booshway The part of the Constitution you quoted refers to the states as
of 1788. They were 13. The rest of the area in the country, plus additions
such as Louisiana, the Mexican Cession, Florida, Alaska etc., were governed as
territories under federal control until such time as they were made states.Your argument has no basis.
@ booshwayThe U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the federal government
from retaining ownership of land or managing that land. This has been determined
through legislation, which has been challenged and subsequently upheld by the
Supreme Court.Art 4, Sec 3, Clause 2 "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...."The U.S. Constitution allows the U.S. government to retain lands in federal
ownership in perpetuity, and allows the government a great deal of discretion in
the management of those lands.There are many who disagree, but the
Supreme Court has been very clear and consistent on the issue.
When Congress passed the Antiquities Act of 1906, they gave the President a
power which they themselves did not have to give. Nowhere in the Constitution
does the federal government have the right to control or claim ownership of any
amount of state land, let alone most of the state. The states are each sovereign
territory, united under the federal government for very specific purposes.U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:“To establish Post Offices
and post Roads;”“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all
Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by
Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, (AKA Washington, DC) and to exercise like
Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,
dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—“Amendment 5“
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation.”Nope, nothing there. Repeal The Antiquities Act.
It is undemocratic and unconstitutional.
It always amazes me when I travel in Europe, that an area so ancient in
habitation and so riddled with conflicts has so much open space. Beautiful open
space that could easily be used for "development" , but it isn't.
Irony Guy mentions "immaturity of spirit". That's
basically what you feel in Europe is a maturity of spirit regarding their
land...and oh by the way it's the same maturity of spirit one gets from the
Native Americans here. The ancients seem to see something the
independent, "freedom loving", libertarian American capitalists
All Congress and the Senate have to do is pass a new law which changes forever
the Presidential ability to create National Monuments.It is that
simple. It is democratic. It is Constitutional.See how easy it can
be if you just turn off the rhetoric?
If GWBush had declared Bears Ears a National Monument there would be no
discussion. A statue would be erected in his honor but because Obama stamped the
paperwork everyone is in an uproar.
@ Ron, A quick perusal of the comments about BENM show a overwhelming majority
want it left as is.
Congress was involved. They dithered and fussed and eventually came up with
nothing. There are good reasons to keep, and use, the Antiquities Act just as
I do not disagree Ron,Our government was meant to be run by
moderates. Our supreme court was meant to be run by those who could get a bi
partisan consensus. Legislation should not be passed by a simple majority.Unfortunately, that is the way we are going (or already there). Our
politicians (both R and D) have worked to get more and more power. And, also unfortunately, the partisan people agree with this power grab when
their side is in power.Along those lines, Congress should be
prepared to win some and lose some. They should not obstruct for the sake of
obstruction. And lately, both sides have been doing that.One day,
just hopefully, the logical, non partisans will take over and run the government
as it was meant. By reasonable, logical people. Far far from what we have
With the Antiquities Act, Congress gave the power to the president to create
national monuments. It did not give him a power to uncreate monuments.
Congress could, of course, modify the act or repeal it. This they have never
done. So, for now, the president has the constitutional authority to create
monuments, even if the author doesn't like it.
The history of Arches Nat'l Park is instructive. Pres. Herbert
Hoover declared a small monument. Pres. Roosevelt increased the size of it.
Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson greatly increased the size of it. Nobody today wants to
shrink it. The trend has been toward preserving more and more,
toward setting apart certain sacred lands just because we feel a reverence for
them. It's a sign of cultural maturity. The demand for
shrinkage and rescission is driven by greed...the governing passion of the Trump
Administration...and characterized by an immaturity of spirit.