Utah to impose eminent domain on federal government

jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
It seems that they might just have a point since the Kelo decision. After all, they simply want to do what the SCotUS ruled the city of New Haven was allowed to do, and for the same reason -- economic development and a broadened tax base.

SOURCE

* March 29, 2010, 10:54 AM ET

In War Between States and Feds, Utah Strikes Latest Blow

By Ashby Jones

All is not well between the states and the federal government. Across the land, states in recent months have signed sovereignty statements, reminders of sorts that the 9th and 10th Amendments imbue the states with certain powers.

And last week, more than a dozen states sued to strike down the new federal health-care law.

Now this interesting little movement, as reported by the AP: Utah Governor Gary Herbert on Saturday authorized the use of eminent domain to take some of the U.S. government’s most valuable parcels.

Yes, LBers, you’ve read that correctly: a state has invoked eminent domain in order to take back land from the feds.

According to the AP, Herbert signed a pair of bills into law that supporters hope will spark similar legislation throughout the West. Many contend that federal ownership of wide parcels of land restricts economic development in an energy-rich part of the country. Many people in Utah are still angry that President Clinton designated a large area in Utah as a national monument in 1996, a move that stopped development on the land.

More than 60 percent of Utah is owned by the U.S. government, and policy makers here have long complained that federal ownership hinders their ability to generate tax revenue and adequately fund public schools.

Utah Democrats have slammed the eminent domain measure as a waste of money, emphasizing that the move is on shaky legal ground. Why spend taxpayer money defending legislation that likely won’t withstand legal muster, opponents say.

But if the law is as bad as Democrats say it is, a court will quickly overturn it and the state won’t have to spend much money defending it, Herbert said.
Click to expand...
 
Further on that ...

SOURCE

* February 5, 2010, 11:43 AM ET

States to Feds: Step Off

By Ashby Jones

We had no idea: states across the land are assembling their legislatures and passing these resolutions asserting their sovereignty. It’s all part of this push, it seems, to remind whomever — citizens, the federal government — that the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution imbue the states with certain powers.

The number of states deciding that these resolutions are worth doing are growing. South Carolina passed one this week. A Kansas resolution affirming the state’s 10th amendment rights was on Thursday sent to the state Senate for a full vote. Late last month, the Alabama legislature sent up a resolution essentially reaffirming the 10th amendment. For a full list of what states have done on this front, click here.

By way of quick refresher, the 10th Amendment reads:

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.

On its face, it certainly sounds like an amendment that’s worth being mindful of (which one isn’t?). Thing is, however, that any new application or enforcement of the 10th amendment is going to require some new, perhaps forward-thinking litigation, and a Supreme Court that decides it’s high time to breathe new life into the largely moribund amendment.

Last fall, we cited Radley Balko, writing in Reason, who cited this passage from Ken at Popehat:

“The Tenth Amendment is close to a dead letter in American jurisprudence; the unrestrained growth of the federal government reflects that modern courts have refused to find that it acts as any sort of brake on federal power.”

As we wrote, it would take an enormously courageous (or ill-advised, depending on your perspective) federal judge to strike down federal legislation on Tenth amendment grounds. But this is a court that decided to pick up the Second amendment and give it another look. So who knows?
Click to expand...
 
70% Federal ownership of state? Thats an awful big chunk. There should be limits on the power of the federal government. If only there was limiting document written that enumerated the specific powers of a federal government.
 
Too many Mormons setting the rules and you can't drink unless you belong to a club. Fuck that shit and all their tightening governmental fingers around my neck.
 
oh, you mean that in utah there really ARE people that tell you how to live?

yeah, i love how these "conservatives" whine incessantly about the fascist liberal machine telling them how to live while at the same time making attempt to control what we do with our own bodies. go freedom!!!
 
Utah is Gawdless!

You mean Utah isn't going to legalize pot, fag marriage and free shit
for all the illegal beanners while killing babies?
Doncha think Osammie should send in the army
in too protect the citizens from their fascist state government?
 
valkyrie said:
Too many Mormons setting the rules and you can't drink unless you belong to a club. Fuck that shit and all their tightening governmental fingers around my neck.
Click to expand...
"The law is for your own protection maam" /officer

Aside from bigotry, do you object to states making their own laws?
 
Gonz said:
There used to be, from what I understand
Click to expand...
planetoftheapesending.jpg

God damn dirty apes.
 
ResearchMonkey said:
"The law is for your own protection maam" /officer
Click to expand...
Famous last words before the government takes complete control.

Aside from bigotry, do you object to states making their own laws?
Click to expand...
So long as the state laws do not infringe upon the rights of citizens (even minority citizens) and those state laws do not conflict with federal laws I do not see a problem with it. This include the "separation of church and state."

But then, I'm not going to Utah for a vacation either. They have some nice ski locations but I'll go to a state that doesn't want to legislate Christian sect morality and spend my hard earned cash there. It's the same as if Florida suddenly had a majority Muslim voting population. Do we want pork banned? Do we want women to have to wear a head scarf? Women to be banned from voting? Driving? Do we want Islamic law to become secular law for the state? I bet you agree with me that you would not want that.
 
2minkey said:
oh, you mean that in utah there really ARE people that tell you how to live?

yeah, i love how these "conservatives" whine incessantly about the fascist liberal machine telling them how to live while at the same time making attempt to control what we do with our own bodies. go freedom!!!
Click to expand...

Another winner in our endless contest called....

FEDERALISM - GOOD OR BAD!!!!!, now here's your host..
 
I believe you can drink in your own home in Utah anytime you like.

Odd minx, you're not fond of obamacare but you're passive and accepting of it. Yet you generally espouse incontinence over the morality related to chistain'ist religions.
 
2minkey said:
what? my response had little to do with federalism specifically.
Click to expand...

yeah, i love how these "conservatives" whine incessantly about the fascist liberal machine telling them how to live while at the same time making attempt to control what we do with our own bodies. go freedom!!!
Click to expand...

You can leave Utah & go to another state where the laws are different. YOu can't leave the USA & find more freedom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top