30X30 Fed Land Grab; An Existantial Threat

Biden's plan is black-letter-law unconstitutional, but the rogue administration does not care...

Prescott, AZ August 30, 2024… If you don’t know what the crooks in the federal government are up to, you should because one day it will affect you in a big way. Resident Biden has issued a call to action that we “work together to conserve, connect, and restore at least 30 percent of our lands and waters by 2030 for the sake of our economy, our health, and our well-being.” When the federal government uses such words to paint a “field of dreams” picture in your mind, you should be terrified. What comes next is the reality of yet another federal consolidation of power (think dictatorship).

Why are the western states so prickly about the 30-by-30 federal land grab? Imagine the feds rolling into Massachusetts, New York, or Virginia and telling the locals, “[w]e are seizing your local and state parks to protect them —from you— to “conserve, connect, and restore our lands,” You have just lost local control over what makes your state a state, the land within your state borders. For example, let’s visit Arizona…

Take note, only the land in white is privately held, the rest is controlled by one government or another. If we set aside just the Tribal Treaty land (colored in orange), it is easy to see the incredible land mass that the federal government already controls through its refusal to dispose of as it was to do after February 14, 1912, when Arizona joined the United States. This begs the question, can the federal government "indefinitely (detain) withdraw or reserve public lands (make them no longer subject to private appropriation and disposal) without an explicit enumerated function in the constitution?" This is a question that Utah is now seeking to litigate with SCOTUS.

Since it is the states that created the federal government, not the federal government that created the states, one can reason that the land already belongs to the states, the feds just refuse to let go. The land “possessed” by BLM, NPS, USFWS and USFS should be state land already.

Then we have the seizure of land under executive order. President Harrison became the first to designate an area of land for preservation. On March 30th 1891, Harrison created the first Reserve. This first chosen area of forest is known as Yellowstone Park Timberland Reserve. During his term in office, Harrison would designate over 15 forests. And, nobody challenged him on the constitutionality of the matter. The action predated Arizona statehood so legislators there get a pass up to 1912.

We continue to face an insidious initiative to rob the foundation of our statehood with 30X30; there is no reason why the national forests cannot be state forests, and why the BLM-controlled land cannot be state land, even the national wildlife preserves should be state preserves. But the loony extreme left will tell you that the state does not have the resources to properly manage the land.

History is a remarkable thing when it isn’t rewritten…

We all remember COVID-19 and the irrational government response to te “public health crisis.” I’ll not debate the legitimacy of the declaration, but will take issue with masks that did nothing to protect people, jabs that were admittedly ineffective at preventing one from getting COVID-19, and social distancing. Do you remember national parks were closed? “In spite of a 46-day, full park closure this spring and partial closures through August due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the parks had 12,095,720 visits.”¹ There is so much to unpack here, but one important point is this, it was all about control.

What are known as “enabling acts” of states, especially those west of the Mississippi River, lay out the terms and conditions of entering the union including what makes the state a state, the land within its boundaries, its jurisdiction. It is the one thing that even the courts recognize as immovable, in fact, a U.S. District Court in Arizona will not hear a New Mexico case because of where the complaint originated from. Biden’s 30X30 program will rob states of their identity.

During the 1787 Madison Debates, “Mr. [Eldridge] Gerry contended that this power might be made use of to enslave any particular State by buying up its territory, and that the strongholds proposed would be a means of awing the State into an undue obedience to the Genl. Government.”² We now call the “Genl. Government” the federal government. Such activity has plagued the western states for decades, since the early 1900’s. the siren song was a warning about the consolidation of power, once again a prickly matter with the nation-states that formed the original United States.

Can the feds "indefinitely (detain) withdraw or reserve” public lands?

Subject matter expert Bill Howell, examines the question of whether “the federal government can indefinitely (detain) withdraw or reserve” public lands (make them no longer subject to private appropriation and disposal) without an explicit enumerated function in the constitution?" There is limited powers —authority— for the federal government to “hold indefinitely” any land, and that means the federal government has seized power that is not given in the Constitution.

Mr. Howell argues correctly, the United States is "entirely a creature of the Constitution."  Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) citing Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816).

The Court has no authority to add to the powers delegated by the People in their [emphasis added] Constitution:  “Sitting here, we are not at liberty to add one jot of power to the national government beyond what the People have granted by the constitution; and, on the other hand, we are bound to support that constitution as it stands, and to give a fair and rational scope to all the powers which it clearly contains,” Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. 1 (1820).

To assure that no powers are added, the Constitution is written:  "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written.”  Marbury v. Madison, 5 u.S. 137 (1803).

The powers delegated to Congress under the Property Clause are "to dispose" and "to make all needful rules and regulations."  Using Scalia and Garner's book "Reading Law" we find a number of canons of statutory interpretation that may be applied to interpretation of the Property Clause.  Let’s just invoke one for now, the "Surplusage Canon."

The Surplusage Canon provides that "If possible, every word and every provision [of a statute] is to be given effect.  None should be ignored.  None should needlessly be given an interpretation that causes it to duplicate another provision or to have no consequence."  

Therefore, by the Surplusage Canon, the power to "make all needful rules and regulations" cannot be construed as contemplating a duplicate "power to dispose," nor can it be interpreted as a delegation of power that obviates the preceding delegated "power to dispose," nor can it be construed as authorizing an opposite "power of retention" under federal trusteeship which would render the delegated "power to dispose" of no consequence.  Most particularly, the delegated  "power to dispose" must not be ignored.  The Court has acknowledged as much: 

“To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning, would be a departure from the first principle of constitutional interpretation.”  Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938).

In conclusion, if the United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution, and if the Court is not permitted to add to the powers delegated to the United States or Congress under the Constitution, and if the Constitution is written to assure that the limits of those delegated powers not be mistaken or forgotten, and if the delegated "power to dispose" cannot be obviated or otherwise rendered irrelevant under any possible interpretation of the following general power to "make all needful rules and regulations,' then the delegated "power to dispose" must be unavoidable, irreplaceable and immutable. 

In other words, neither the Court nor Congress may ignore the delegated "power to dispose" and, in the alternative, choose to "reserve" or "appropriate" federal territorial or public lands for federal purposes, either temporarily or, most particularly, indefinitely.