Published: Wednesday, Aug. 20 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
Randy, Utah already has so many protected lands, that you've
likely reached a law of diminishing returns point. How many national forests,
public land, etc does one area need? There may be other "local" reasons
to be supportive of the federal gov't taking more land and setting it aside
for national parks. But... tourism seems to me to be less of a reason than it
used to be. Michael
Two separate issues brought out here.First, the complaint that any
old Republcan Tea Party candidate is automatically elected in Utah. Well, duh!
When the dominant religion makes it the business of said religion to use its
coercive clout on its membership. That is what you get.Secondly,
why should the administration pay any attention to Utah anyway? They don't
vote for him.
A very well reasoned letter. Thanks DN for publishing a well thought out letter!
I seriously doubt the Republican party has moved much at all either in Utah or
anywhere else. Perhaps its seem so to Randy because the Democratic party has
veered so far to the left leaving a huge cultural, economic and ideological
chasm. My late father used to say, "I never left the Democratic party, they
Let's leave the Alinsky epithets out of letters to the editor. Republicans
in Utah elected other Republicans to represent them. Utahns have every right to
vote for whomever they wish.Utah is a State. It is not owned by the
Federal Government. The Federal Government is prohibited from owning any land
greater in area than ten miles square except for forts, magazines, arsenals,
docks and land upon which federal buildings stand. (Article 1, Section 8)The citizens of Utah are entitled to ALL the land in Utah, either
jointly, or as land owners, if they have purchased the land from the State. Utah land is not held in common with citizens of other states, unless
they have a deed to that property. We do no own New York's Central Park in
common with the citizens of New York. We are a federation of states, not
counties of the United State (singular).
The only ones who think the Republican party is becoming more radical are those
who just started paying attention to politics. Those who have been paying
attention for decades realize that past Democrat presidents like Kennedy would
today be Republicans.
How narrow can this thinking be? Is the land going to completely dissappear
because of a change in ownership?Even though, the present proposal
does not include a change in stewardship of national park land.
BO will sign legislation protecting significant amount of America's public
lands by the end of his term. The overwhelming majority of Americans and Utahns
want that and were blessed to have a leader who will serve the people.
Hey Thinkin' Man -“Those who have been paying attention
for decades realize that past Democrat presidents like Kennedy would today be
love one of Kennedy’s quotes, but they take it completely out of
context.“Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what
you can do for your country.”Kennedy was referring to the
Peace Corps and VISTA, government programs he advocated, and the need for
volunteers.How many “Conservatives” are going to
volunteer for VISTA and work for free, helping inner-city minorities? How many
“Conservatives” are going to volunteer for the Peace Corps and go
overseas working for free, helping the natives build an irrigation system.American “Conservatives” don’t do that.Many American “Conservatives” even resent paying their taxes,
because they might provide aid to an American family in need.There
is NO WAY JFK would be a Republican today.
@GaryO - it is rare that I would disagree with much of what you have to say, but
honestly, in this neck of the woods we have a good number of
"conservative" churches (non-lds) that have huge outreach programs both
locally and globally. I work with numerous people who spend part of their
family vacation going an "missions" to foreign lands to work with kids
in need. I personally work in a sports program where the director is a die hard
republican that extends at his own cost opportunities for kids without means a
way to play competitive sports.So I think it is an over
generalization that Republicans don't give. I think what you might find
though is those that do give don't go around wearing their party
affiliation on their sleeve or so self proclaiming themselves patriots. They
are simply people regardless of party responding to needs they see.The same goes with my friends who hunt. The appreciate the public lands they
use, and don't want them spoiled either. Many are conservatives, some not.
But they also want to see wild lands preserved.
I find it telling that the great majority of comments lambasting this letter to
the Editor come from Idaho. Places with expansive worldviews, like Hayden Lake.
Truth is, the vast majority of Utahns think that federal lands in Utah are not
an issue worth spending a minute on. This is a Tea-Party base issue and is a
symbolic gesture, nothing else. Regarding which party has moved left
or right, it's not even an argument. The only way in which the
Democratic party left old white men is when they stopped supporting overt racism
in the South.
@ Mike: Article I, Section 8 states that Congress has sole legislative
authority over the District of Columbia, "the Seat of the Government of the
United States[.]" Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the
Federal Government cannot own any other land. As a matter of fact, Aricle IV,
Section 3 states, "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all
needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property
belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so
construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular
State[,]" which clearly implies the ability of the Federal Government to own
land. As a side note, if the Federal Government cannot own land, the
Louisiana Purchase and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago would be unconstitutional
and the land contained in those areas would still belong to France and Mexico
respectively. Utah would not be part of the US in that case, mi amigo.
Mike Richards reads the Constitution wrong. Art. 1:8 does NOT say
the US cannot own land except as provided. It only grants Congress
"exclusive legislative authority" over certain lands purchased from the
states. Art. 4:3 clearly says the US has the exclusive authority to
"dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations" regarding the
property belonging to the US, including that to which it has clear right and
title. Any constitutional lawyer will tell you the same thing.
@Irony Guy: "Art. 1:8 does NOT say the US cannot own land except as
provided. It only grants Congress "exclusive legislative authority" over
certain lands purchased from the states."Are you saying that the
Fed Govt "purchased" the land in the states that are now national parks
and monuments? I don't think any money was exchanged. I think you should
have worded your comment differently.
Randy Hopkins: "Most residents of Utah are much more centrist leaning than
adhering to the dogma of the fringe right." Really? And how do you know how
"most" Utahns think or believe?
@ Spangs. My comment was about the author's assertion that the GOP has
drifted right and not one word did I say about the amount of public lands in
Utah. If your dislike my "expansive views" I suggest you just don't
read them. As far as public lands, Idaho has more government designated
wilderness lands than any state outside Alaska.
The opinion writer said, “As the Republican Party moves ever further to
the right, it is becoming less and less representative of the true political
feelings of the vast majority of Utahns.”Please provide your
facts to back up that statement?I will be surprised if we ever see
those “facts” from this opinion writer.
@VST - The fact of the matter is that by voter registration the percentage of
voters in Utah that are Republican is sliding - but still the majority. The
fastest growing group? Independents. They don't want to be Republican,
but hey don't want to be Democrats either. They now constitute 1 in 4 Utah
@UtahBlueDevil,The premise made by the writer was the Republican
Party was moving “…further to the right…” – not
that there are now more independents in the State.
There are those who tell us that "big brother" owns land inside Utah.
They reject the fundamental concept of our Constitution - we the people, not, we
the servants of big government.Utah is one State of fifty in our
federation of States. The Constitution allows this federation to act as one in
certain things. Sharing land within a State is not one of those
"things".Unless you reject the foundation upon which the
Constitution is based, you cannot claim that Washington "owns" Utah,
Nevada, Wyoming, New Mexico or any other State where the Federal Government
claims ownership. States are sovereign. They are not appendages to the United
State (singular). Clinton claimed differently. Obama claims differently. Those
who reject the concept of a federation of states claim differently. Just because
they claim differently doesn't make it so any more than claiming that Obama
governs us makes it so. Twisting principles to match liberal ideas may be a fun
parlor game, but it has nothing to do with the United States of America.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments