@ 10CCObama already ignores Utahns, and about 35 other states, what's
I would love to see another monument and more land protected here in Utah, but I
wouldn't want to be here if/when Obama did it, it would be rather
unbearable and the outrage would be horrendous. For now I say leave it alone
Obama, designate monuments in other states where there is support for them. If
Utah wants oil wells and ATV tracks to cover every square mile of their state
than I guess that is what they will get.
Here's another one of the majority of Utahns and Americans that want more
of our public lands set aside as wilderness.
Utah_1 said: "In 1976, Utah sued the Feds when they wanted to put up
drilling rigs in Utah Lake."Perfect example of what Utah would
do if they could, thanks for the history Utah_1, Oil dericks In Utah lake, oh
well in 76 they would have only added to the beauty Geneva Steel reflected on
Pignanelli -- Setting aside more lands might motivate many voters to rebuke
Democrats. Exactly how could Utah voters be less friendly to Democrats than
they already are ??
One less place to tear up the ground with your ATV. Its been down hill since
Utah left Mexico.
Pignanelli: For decades, the feds were viewed as the enlightened forces
promoting civil rights, clean air and water, and safer food. However, because of
numerous blunders (i.e. Hurricane Katrina, veterans, citizens privacy, health
care rollout, etc.) the federal government is the nation’s town drunk
(well-meaning but a joke). States are on the cutting edge of reform and
innovation. That's why 100,000 or so Utah citizens are left
without health care. I can see the D-News preferred you over Ted Wilson. You
fit in so much better here than Ted ever could.
Trying to find consensus in our partisan 2014 "United States", where we
can't even agree on what the news is, is an increasingly elusive goal. There are exceptional situations where agreement occurs, but any
Republican who compromises with Obama (eg, Gary Herbert) is viewed at best as
being a dupe, at worst, part of a grand conspiracy.After giving
opportunity for the various sides to work through their differences in a
proposed national monument, such as the Navajo Dine-Bikeyah area in Southeastern
Utah, I would strongly urge the President to take unilateral action, if need be,
and set this land aside.(Perhaps the threat of unilateral action may
prompt local interests into a compromise, though that appears extraordinarily
unlikely.) Obama or any other Democratic presidential candidate
will never win Utah over, there is nothing that a Democrat could do to get the
respect or support of the majority of Utahns, on just about any issue, and the
Legislature carved up our state so that a Democratic congressman will never be
elected again in our lifetime, so the downside of unilateral action is almost
nil.Do the right thing, Mr. President. Ignore Utahns.
Utah officials are concerned President Obama will (fill-in-the-blank)...Perfect.
In 1976, Utah sued the Feds when they wanted to put up drilling rigs in Utah
Lake. It took 10 years, but Utah won. The SCOTUS said that it didn't matter
that the Feds had laws on the books, or that the Enabling Act didn't
mention the state sovereign land that exists under the high water mark of
navigable bodies of land at statehood. Utah was accepted as a State with equal
footing of the original 13 states. It is clear that the Feds power
is to be kept in check, partly by the 3 branches of government. That isn't
working as they have worked together as of late to take power from the state.
Under Art. 1, 8, 17, the Feds have no right to the land they are claiming now
and have no right to take further control. Read the minutes when Art. 1, 8, 17
was being debated. I don't believe Utah will be "taking
back" the land, but the feds didn't sell it and have no right to keep
it, violating the US Constitution and our enabling act in 1976 with FLIPMA
giving Utah a claim. Utah under its own constitution, Art. IIXX and
XX has protection for the land in place.