Utah, you see, is upset that the Federal government has seized ownership of 60% of all the land within the state. They say that this restricts the development options they have for their state, and has a negative impact on tax revenue growth. Taking the SCOTUS ruling in Kelo at face value, this means they have the power to seize the property they want in order to increase tax revenue.
The fact that the property they want is owned by the Federal government shouldn't be an issue, they say. And so Utah has passed a law that will seize control of two federally-owned parcels of land under the principle of eminent domain.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032801320.html?hpid=sec-nation
More than 60 percent of Utah is owned by the U.S. government, and policy makers here have long complained that federal ownership hinders their ability to generate tax revenue and adequately fund public schools.
[Governor] Herbert signed a pair of bills into law that supporters hope will trigger a flood of similar legislation throughout the West, where lawmakers contend that federal ownership restricts economic development in an energy-rich part of the country.
It's a nice little argument, and I'm VERY interested to see how it plays out in court. If Utah loses, the message from SCOTUS to us will be that the Federal government is the King and the rest of us are just serfs.
What happened to "the power to govern flows from the consent of the governed?"
I have long argued that the various immunities enjoyed by elected officials and government employees is destructive to limited government, because they can do outrageous things without dealing with the consequences. It sets up masters, servants, and slaves.
In this case, the masters would be the federal government, the servants would be the state governments, and the slaves would be all of us ordinary citizens.
Is that REALLY how you think our country should operate?
No, me neither. So I'm rooting for Utah on this one.
I suspect that at some point...perhaps three to five years into the future, after the Federal gov't wins various cases to prove their point of who is in power...a state by state event will occur.
ReplyDeleteYou will see one or two states send word to their representatives to return to the state. The state legislature will demand their return or face some type of legal restraint. Some representatives will comply and some will refuse.
The act will catch on, and eventually, you will see forty representatives who just don't show up. It's not enough to stop the House, but it starts to beg questions if state's can control it's house members. Once the public realizes who manages who...the game will change rapidly. A state could devise various rules to change the election of representatives and their ability to visit DC. You could even make a rule that a Representative from your state must live 150 days out of the year in your state...to continue his status...just to make things interesting.