DRN Title Search
Register
Log In
Forget your Password?

Home
Directory
Bulletins
Forums
Blogs
Articles
Links
Classifieds
About Us
Contact Us
Advertise
FAQ
Privacy Policy


Blurbs from the Bossman

This Land Is Our Land (?)
by Scott Perry | 2010/03/06 |

A secret memo by the US Department of the Interior has exposed an Obama administration proposal to put millions of acres of land off-limits to commercial activity and economic development. The impact of such a move could be particularly devastating at a time when the nation is struggling to recover from recession and job-creating investment is badly needed.

Blurbs from the Bossman ::

 The memo, marked “NOT FOR RELEASE” was recently leaked by an unnamed Interior Department insider and circulated by US Representative Rob Bishop (R-UT). It identifies fourteen specific tracts in nine western states which the administration could close off completely by designating them as federal monuments using a little-known federal statute known as the American Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. § 431, et seq.) —all without public comment or legislative action.

As Professor Richard Pipes, former director of the Russian Research Center at Harvard University puts it, “you can have tyranny with property, but you cannot have freedom and the rule of law without it.” The founders of our nation knew this, that private ownership of property—and private ownership of land in particular—is the bulwark of a free society. It was that guiding principle which led them to draft the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The Treaty of Paris, which officially ended the American Revolution in 1783 brought an end to the sovereign right of the King to own and control lands in the colonies. It is important to note here that the treaty was not between England and the federal government, which at that time did not yet exist.

“His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
 
Paris Peace Treaty of 1783, Article One (emphasis mine)
That is why in drafting the Constitution, the framers set forth the only instance in which the United States as a sovereign power is permitted to own land:
"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, 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;
 
U.S. Constitution, Article One, Section 8, Clause 17 (emphasis mine)
One of the issues the Constitution was intended to settle was the question of equal sovereignty among the Several States. The Equal Footing Doctrine is the Constitutional principle whose intent was to guarantee the rights of the states to be equal in their sovereign authority. Yet, the federal government, through a series of unconstitutional takings, now owns close to 650 million acres of land. That’s nearly 30% of the total land area of the United States, according to nationalatlas.gov. Almost 98% of the state of Alaska, 86% of Nevada and approximately 65% of all land west of the 100th meridian are under federal ownership, which flies in the face of the “equal footing” principle envisioned by the framers.
 
This certainly wouldn’t be the first administration to utilize the Antiquities Act in such a fashion. President Jimmy Carter used the Act to seize over 50 million acres of land in Alaska, more than any than any of his predecessors. President Bill Clinton effectively ended energy development in southern Utah by creating the 1.7 million acre Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument, including the Kaiparowits Plateau, which contains the nation’s largest undeveloped field of low-sulfur, low polluting coal. Only two other locations of such coal exist worldwide. One is a remote area of Colombia in South America; the other is Kalimantan Island, Indonesia. Mr. Clinton defended his actions at the time, citing environmental concerns. Some media watchdog groups, however, have criticized the move as a political favor to longtime Clinton associate James Riady, whose development firm the Lippo Group held a majority interest in the Kalimantan coal field. Taking the Kaiparowits coal off-line gave Lippo a virtual monopoly on the environmentally friendly coal.
 
I’m sure that everyone reading this knows about some of the financial troubles plaguing the nation of Greece. According to an article in the UK Guardian, German politicians have floated the idea that Greece should consider selling off some of its assets, including the Aegean Islands, which are under state ownership, and even such ancient treasures as the Acropolis and the Parthenon to meet its financial obligations to the European Union. How much of a stretch is it to consider that China could demand that we sell off such landmarks as Mount Rushmore or Yellowstone National Park to make good on some of the $750 billion of our debt that they still own?
 
International political implications aside, this kind of federal control of the means of production is something that I find personally disturbing, for a host of reasons. Taking these lands out of the hands of farmers, miners and energy producers stifles our ability to compete in the world economy. Right now, this nation possesses sufficient resources to not only provide much-needed jobs to its citizens, but to retire our debt and to achieve economic self-sufficiency well into the next decade. But no, say the environmental extremists. It’s much more important to save a snail darter than to ensure our nation’s economic security and energy independence. One rancher was forced off of his 180,000-acre ranch by federal officials from the US Forest service who asserted claims of ownership, despite the fact that the rancher’s family had legally owned and worked the land for more than 100 years. This is just one example of hundreds of productive, law-abiding citizens whose lives have been turned upside-down by over-zealous environmentalists, backed by the full weight and force of federal power and bureaucracy.
 
Hey, here’s an idea…why don't we give these guys total control over our healthcare system!




Rating: 

1559 words | 2772 views | 12 comments | log in or register to post a comment


A little bit one-sided here, Bossman

This statement by you is very misleading:

Yet, the federal government, through a series of unconstitutional takings, now owns close to 650 million acres of land. That’s nearly 30% of the total land area of the United States, according to nationalatlas.gov. Almost 98% of the state of Alaska, 86% of Nevada and approximately 65% of all land west of the 100th meridian are under federal ownership, which flies in the face of the “equal footing” principle envisioned by the framers.

Those vast Federal lands were not acquired by takings from private land owners; they were owned by the Federal Government when these states were admitted to the union.   You state that the government now owns close to 650 million acres, as if it owns more land than it used to.  This is not the case-- the total amount of land owned by the Federal government has actually declined slightly over the past 50 years.  In particular, the amount of land owned by the four major Federal land management agencies-- National Parks Service, National Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management-- declined by 78 million acres between 1964 and 1994, according to a 1996 GAO report-- from 700.8 million acres to 622.8 million acres. 

Now what has happened is that land has been transferred from the BLM to agencies such as the National Parks Service with more of a conservation and preservation mission.  The creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument is a good example of that.  But even previous to the creation of the National Monument, the Kaiparowits Plateau had not been mined-- plans to do so had been deemed too harmful to the enviroment.  Rather than some wild-eyed land grab, Clinton's acts simply lent permanence to what was already de facto policy not to allow large-scale mining on that land.

  

 
by Slade Smith | 2010/03/07 | log in or register to post a reply

Yet, Still Factually Accurate, Skymutt

First of all, thanks for reading and for commenting, Slade.  I don't think I'd characterize the creation of Grand Escalante-Staircase National Monument as a "wild-eyed land grab", either.  A more accurate description in this instance would be "political payoff", IMHO.  It also seems rather disingenuous to claim that the Andalax mine was deemed "too harmful to the environment" when BLM records show that Conoco held some 59 oil and gas leases and had been granted permission to drill for oil within the monument (over the objections of environmental groups) well after said monument had been established.

The manner in which the United States took title to those lands is really immaterial to this discussion, however.  The point of my article is that there really is no Constitutional authority for federal ownership of land.  Furthermore, the Antiquities Act grants a power to the president which is otherwise the exclusive purview of the Congress.  One of the basic tenets of socialism is the notion that government is the owner of the means of production and retains the right to distribute its wealth, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."  The land and the resources within them rightly belong to the states and to the citizens who live within their borders and it is only they who should be permitted to decide the best use of those resources.

 
by Scott Perry | 2010/03/07 | log in or register to post a reply

Well then...

...Reagan must have been a closeted Marxist too, because he didn't dispose of all that Federally owned land during his eight years in office. 

In general, gas and oil drilling isn't as destructive to the environment as coal mining (and gas and oil are also cleaner fuels).  So, it's not out of the ordinary that the BLM permitted oil and gas drilling on the land but denied a permit for a coal mine.

Conoco's oil and gas leases, which you mention, were obtained before the National Monument was created.  After the monument was created, it's as you say-- Federal land managers still allowed Conoco to exercise its rights under those leases, even though environmentalists objects.  Seems like the feds bent over backwards to be reasonable to private interests.  And they didn't unilaterally extinguish Andalux's leases either.

As far as the government having no constitutional authority to own land, I have never heard that claim before.  Is the government supposed to rent land for military bases, post offices, the White House and the Capitol?

Finally, you say this:

One of the basic tenets of socialism is the notion that government is the owner of the means of production and retains the right to distribute its wealth, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."  The land and the resources within them rightly belong to the states and to the citizens who live within their borders and it is only they who should be permitted to decide the best use of those resources.

Isn't state government still government?  If the Federal land resources are merely transferred to state government, it is still government which is owning "means of production and the right to distribute its wealth."  In other words, your plan is socialism by your own definition!  Do you consider yourself a Marxist?  :-)

 
by Slade Smith | 2010/03/08 | log in or register to post a reply

Federal Land Ownership

You might enjoy this link regarding constitutional authority for federal land ownership http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL342.67.pdf   Being from one of the old western states, Ohio, we are quite familiar with the concept.  Our state was sold by the federal government and the states of Virginia and Connecticut to the individual investors with a certain amount reserved by the Federal Government..

There are several nice articles available on the internet regarding the Antiquies Act of 1906.  The history of the passage of the act seems to me to make a reasonable case for it's passage.

For those of us who live outside of the original 13, we are bound by The Property Clause, Article IV, 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution.   To restate what Slade has already mentioned, the designation of National Monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906 is not a taking, but a redesignation of Federal land use.  The only President that has not used the Antiquities Act from it's passage was Richard Nixon.  The largest use by far was by George W Bush with the establishment of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. containing 140,000 square miles.

 
by Douglas Gallant | 2010/03/08 | log in or register to post a reply

Thanks For That, Douger

Just as a point of clarification, Reagan and Bush-41 didn't use their authority under the act, either.

The largest use by far was by George W Bush with the establishment of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. containing 140,000 square miles.

...located northwest of Hawaii, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

 
by Scott Perry | 2010/03/08 | log in or register to post a reply

Antiquities Act

Yes, in the ocean, now protected from drilling.  I thought that was a major point of your argument.  I am sorry for my misunderstanding.

Use of the Antiquities Act of 1906 by Reagan and Bush I

Reagan- El Malpais, NM, Poverty Point, LA, Hagerman Fossil Beds, Id.

Bush I-Petroglyph, NM. ( a darn pretty area by the way)

 
by Douglas Gallant | 2010/03/08 | log in or register to post a reply

Sorry, Doug...

but those areas weren't designated under the Antiquities Act.  They were established by Congress duing the respective administrations of the presidents you cited, so I stand by my prior statement.

Your other point is well-taken, however.  I guess since I was discussing "land", I was thinking in the literal sense.  I had not considered the land and resources which lie beneath the water.

 
by Scott Perry | 2010/03/08 | log in or register to post a reply

Antiqities Act

You are quite correct.  I did not catch the notations when I first read the park service report.  Assuming I am reading it correctly now, it seems Gerald Ford never took advantage of his authority under the act as well.  I should know better than to post shortly before my bedtime.

 
by Douglas Gallant | 2010/03/09 | log in or register to post a reply

Same Here

If you read my above exchange with Slade, you'll see that I was suffering from the same affliction!

Thanks for reading and for commenting, Doug!

 
by Scott Perry | 2010/03/09 | log in or register to post a reply

No, I Don't Consider Myself a Marxist...Why Do You Ask?

Actually, President Reagan was one of only three presidents (the other two were Nixon and Bush-41) who did not use their authority under the Antiquities Act lock up any federal land, so I wouldn't exactly characterize him as a "closeted Marxist", to borrow your phrase.

As to your commentary on Kaiparowitz, none of what you said changes the fact that Mr. Clinton's designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument gave the Lippo Group a de facto worldwide monopoly on low-polluting coal--but I'm sure that was just a happy coincidence.

As far as the government having no constitutional authority to own land, I have never heard that claim before.  Is the government supposed to rent land for military bases, post offices, the White House and the Capitol?

I should have finished that sentence by saying "no Constitutional authority other than what was provided for in Article One, Section 8."  It was kind of late when I posted that reply, so OK, I'll give you that one.

Isn't state government still government?

Well, um...yes and no.  Most of the land we're talking about here was obtained either as the spoils of victory in wars with foreign nations or bought outright from other countries as a security measure for the eastern states. Originally, the idea was to get the land, once acquired, into the hands of the citizens as expeditiously as possible, with one of the objectives being to pay off the war debt of the United States.  While Article One, Section 8 sets forth the manner in which the United States may acquire land and the purposes for which it may purchase land from the states, the Tenth Amendment goes on to state that all powers not expressly granted to the United States "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."  Under the Equal Footing Doctrine, it should fall to the states to release or sell those lands to the people, as was the case in my home state of Pennsylvania.  Not so in the states west of the 100th meridian.

I guess some states are just more equal than others.

 
by Scott Perry | 2010/03/08 | log in or register to post a reply

Low sulfur coal?

As to your commentary on Kaiparowitz, none of what you said changes the fact that Mr. Clinton's designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument gave the Lippo Group a de facto worldwide monopoly on low-polluting coal--but I'm sure that was just a happy coincidence.

This claim is easily proven false.  Here's a list of coal production by state for 2008.  Wyoming is by far the leader, with three times the production of second place West Virginia.  And Wyoming coal is all extremely low-sulfur, "low polluting" coal.

 
by Slade Smith | 2010/03/09 | log in or register to post a reply

OK, Whatever...

I didn't just make that up out of thin air.  I did the research and verified it with three independent sources.  I've never heard the "environmentally friendly" claim about Wyoming coal before.

 
by Scott Perry | 2010/03/09 | log in or register to post a reply
Blurbs from the Bossman

 

Thoughts, Observations
and Ruminations of an Independent Title Examiner Living & Working in the "Steel Buckle of the Rust Belt."

 

Links

Recent Comments

SEE, I TOLD YOU SO!Woman Plans To Marry Father After 2 Years Of Dating ...
by Scott Perry
Relevant changes to the Act are items 2,3,4 and 5 (bold). To stress Scott's point, the lien must be...
by Ted Mullucey
Under Pennsylvania law, delinquent property taxes are considered Municipal Liens. "Municipal Liens...
by Scott Perry
I haven't read the amendment or new law, but from what you've said, it appears a county   ...
by john gault
“Act 93, originally House Bill 388, only changed how municipalities reduce property&nbs...
by Scott Perry
This is a major change to Pennsylvania law - up to now, if a lien was recorded as a municipal lien, ...
by Elizabeth Helman
While there is a need for some kind of health support, we still need to make sure that it is real...
by Yusni Bonlingo
Your acknowledgement that “the exception proves the rule” is a prima fascie af...
by Scott Perry
Categories

     
    © 2020, Source of Title.