Standard-Examiner Editorial: OUR VIEW: Ditch the Federal Lands Fight

We're aware of no evidence at all that any federal "promises" were made at all for the reconveyance of these coveted federal lands to the citizens of the State of Utah

Top notch editorial in this morning's Standard-Examiner, dovetailing nicely with our own WCF take on the Utah legislature's quixotic "Sagebrush Rebellion," which we'd chalked up as mainly more wacky GOP voter pandering during an election year. As to picking a fight with the federal government that Utah taxpayers are bound to lose, the Standard-Examiner agrees with us and says "NO." Here's the lede:

Utah legislators should say no to bills that invite a long, costly fight with the federal government over tens of millions of acres of lands in Utah owned by the federal government.
No mocking, no pot-shots from this editorial board. Our reasons for ditching the effort is pragmatic. It's a battle Utah will lose. The Constitution's Supremacy Clause makes that clear.

Read the full editorial here:

• OUR VIEW: Ditch the federal lands fight

We're in complete agreement with everything the Standard says this morning about the legislature's quixotic posturing on this subject except this: The Standard says, "The feds, long ago, made promises to Utah leaders that they have broken, both legally and in spirit, many times."

With respect to the legislature's assertion, or the Standard's assumption, that federal authorities have at any time made "promises" to Utah officials which would realistically operate to negate express disclaimers of the public lands by the state, as set forth in the Utah Constitution and associated "enabling" statutes, we'll note that we've been following these "Sagebrush Rebellion" stories since the 2012 state legislative session convened in early January, and we're aware of no evidence at all, oral or written, aside from a a little wishful thinking on House Rep. Stephen G. Handy's part, that any federal promises were made at all for the re-conveyance of these coveted federal lands to the citizens of the State of Utah.

We'll keep our minds open however, O Gentle Ones, for any new evidence on the topic, for which purpose we now open the floor for discussion.

Robert Gehrke: Utah Fires Up New Sagebrush Rebellion Against Federal Control of Land

We can chalk it all this wackiness up to the fact that it's an election year however, we suppose, in a state where anti-fed smack talk is always the rage, and passage of crackpot bills is always a big plus (nay, even a necessity), for any "respectable" GOP candidate's resume

The people inhabiting this State do affirm and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries hereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States..

Utah Constitution, Article 3, Section 2
Right to public domain disclaimed
May 8, 1895

I think it’s unlikely that the courts are going to buy the argument, In part because of the broad authority that [Congress has] held over the public lands, in part because the state-enabling legislation contains two express disclaimers of the public lands by the state.

Robert Keiter, law professor, University of Utah
Utah fires up new Sagebrush Rebellion against federal control of land
March 3, 2012

Republicans are living in a fantasy world, and the move is an attempt to help the Legislature’s "corporate friends make a quick buck." It’s part of the far right’s quixotic quest to pretend that Utah did not — as part of its decision to join the United States — give up its claims to federal lands.

Stephen Bloch, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance attorney
Utah fires up new Sagebrush Rebellion against federal control of land
March 3, 2012

It’s going to be laughed out of court. We have this rigidity in Utah that only makes us a laughing stock … and it alienates us from the global marketplace."

Pat Shea, Salt Lake City attorney
Utah fires up new Sagebrush Rebellion against federal control of land
March 3, 2012

In the aftermath Utah House Rep. Stephen G. Handy's half-baked legal analysis which appeared in Thursday's Standard-Examiner, we'll put the spotlight on this morning's Robert Gehrke column, which rounds up a body of informative commentary concerning the Utah GOP legislative majority's quixotic 2012 effort to set the stage for condemnation of vast tracts of federal lands under the state power of eminent domain, pursuant to a "package of bills passed during the 2012 legislative session, demanding that the federal government surrender ownership to the state of more than 30 million acres of federal land."

Despite state constitutional provisions explicitly providing that "[t]he people inhabiting this State do affirm and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries hereof," the absolutely shameless majority party feel quite alright hanging their hat on the pathetic legal theory that the federal government somehow impliedly promised to convey these lands back to the State of Utah, once again, despite express constitutional language to the contrary.

We can chalk it all this wackiness up to the fact that it's an election year however, we suppose, in a state where anti-fed smack talk is always the rage, and passage of crackpot bills is inevitably a big plus (nay, even a necessity), for any "respectable" GOP candidate's resume.

Sodden query: Who's gonna be expected to pick up the tab, once these frivolous property condemnation lawsuits actually get to court?

Take a wild guess, Utah taxpayers.

Standard-Examiner: Counties Could Seize Federal Land Under Proposed Utah Law

Something of which to make note, O Gentle Weber County Readers and voters, come November, when these folks are standing for re-election and touting their "fiscal prudence," in an election year when each GOP candidate seems hell-bent to prove that he or she is the craziest of all

When it comes to public lands, I consider it a badge of honor to have a constitutional note.

Rep. Ken Sumsion, R-American Fork
Utah House panel OKs bill to let cities seize fed land
February 16, 2012

Entering into such a court fight is ridiculous, especially at a time when budgets are flat and economic concerns linger. The resulting lawsuit could cost "millions and millions of dollars" to argue claims that will almost surely be lost.
"Our legislative counsel isn’t here to make a ruling on whether something is constitutional," King said. "They’re just trying to keep us out of trouble ... and it’s highly probable this whole argument will go down in flames."

Rep. Brian King, D-Salt Lake City
Counties could seize federal land under proposed Utah law
February 27, 2012

 Despite our earlier warning, i.e., that "pickin' a court fight with the feds is an expensive battle that Utah taxpayers are bound to lose," and also notwithstanding the strong "cautions" of legislative counsel that "the bill has is very likely unconstitutional, " the Standard-Examiner reports this morning that nutcase Rep. Sumsion's HB511 has cleared the Utah House, by a 57-14 vote. The bill, which "would [theoretically] give the counties [of Utah] eminent domain power over federal lands," now moves on to the Senate, according this morning's S-E story:

• Counties could seize federal land under proposed Utah law

Being the curious type, we Googled, just to find out how many of our Weber County-based Utah House Representatives gulped the Koolaid, and voted for this knuckle-headed legislation which is sure to cost Utah taxpayers millions of dollars before it goes down in flames, the first time it's tested in Federal Court. Checking yesterday's vote tally we find, sadly, that ALL Weber County State House legislators gave it their thumbs-up.

That's right, folks. House Representatives Brad Dee, Gage Froerer, Richard Greenwood, Brad Galvez, Jeremy Peterson, Dixon Pitcher and Ryan Wilcox ALL fell into line on this madness. Maybe they think it'd be a good idea to condemn that dastardly federal boondoggle, Hill Air Force base, we dunno. The way things are developing however, HAFB looks likely to fall into state hands one way or the other anyway, regardless of happens with HB511, we suppose. Maybe thewy decided it would be wise to get into the base closure and land transfer early on.

Something of which to make note, O Gentle Weber County Readers and voters, come November, when these folks are standing for re-election and touting their "fiscal prudence," in an election year when each and every GOP candidate, locally and nationally, also seems simultaneously hell-bent to prove that he or she is the craziest of them all.

Update 2/28/12 12:00 p.m: Trentelman again chimes in on the issue this morning, in the wake of his earlier Wasatch Rambler column, which was fairly "scathing," in re Utah House Rep. Mike Noel. Here's Trentelman's latest pro-Noel puffpiece, however, wherein he cuts Rep. Noel what we at WCF consider to be undesereved political slack:

• Rep. Mike Noel's take on Utah's federal land lawsuit

So what about it, gentle readers? Did Trentelman back down and "cut Mike Noel a pass," with his most recent journalistic "effort," so-called?