If
President Trump wants to be known as a president seeking the restoration of the
U.S. Constitution, one of his goals should be to turn federal lands – the
millions of acres run by the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service and
National Park Service – over to the states.
It’s
because the Constitution doesn’t allow for federal ownership of land unless
it’s for certain limited purposes, argues a former California lawmaker.
Steve
Baldwin served in the California Assembly from 1994 to 2000 and was minority
whip during that time. He’s argued in a new report in the American Spectator that two recent
cases highlight the problem with the federal government owning vast acreages.
And he
says the solution is in 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.”
He noted
the issue has arisen before.
“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.”
The two
issues that came up recently, he explained, were Trump’s decision to reduce the
size of federal land grabs under Bill Clinton and the fight over the Bundy
Ranch grazing rights.
“Both
events illustrate how the federal government has used its massive land holdings
to control the lives of Americans,” he said.
At this
point, the federal bureaucracy has acquired some 640 million acres of the
nation, about one-third.
“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 percent of it,” he wrote.
The
Utah land fight saw Trump knock down the size of the lands demanded under
Clinton and Barack Obama from 3.2 million acres to about 1.2 million.
“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,” he pointed out.
“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 the
Bundy case, in which a federal judge recently dismissed counts and ordered the
government not to file more charges because of massive prosecutorial misconduct
in the first case, the Bureau of Land Management launched a police-state action
against the ranching family over payment of grazing rights fees.
The
family argued the land belonged to the state and the feds had no right to
charge fees.
Baldwin’s
report explained how former BLM Special Agent and whistleblower Larry Wooten
pulled back the curtain on the government’s nefarious activities.
Wooten
wrote, “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.”
For
example, Wooten explained, the BLM posted photos of the Bundy family with x’s
on their faces “as if they were to be eliminated.”
His
report includes statements attributed to officials such as “Go out there and
kick Cliven Bundy in the mouth (or teeth) and take his cattle.”
Other
comments by the government included, “rednecks,” “retards” and “douche bags,”
the report said.
Baldwin
explained that there certainly were nefarious components to the Bundy ranch
fight.
“Reports
… 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,” he explained.
When
that plan fell apart, Reid began working on another project “which, again,
targets the area Bundy’s cattle grazes on.”
According
to Courtwatcherblog, “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…”
Baldwin
said returning land to the states would restore the constitutional standard,
and would energize the economies of many states.
Baldwin
explains that it was during federal convention debates in 1787 that Elbridge
Gerry, later vice president, issued a warning. He said 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.”
Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2018/01/legislator-calls-on-feds-to-give-up-land-ownership/#cTC8WRjSt4kk0j8m.99
