An effort seen as fundamental to funding of public education was taken to the next level by Gov. Gary Herbert. Saturday he signed the legislation authorizing Utah to use eminent domain to seize federal lands. In an update the Wall Street Journal has written a solid article on the action which sets the pace for other states to follow and legal battles ahead.
Take some time to read the article. Also, don’t forget to thank Gov. Herbert and the legislators who helped move Utah toward fundamental sovereignty under the 10th Amendment duties of all states.
In War Between States and Fed, Utah Strikes Latest Blow
Gary Wood is the Educational Advisor for the Utah Tenth Amendment Center. He works with the Utah 912 States' Rights Coalition and Hosts March of Liberty Radio every Saturday and Sunday evening at 7pm EST on Blog Talk Radio. He is a lifetime member of the VFW among other groups but more important to him is his title of grandpa. "According to Thomas Jefferson the 10th Amendment is keystone to our Constitution. We must restore the keystone so we can secure the blessings of liberty for our posterity, a goal of our Founders and a goal we must still strive to achieve."
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Tenth Amendment Center Main Feed TAC State Groups
"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."
site.
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2010 by Tenth Amendment Center Blog
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by TenthAmendment: #10th: Utah Governor signs eminent domain to seize federal land http://bit.ly/9UqWgk...
I could not find anywhere in the constitution that grants the federal government the power to take land or property for public use. The only thing I could find was the 5th amendment that states that all confiscations of property for public use had to be bought from that person. I believe that only states have the power to take property for public use and not the federal government.
I could be wrong on this and if so, can someone tell me where the federal government has the power to take property for public use?
[...] Utah Governor signs eminent domain to seize federal land An effort seen as fundamental to funding of public education was taken to the next level by Gov. Gary Herbert. Saturday he signed the legislation authorizing Utah to use eminent domain to seize federal lands. In an update the Wall Street Journal has written a solid article on the action which sets the pace for other states to follow and legal battles ahead. [...]
Take a look at what the Fed's are doing now and what they have already done to the Western United States: http://davegj13.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/obama-pl...
The history of state cessions being required to establish new states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_cessions
Seems to indicate the Federal Government did not simply acquire first ownership of any land until the Louisiana Purchase, where the Federal government for the first time directly acquired jurisdictional territory as defined in Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2.
While at the same time parts 2, 4, and 5 of Federalist #43
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa43.htm
Seems to be written in light of this development as the Feds had already acquired territorial jurisdiction of some of the land by cession of some but not all of the States, thus with the reality of overlapping clams particularly in the North the Article 4 Section 3 clause 2's line: "nothing in the Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
Seems to make a lot of sense as James Madison explained it in part 5 of Federalist 43 in saying the Federal government cannot wield territorial jurisdiction until such time as the all other such clams have been resolved.
see definition of the word "proviso":
" a clause in a document or contract that embodies a condition or stipulation"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proviso
Anyway the key issue here is the differences between federal territorial jurisdiction and that of state Jurisdiction, and whether or not the Federal government can Admit a state tot he union and not recognizes the state as having full jurisdiction over all the territory the Federal government has recognized that state as having.
I would like to look further into the issue of the Eastern States and how they have managed to obtain full jurisdiction over so much of their land while the Western States have so little…
Were they granted full initial title to all of their land as well as full jurisdictional rights in their initial statehood?
Is it even possible for both the State and the Federal government to have such State level jurisdiction within the recognized bounds of a State?
If so why then do we have Article 4 Section 3, or Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17? Both of which clearly segregate the important of the difference between federal State level jurisdiction, and State State level jurisdiction over land.
I think that is a great way to pursue state sovereignty! Hopefully other states will follow Utah's lead.
This would be a great win for state power because if a state can confiscate federal land under eminent domain then the state can take anything the federal govt has within their state. This power can give them a springboard to do other things such as remove federal buildings like the IRS.
Go Utah Go!!!! I do declare the anti-Federalists have returned.
Even the Federalists did not go this far.
I would read Federalist #43, parts 2, 4, and 5.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa43.htm
If the State has jurisdiction authority over the land that would necessarily include the right to eminent-domain land who's title is being held by the Federal government who clearly does not have jurisdiction authority.
The so called supremacy clause would only be applicable if the Federal Constitution gave the Federal government to own land in any situation other then that described in Article 4 Section 3, or Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17.
Clearly as the whole point of the 2 aforementioned sections established, that power does NOT exist, otherwise there would be no point behind the power of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17, as the State could not interfere with the supreme general authority over federally owned land.
[...] Utah Governor Signs Eminent Domain to Seize Federal Land [...]