Utah plans to take US land through eminent domain

[bodecea]

What I find amusing is the audacity of a state to think that they can seize federal land in the first place.

The audacity was in the feds seizing it to begin with.

What's the point of having states?

I don't believe the Feds seized it...it has been theirs ever since the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo.

 

[rightwinger]

Sounds like Ft Sumter

Lets have the Army at the ready and the Air Force prepared for "Shock and Awe"

 

[Foxfyre]

What I find amusing is the audacity of a state to think that they can seize federal land in the first place.

The audacity was in the feds seizing it to begin with.

What's the point of having states?

I don't believe the Feds seized it...it has been theirs ever since the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo.

Then you would have to say that of all states that first existed as U.S. territories before they applied for statehood. But such is not the case.

 

[Gatekeeper]

I repeat I do not live in a state. I live in a commonwealth.

sounds kind of socialistic doesn't it? but it is a red commonwealth.

Yes, COMMONWEALTH, like Massachusetts,Pennsylvania,Virginia and Kentucky, isn't that something that Barack H. Obama is after? Oh sorry commonWEALTH is for them not us.
Maybe rename Commonwealth to something more appropriate, since the definition of commonwealth is: A nation or state governed by the people; a republic. Sounds just like the rest of America to me, but there are subtle differences.

Is the United States of America REALLY united? And could the term Commonwealth be another term for income redistribution, or is that too much spin?
Maybe 'Commonworkingpoor' would be better.

 

[rightwinger]

The Federal Government owns 57% of the land in Utah. I for one, would be willing to sell it back to them at a fair price

291 – Federal Lands in the US Strange Maps

 

[Foxfyre]

The Federal Government owns 57% of the land in Utah. I for one, would be willing to sell it back to them at a fair price

291 – Federal Lands in the US Strange Maps

Since the feds didn't pay for most of it in the first place, I think they should give it back to them. They might negotiate a fair price for the relatively small areas of really special monuments and national parks that should be available to all citizens.

 

[uscitizen]

Tourists should boycott Utah.

 

[rightwinger]

The Federal Government owns 57% of the land in Utah. I for one, would be willing to sell it back to them at a fair price

291 – Federal Lands in the US Strange Maps

Since the feds didn't pay for most of it in the first place, I think they should give it back to them. They might negotiate a fair price for the relatively small areas of really special monuments and national parks that should be available to all citizens.

Hell No

Give it back? It was never theirs in the first place

Since the US owns most the State already, we are the major stockholder. Taxpayers need fair market value from Utah. I think a trillion or two ought to cover it

 

[Dick Tator]

I love this! It's great! I wonder what excuse the feds will give for not having the land taken from them! lol

 

[uscitizen]

I love this! It's great! I wonder what excuse the feds will give for not having the land taken from them! lol

It's my land and I want to keep it?

 

[Dick Tator]

The Federal Government owns 57% of the land in Utah. I for one, would be willing to sell it back to them at a fair price

291 – Federal Lands in the US Strange Maps

Holy shit! Look at how much of California the Feds own. Perhaps Cali should do the same thing as Utah to increase tax revenue!

 

[uscitizen]

The Federal Government owns 57% of the land in Utah. I for one, would be willing to sell it back to them at a fair price

291 – Federal Lands in the US Strange Maps

Holy shit! Look at how much of California the Feds own. Perhaps Cali should do the same thing as Utah to increase tax revenue!

Yeah they need to create more mud slide and brush fire zones.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Federal Government owns 57% of the land in Utah. I for one, would be willing to sell it back to them at a fair price

291 – Federal Lands in the US Strange Maps

Holy shit! Look at how much of California the Feds own. Perhaps Cali should do the same thing as Utah to increase tax revenue!

I believe Nevada is worse off.

Highest percentage of state land owned by the federal government in the top 10 states:

Nevada 84.5%
Alaska 69.1%
Utah 57.4%
Oregon 53.1%
Idaho 50.2%
Arizona 48.1%
California 45.3%
Wyoming 42.3%
New Mexico 41.8%
Colorado 36.6

By contrast:

Connecticut 0.4%
Rhode Island 0.4%
Iowa 0.8%
New York 0.8%
Maine 1.1%
Kansas 1.2%
Nebraska 1.4%
Alabama 1.6%
Ohio 1.7%
Illinois 1.8%

291 – Federal Lands in the US Strange Maps


It is easy to see why many of the western states want to control more of their own lands and highly resent it when the Feds take more and more.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ahh Coal.

It becomes clearer.

Yeah it does become clear. The Federal government is purposely preventing the American people from developing energy.

Why?

 

[Avatar4321]

I repeat I do not live in a state. I live in a commonwealth.

sounds kind of socialistic doesn't it? but it is a red commonwealth.

Yes, COMMONWEALTH, like Massachusetts,Pennsylvania,Virginia and Kentucky, isn't that something that Barack H. Obama is after? Oh sorry commonWEALTH is for them not us.
Maybe rename Commonwealth to something more appropriate, since the definition of commonwealth is: A nation or state governed by the people; a republic. Sounds just like the rest of America to me, but there are subtle differences.

Is the United States of America REALLY united? And could the term Commonwealth be another term for income redistribution, or is that too much spin?
Maybe 'Commonworkingpoor' would be better.

I think the appropriate questions is "Are the United States really united?"

 

[Avatar4321]

I think this will be an interesting court battle. After all, who has the right to the land, the state or the Federal government?

I would say the Constitution gives the right of land in the state to the state, unless the Federal Government can provide evidence that it has used eminent domain itself.

 

[rightwinger]

I think this will be an interesting court battle. After all, who has the right to the land, the state or the Federal government?

I would say the Constitution gives the right of land in the state to the state, unless the Federal Government can provide evidence that it has used eminent domain itself.

Most of the land is not available for sale

It is composed of Military Reservations, National Parks, Indian Reservations

 

[Foxfyre]

I think this will be an interesting court battle. After all, who has the right to the land, the state or the Federal government?

I would say the Constitution gives the right of land in the state to the state, unless the Federal Government can provide evidence that it has used eminent domain itself.

Most of the land is not available for sale

It is composed of Military Reservations, National Parks, Indian Reservations

Most states don't mind the military bases. They bring in a lot of revenue for the state. And nobody much minds national parks preserving those rare national treasures like Carlsbad Caverns here in New Mexico or Yellowstone or Yosemite or the Grand Canyon.

And most of the Indian reservations are on land nobody much wants. The few really nice tracts occupied by reservations are relatively small.

But most federal land is just land leased to farmers and ranchers, undeveloped and just held in reserve for whatever. And when it ties up resources needed by the states, it is difficult to find justification for the federal government making it unavailable to the states.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Generate tax revenue? Sounds like they are going to sieze federal land and sell it to individuals.
That is NOT a proper use of eminent domain.

In Kelo vs New London, SCOTUS ruled that it's OK to seize land if someone was going to pay higher taxes

 

[Foxfyre]

Generate tax revenue? Sounds like they are going to sieze federal land and sell it to individuals.
That is NOT a proper use of eminent domain.

In Kelo vs New London, SCOTUS ruled that it's OK to seize land if someone was going to pay higher taxes

Yes they did, and I am hoping Judge Alito's activity subsequent to Kelo will set a precedent giving license for a better high court to overturn that decision. In order to rule as they did on Kelo required a rewrite of the letter and intent of the Constitution and it was just plain wrong.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Thomas wrote:

This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a “public use.”

I cannot agree. If such “economic development” takings are for a “public use,” any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as Justice O’Connor powerfully argues in dissent. Ante, at 1—2, 8—13. I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her dissenting opinion. Regrettably, however, the Court’s error runs deeper than this. Today’s decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In my view, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government’s eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the Clause’s original meaning, and I would reconsider them.

Our republic won't likely die from a major coup or armed takeover. I think it was Boedicca earlier today who said that if it dies, it will be from a thousand tiny cuts.

Every erosion of the Constitution and subtle erosion of our rights as that taken by five liberal Supreme Court justices is another cut bringing us closer to that thousand.