PDA

View Full Version : What's Wrong With These Pictures?



Robo
04-26-2017, 10:25 AM
What’s wrong with these pictures?
A President on his way out of office decides he’d like to confiscate over three million acres of land in Utah and claim it for control of the Federal government. Enlighten me! Where in the Constitution can we find the authority for a President to confiscate State lands to be controlled by the feds?


A duly elected President signs an executive order and a day or two later an appointed Judge never being elected to anything quashes it and ties the issue up in the courts for god only knows how long. Where does that kind of power come from fot unelected Judges?


Does anybody aside from me find such actions absurd, authoritarian and unconstitutional?

AeonPax
04-26-2017, 10:28 AM
`
`
Did the state of Utah, complain?

Common Sense
04-26-2017, 10:30 AM
Utah is such a gorgeous state. It would be a shame if that national treasure was ruined.

NapRover
04-26-2017, 10:40 AM
Does anybody aside from me find such actions absurd, authoritarian and unconstitutional?
I certainly do! Without doing research, I find it impossible that any state would call congress and ask that a huge portion of its territory be declared a national park or federal land. I did watch a special on Yellowstone though--prior to its being declared a national park, there was a lot of tourist-trapping going on, as well as spoilage of environment. So national parks are a good thing, but a POTUS shouldn't have the power to unilaterally declare one.

Bethere
04-26-2017, 10:42 AM
Utah is such a gorgeous state. It would be a shame if that national treasure was ruined.

The good news is that the antiquities act doesn't give the president power to delist national monuments.

Common Sense
04-26-2017, 10:44 AM
Antiquities Act...

Oops...beat me to it.

rcfieldz
04-26-2017, 10:48 AM
Here's one example I can think of. Looking for another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam

rcfieldz
04-26-2017, 10:51 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_K._Polk

Common
04-26-2017, 11:19 AM
Its ok Obama did it, no complaints

NapRover
04-26-2017, 03:28 PM
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/04/26/trump-executive-order-could-rescind-national-monuments/100914086/The potus can, however, direct his staff to look into whether the said designations since 1996 have complied with the letter and spirit of the antiquities act for the purpose of voiding them. And he issued an executive order to do just that, today.
Yippeeeee!

Common Sense
04-26-2017, 03:30 PM
Cool. Maybe they can turn them into shopping malls now.

NapRover
04-26-2017, 03:54 PM
Cool. Maybe they can turn them into shopping malls now.
I'm thinking amusement park or nuclear waste dump.

Common Sense
04-26-2017, 03:54 PM
I'm thinking amusement park or nuclear waste dump.

Why not both?

NapRover
04-26-2017, 04:01 PM
Why not both?
I doubt they'll ask for my input. Suffice it to say whatever they (states) want to with it is better than what the government would do.

Robo
04-26-2017, 07:06 PM
`
`
Did the state of Utah, complain?

It's United States Senator has and the President is looking at overreach by Obama and possible reversal.

Robo
04-26-2017, 07:12 PM
I certainly do! Without doing research, I find it impossible that any state would call congress and ask that a huge portion of its territory be declared a national park or federal land. I did watch a special on Yellowstone though--prior to its being declared a national park, there was a lot of tourist-trapping going on, as well as spoilage of environment. So national parks are a good thing, but a POTUS shouldn't have the power to unilaterally declare one.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Amendment 10.

The States have the constitutional authority to establish parks and establish the laws that protect them and prosecute violations of them and most likely do a better job than the feds to boot.

Robo
04-26-2017, 07:17 PM
The good news is that the antiquities act doesn't give the president power to delist national monuments.

There's no constitutional authority for the feds/Congress to have ever establish the Antiquities Act. The powers of the Congress are limited and enumerated in Article One Section Eight and some of the amendments. An Antiquities Act can only become constitutional law by a constitutional amendment.

resister
04-26-2017, 07:57 PM
Cool. Maybe they can turn them into shopping malls now.Or trailer parks for Canadians to live less than 6 months and leave vacant until they return.

AeonPax
04-27-2017, 02:29 AM
It's United States Senator has and the President is looking at overreach by Obama and possible reversal.
`
So Utah didn't complain. Got it.

resister
04-27-2017, 03:00 AM
`
So Utah didn't complain. Got it.
You should write novels, they also hear whatever they want:laugh:

Bethere
04-27-2017, 03:18 AM
There's no constitutional authority for the feds/Congress to have ever establish the Antiquities Act. The powers of the Congress are limited and enumerated in Article One Section Eight and some of the amendments. An Antiquities Act can only become constitutional law by a constitutional amendment.

Of course the antiquities act is constitutional.

Cameron v United States

Cappaert v United States

United States v California

Robo
04-27-2017, 10:08 AM
Of course the antiquities act is constitutional.

Cameron v United States

Cappaert v United States

United States v California

Of course those are simply political opinions/decisions delivered up by partisan ideologues, appointed by a partisan ideologue and confirmed by other partisan ideologues any resemblance to actual constitutional relevancy is of course accidental.

Neither you or any lawyer or judge can point to any authority in the Constitution for the Congress to add powers to the Presidency without a constitutional amendment. That my friend is an elementary common sense constitutional truism.

MisterVeritis
04-27-2017, 10:30 AM
Of course the antiquities act is constitutional.
Cameron v United States
Cappaert v United States
United States v California
You describe what politicians got away with, not what is constitutional. The Constitution describes the limited reasons the federal government can own land. A law cannot constitutionally change the Constitution's limits.

patrickt
04-27-2017, 10:53 AM
Utah is such a gorgeous state. It would be a shame if that national treasure was ruined.

That's right. If the government doesn't seize the land it's lost forever. In fact, the government should seize everything, including your home. It's so lovely, it's a shame others can't enjoy it.