Conservative think tank concludes Trump can rescind Bears Ears Monument (+video)

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Jim Cobabe Provo, UT
    April 3, 2017 10:39 a.m.

    I am surprised with how many comments seem intent on killing the messenger rather than justifying for the monument. It seems everyone already recognized what a monumental mistake it was.

    Whatever your political bent, and whatever any of the others said or didn't say, Mike Lee was compelling in arguing against the seeming endlessly stretching rubber-band of the Antiquities Act to justify an imperious executive order. Like it or not, it is only reasonable that one executive order can overturn another.

    If the monument designation had been ratified by a vote of the Legislative Branch, instead of unilateral measure of the Executive alone, it would be a much stronger argument. As it stands, there is no rational argument that one signature cannot cancel a previous one.

  • scrappy do DRAPER, UT
    April 2, 2017 6:45 p.m.

    Conservative Think tank gets paid millions to tell Bishop and Chaffy what they want to hear

    Try it, a judge will laugh them out of court

  • Harrison Bergeron Holladay , UT
    March 30, 2017 10:57 p.m.

    I don't think Trump should rescind it. Rather reduce the size to a tiny fraction of the original (2 sq miles) in honor of the small minded president who created it.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    March 30, 2017 3:29 p.m.

    Why would a conservative think tank care about Bears Ears? They go outside long enough to walk to their cars and that's about it, in most cases.
    Of all those opposed to the Monument, none of them have come up with legitimate sources showing any sort of profitable amount of minerals or oil/coal deposits in the area so exactly what jobs are going to be lost?
    Arches, Zion, The Grand Canyon & the Tetons were all once monuments and what they have in common with Bears Ears is that the locals opposed naming them as monuments.
    Now, look at the jobs those places have actually created.
    Anyone opposing Bears Ears based on jobs is simply in a bubble.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    March 30, 2017 1:28 p.m.

    They need a tank to think?

  • Utah Girl Chronicles Eagle Mountain, UT
    March 30, 2017 12:54 p.m.

    John Yoo is the lawyer from the Bush administration who gave legal clearance for the military to administer water-boarding.

    Anything John Yoo comes up with henceforth when it comes to "executive powers" should be regarded with a great deal of skepticism.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    March 30, 2017 12:14 p.m.

    It would seem that these partisan conservative think tanks are so fatuous as not to be able to see beyond their their present day greed. Some one needs to alert them to the fact that there is a tomorrow and future generations that need to be considered, planned for and resources preserved for.

  • Ford DeTreese Provo, UT
    March 30, 2017 12:01 p.m.

    So, Bored to the point . . . , please define "federal overreach." It seems to me it's federal overreach when the government does something you don't approve of, like designating a national monument or prohibiting same-sex marriage. But if you approve of it, it's just the government doing its job.

    The same logic goes for Supreme Court justices interpreting the Constitution. If they interpret it in a way you like, then they are being true to the Constitution. If their interpretation sticks in your craw, then they are "activist" justices, stepping beyond their constitutional bounds.

  • Bored to the point of THIS! Ogden, UT
    March 30, 2017 11:46 a.m.

    I find it funny. President Obama creates Bear's Ear.... Federal overreach.

    Trump takes it away... Not Federal overreach.

    People are funny. They are so narrow minded about politics. If it's my side its okay. If it's your side it's wrong.

    Right is right... wrong is wrong.

    I believe the people of Utah should vote on this. Yes / No .... straight up vote.

    I personally favor the designation. Our country has plenty of oil sources. We don't need to destroy uniquely beautiful lands to appease a few wealthy people behind the politicians.

  • mcclark Salt Lake City, UT
    March 30, 2017 11:34 a.m.

    My prediction; Trump will try it, the lawsuits follow, after spending much money, the courts will say no to Trump again.

  • FanOfTheSith Vernal, UT
    March 30, 2017 10:46 a.m.

    Conservative think tank as in Shark tank? LOL!

  • Thomas Thompson SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 30, 2017 10:29 a.m.

    He probably does have the power to do this, but I believe even Mr. Trump can see the mischief this might cause after the Democrats return to power. (But don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of whatever mischief the Democrats might cause.)

  • Jim Chee Ka'anapali, HI
    March 30, 2017 10:26 a.m.

    The thing to remember about think tanks is that they are directed to come up with rationale on almost anything imaginable. If you want justification for rescinding a law, they will find a reason. It doesn't mean that it will work. It is just an argument to support something that they and their patrons want. There is no legal force behind their opinions. What they recommend may be extremely convoluted and circuitous in the final analysis, but it takes them where they want to go.

    When Dick Cheney wanted to use torture in Iraq, he had his lawyers and conservative think tanks come up with a reason it should be legal. Similarly, taking away a national monument designation is part of that effort to make these lands available to developers who want to make a buck at the people's expense.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    March 30, 2017 9:10 a.m.

    Why is it that when I read the words "conservative think tank," I always dismiss whatever follows as sheer nonsense? Experience, I suppose.

  • There You Go Again St George, UT
    March 30, 2017 9:04 a.m.

    So... according to the lobbyists at the aei, the next Democratic POTUS has the blessing of the aei to undo all the voodoo the re-Publicans have done/are doing/will continue to do to Americans.

    Will the same aei lobbyists suddenly have a change of heart when the next Democratic POTUS begins to undo the re-Publican voodoo?

    Quien sabe?

  • taatmk West Jordan, UT
    March 30, 2017 8:34 a.m.

    I've been down there since this announcement in December. I've never seen so many people there. Hard to see how this announcement is going to "protect" the area. Visitation is skyrocketing!

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    March 30, 2017 8:15 a.m.

    Our Republican representatives continue to live in a bubble. Americans want this land protected and they failed to do it through legislative actions. Now they go out and find a couple of right wing groups who tell them what they want to hear. Surprised?

  • Prometheus Platypus Orem, UT
    March 30, 2017 8:11 a.m.

    Conservative think tanks thought that Bishop was seriously working on a plan too.

    Conservative think tanks are usually wrong, because ideology is used to guide, instead of thinking.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    March 30, 2017 8:07 a.m.

    Think tank? The American Enterprise Institute is a conservative lobbying group that will write a report with any conclusion that people pay them to conclude. They'd come out with a report that stated that elephants were really liberal aliens if you paid them enough.

  • ray vaughn Ogden, UT
    March 30, 2017 7:58 a.m.

    Rescinding Bear Ears will just be the latest addition to the lists of promises to Native Americans that the US Government has broken.

  • ERB Eagle Mountain, UT
    March 30, 2017 6:43 a.m.

    What is made by the pen of one, can be unmade by the pen of one.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    March 30, 2017 6:28 a.m.

    "Conservative think tank concludes Trump can rescind Bears Ears Monument"

    Imagine our collective surprise.

  • PamFlinders Sandy, UT
    March 30, 2017 12:21 a.m.

    This is a terrible idea.