Land Transfer is Constitutional

[JL Rockies]

The great thing about The Constitution is you don't really need legal analysts to know what it says. It also means that when you stand up for it, you're never wrong... like me

Brought to you by those "stupid rednecks doing donuts and burn outs at the Capitol."

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/86...l-land.html?pg=all&ref=https://m.facebook.com


Kooler than Mudd.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Lets assume for a second that is is constitutional, that still doesn't mean they are obligated in any form to do so. How about we make a bet, I've got $500 that says the Fed has no plans to return lands on Jan 1, 2015, following Utah's deadline. Wanna take that bet?

 

[Stephen]

I was just going to make the same wager, then decided, "Nah, he's always right after all." I mean, we wen't to publik shcool to get our edumication, Kurt! We couldn't possibly stand a chance!

Regardless of my sub par education, I'll also wager $500 that if this hits the courts, it will be found constitutionally wanting.

Everyone should take one thing away from this article:

...the land was to be sold to pay off the common public debt ... and to finance the new government through its disposal.

What that tells me is that the State of Utah would use it's control over these lands to sell them and make a profit. Remember, oil development closes roads just as effectively, if not more so, than wilderness. The state of Utah has no interest in protecting access for recerationalists.

 

[Tacoma]

Lets assume for a second that is is constitutional, that still doesn't mean they are obligated in any form to do so. How about we make a bet, I've got $500 that says the Fed has no plans to return lands on Jan 1, 2015, following Utah's deadline. Wanna take that bet?

This was my opinion as well, and then I got busy doing other stuff. Lots of things are constitutional, yet still not happening. Hill'a beans

 

[ZUKEYPR]

The great thing about The Constitution is you don't really need legal analysts to know what it says.Kooler than Mudd.

So then why is the Supreme Court of this land so gainfully employed interpreting said Constitution? How many hundreds of SC cases have their been heard on nothing more than the first 4 articles?

 

[Tacoma]

So then why is the Supreme Court of this land so gainfully employed interpreting said Constitution? How many hundreds of SC cases have their been heard on nothing more than the first 4 articles?

Shhh, shhhh... don't get all riled up.

 

[jackjoh]

So then why is the Supreme Court of this land so gainfully employed interpreting said Constitution? How many hundreds of SC cases have their been heard on nothing more than the first 4 articles?

Because there are those that would circumvent the constitution and make laws that are unconstitutional. You could ask the question why have any judges and the answer is the same.

The nay sayers are saying that it is a white wash bought and paid for by the Sutherland Institute. After reading it I think they have good legal standing and it could actually happen. Only time will tell.

If things are not corrected they can only get worse or at the very least stay the same. I personally do not want more wilderness where it does not exist and would rather see it used by private companies or mining interests even if it means losing some roads that you can not go on now.

 

[Skylinerider]

Everyone should take one thing away from this article:

...the land was to be sold to pay off the common public debt ... and to finance the new government through its disposal.

What that tells me is that the State of Utah would use it's control over these lands to sell them and make a profit. Remember, oil development closes roads just as effectively, if not more so, than wilderness. The state of Utah has no interest in protecting access for recerationalists.

I've brought this up numerous times, but no one ever addresses this issue. I'm starting to think they have me on ignore and don't see my posts.

 

[jackjoh]

I always read Stephen, Kurt, and Curt because we agree on most things and they have insight into things here in Utah that I do not have.

 

[Kevin B.]

I personally do not want more wilderness where it does not exist and would rather see it used by private companies or mining interests even if it means losing some roads that you can not go on now.

Not me. Wilderness doesn't close the land, it just closes it to vehicles. Private companies and resource extractors will shut down all access everywhere they can, wreck the land when we aren't looking, and then holler for tax dollars to clean up their superfund sites.

If there was a guarantee from the State that the land would remain in public hands, I'd be more excited about a swap. As it sits, and from what the State has said, I'm 100% against it.

 

[JL Rockies]

The video cliff notes:

http://youtu.be/E3Z34eHfdeg




Kooler than Mudd.

 

[JL Rockies]

The bottom line is is it's not the Feds job. Look at all the causes it's taken on:

Poverty - more people on assistance than ever

Education - our kids are behind the rest of the civilized world.. and some of the uncivilized

Drugs - prisons are full of drug offenders and the tide of drugs continue to rise

Healthcare - one word; .gov

Retirement - that turned into a tax

I could go on and in about the folly of progressivism.

The discussion should be local as all politics should be. It's a lot easier to throw a rock at a Governor than it is a President.


Kooler than Mudd.