SCOTUS and the EPA vs Private Property

On March 21, TAC reported that the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of an Idaho couple who had been petitioning the court system to be allowed to make their case concerning EPA administrative heavy handedness. The post, U.S. Supreme Court: Idaho Couple can take EPA to Court, reported that the couple had been directed by the Environmental Protection Agency to restore their newly acquired home construction plot back to its original state or face stiff fines. The EPA would not allow an appeal, or even a hearing.

Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution enumerates the main powers delegated to the federal government, specifically those of the Legislative Branch. An original understanding makes it clear that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to form a federal agency which can dictate what people can do with their private property. Just as it has no authority to demand the American people purchase something, Washington D.C. has no power to tell us what to do with personal or real property we own.

Utah, Colorado, Nevada and many other western states are neighbored by separate “federal states” which cannot be utilized for their own taxing purposes or to access the natural resources that reside within them. This is due to the fact that the federal government had either grabbed up the land when the state first entered the union, or had purchased it by some means. Regardless of how it was acquired, the federal land is within the state, and the people of that state cannot utilize it, in most cases.

Federal ownership of the land creates no benefit to the state itself. As U.S. Government Property, it is considered a resource of the U.S. Federal Government. In some instances, such as the Smoky Mountains in North Carolina, the area has been deemed A UNESCO World Heritage Site and is “legally protected pursuant to the Law of War, under the Geneva Convention, its Articles, Protocols and Customs, together with other treaties including the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and international law”. Our Congress had to ratify that UN treaty. “While each World Heritage Site remains part of the legal territory of the state wherein the site is located, UNESCO considers it in the interest of the international community to preserve each site”.

How is that for giving away Sovereignty?

Details

Virginia Blogger Calls Tenthers “Intellectual Boobs”

Dan Casey of the Roanoke Times recently embarrassed himself with a juvenile, ad hominem attack on the Tenth Amendment movement titled “The Whole Tenth Amendment Business is Dumb and Crazy.”

While it’s unclear whether Casey actually expected his “arguments” to be taken seriously, it is clear that he cannot make his point through the use of logic or fact. Therefore, Casey’s piece is chock full of historical inaccuracies, mis-characterizations and outright falsehoods regarding the original intent and meaning of the Constitution.

So many, actually, that I cannot list them all here. However, I did respond point by point in a piece of my own to be published soon.

Here is a sample:

Details

Nationalism, Federalism and the Civil War

I often read blogs, articles, news “reports” and the like – where the commentator refers to the current 10th Amendment Movement with a comment like Hugh Holub in the Tucson Citizen: “The Civil War was about the right of states to allow slavery. The Union won and slavery was outlawed.” Obviously, the southern states wanted…

Details

States’ Rights Are Not Wrong

A very long, but well-documented article on the history of nullification – and its current efforts in ….of all places …. the Huffington Post. Read it – it’s really good, and gives great ammo for discussing this issue with your friends on the left. We all have them. Admit it. (I even have a few…

Details

What’s Wrong with States’ Rights?

A good read from VT Campaign for Liberty: First there were “Truthers” and then “Birthers” and now there are “Tenthers.” To be accurate, the “Tenthers” actually came first, since this newly-coined term (which is supposed to denote a “fringe” position and is therefore derogatory) refers to those who believe the tenth amendment to the Constitution…

Details

State Legislatures Take Up Abortion Issues

From The New American State governments are reasserting their constitutional right to regulate abortion. Eleven states this year have passed laws which either restricts or controls abortion, this activity represents a high water mark for state legislative action on this issue. Governor Barbour of Mississippi signed into law a measure which would keep new insurance…

Details

Miss Oklahoma’s simple declarative sentence

There are three issues in the Arizona situation. In order of importance they are: a state’s right to act without permission from the federal government, chronic federal incompetence and mismanagement and the third: Is the controversial Arizona plan a good and workable solution for controlling the border? I was struck by the clarity of Morgan…

Details