Reagan, at the time running for president, supported the action of the states. “I happen to be one who cheers and supports the Sagebrush Rebellion,” the Gipper remarked in 1980; “count me in as a rebel.”
Today, the federal government controls nearly 640 million acres of public land (28 percent of the entire United States). In fact, nearly half of all western states (and 62 percent of Alaska) is “owned” by Uncle Sam and controlled by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.; only four percent of other states fall under federal control. The feud over federal ownership and management of public lands in western states is nothing new. What is new, however, is the propensity of federal agencies to escalate confrontation with ranchers in those areas; most recently seen in the Obama Administration’s arrogant (and near violent) attack on Nevada rancher Clive Bundy. That single incident has reignited the “Sagebrush Rebellion” and pushed western states into action.
Last week, more than 50 political representatives from nine western states met in a legislative summit to begin to seriously discuss how to start the process of transferring federal public lands back to the custody of the states. “We have to start managing these lands,” Montana State Sen. Jennifer Fielder told the press during the summit. “It's the right thing to do for our people, for our environment, for our economy and for our freedoms.”
Holding the meeting in Utah was not coincidental, as the state is at the epicenter of western states’ calls for a return of public land back into their control. Two years ago, in March 2012, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed H.B. 148, the “Transfer of Public lands Act and Related Study” (TPLA), which demands the federal government extinguish and transfer title to more than 20-million acres of land back to the state by the end of 2014 -- under threat of lawsuit.
While that legislation did not touch national parks, military installations, or national monuments, it did cover vast areas the federal government controls for no real reason other than to control it. Ken Salazar, then U.S. Secretary of the Interior, the bureaucracy that oversees the many federal agencies that manage public lands, said the law was “nothing more than a political stunt.” However, the Federalist Society’s legal review of H.B. 148 concluded that critics of the law should not dismiss it so quickly. “There are indeed serious legal questions to consider with the TPLA,” explains Chapman University Law Professor Donald J. Kochan. “At the very least, there are open legal questions involved in the TPLA that have never received definitive resolution in the courts,” he notes.
The legality of H.B. 148 will likely center on the federal government’s power “to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States . . .” found in Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. On the surface, the government’s near limitless power in this area makes Utah’s line in the sand tough to defend; but as Kochan notes, there is very little case law about the federal government’s duty to eventually do something with the land rather than just hold onto it, unused and ill-managed in perpetuity.
Moreover, as the Congressional Research Service reported last week, the Obama Administration’s poor “management” of America’s oil and natural resources on federal land illustrates that there is a strong argument that federal holdings of public land is doing great damage – rather than benefit -- to the country’s economic interests. According to the CRS report, for example, crude oil production on federal land fell by six percent since Obama took office in 2009; in the same time period, oil production on private land soared by 60 percent. Reports such as these, as well as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) declaration of war on ranchers like Bundy, only buttress the case against continued federal control and management of its vast holdings.
The outcome of Utah’s “Sagebrush Rebellion” is unclear, but H.B. 148 is at least a solid blueprint for other states to follow to begin reclaiming public land taken by fiat from them decades ago. The intensified push from states for the return of federal land leaves the Obama Administration with few options. It can either peacefully return land back into the hands of the states before the issue is decided by the courts, or it can continue with its aggressive policing of federal lands that has already lead to near-violent confrontations between private citizens and federal agencies – some of which, such as BLM, seem clearly to be spoiling for a fight. U.S. Senator Harry Reid, who for some reason gratuitously injected himself into the BLM confrontation with Bundy and his supporters and referred to them as “domestic terrorists,” has made clear he stands firmly with the bureaucrats.
Hopefully, more rational minds in Washington will keep Big Government bullies like Reid out of the debate, and peacefully resolve this fundamental conflict over federal land management before it escalates further. This is a national debate too-long ignored.
bkmk
As bad as the land grabs were, I’ve never seen federal agents with M-16s going after ranchers because cattle were eating grass.
Is the recent bloody Cattle Massacre at Nevada Cattle Rancher Bundy’s Pioneer Corral damaging the Democrat Party in eyes and words of the Democrat Left Stream Media?
To put this latest Medieval “Kill for Sport” event in historical context, all one has to do is remember that the Democrat Party was the Founding Party of the KKK.
Is the modern day equivalent of the KKK the Bureau of Feudal Land Management, (BFLM) ?
If so, then Feudal Lord Reid would then be “The Grand Dragon of the BFLM.”
Feudal Lord Reid’s Rustlers are hired guns, who are furious but not fast, which also applies to their bitter, vengeful, senile, multimillionaire Leader: Feudal Lord Reid.
With the past Democrat-based KKK, and now the present Democrat-controlled BFLM, ethics be damned, as abject fear is the main goal of both of these ethically Medieval Outlaw Gangs, past and present.
“Ethics” will be justified later by Liberals who will write the “revised” PC History of these times, past and present; of powerful men with outlaw hatred toward free people in America, Black or White, poor or rich.
The Jackboot Heel of Democat Tyranny is now upon us, AGAIN !
MOVE ON!
FORWARD!
_____________________________
Occupy Wall Street people were volunteer shock troops for The Democrat Federal Government of Obama, Pelosi, Holder and Schumer.
Reid’s Rustlers were hired shock troops for the Democrat Federal Government of Reid, Obama and Holder.
Occupy Wall Street people attacked businesses in large cities.
Reid’s Rustlers attacked cattle in an isolated Nevada Corral.
Both Occupy Wall Street and Reid’s Rustlers destroyed private property and private jobs.
Both Occupy Wall Street and Reid’s Rustlers were financially supported by the Democrat Obama Administration.
Both Occupy Wall Street and Reid’s Rustlers were publicly encouraged by the Democrat Obama Administration, and the Democrat Left Stream Media.
MOVE ON!
FORWARD!
Now we are getting to the heart of the matter. Fed land is the collateral on all the dollars the Fed is printing. Collateral without clear title is not an asset but a liability. Fedzilla HAS to secure these lands or the folks bankrolling the irresponsible behavior of Fedzilla will get anxious.
There IS more than one way to remove the hide from a feline!
“Follow the money” works again!
Thanks wasteout, for the observation!
All y’all, ping to this observation by wasteout!
Are the “folks” to whom the fed owes money going to come and repossess that collateral?
And exactly who (or what) are those “folks”?
The federal government was created by the sovereign states under a contract called the Constitution that strictly limited the power of the created entity.
Basically, if it doesn’t involve an interaction with a foreign entity or an UNRESOLVABLE conflict between states, then the fedgov has no authority.
IMO, Salazar is a ‘political stunt’.
The extensive land grab for ‘National Monuments & Parks is coming into a fiscal backlash.
There isn’t enough money NOW to take care of such parks & the Feds are looking to grab more.
Keep in mind that Federal land in New Mexico & Texas & Arizona is now posted to warn AMERICANS that it isn’t safe to be in there-—too many illegals who re illing to harm Americans.
Instead of grabbing more land which they cannot properly take care of, perhaps the BLM & NSF should concentrate their efforts on keeping American land cleared of illegals.
I also am pretty darn sure the Border Patrol could have used $3 million plus that was wasted at Bundy ranch for more enforcement of out BORDERS!!!
After it had passed both houses and been reconciled, it was signed three weeks later.
Sorry for the confusion from clipping off the other dates prior to reconciliation.
Makes a lot more sense!
I couldn’t see how ANYTHING could go ANYwhere in our system at this speed!
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.