Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Told you all, we don't need to be invaded... We will sell the USA for a dollar. I can invison his fat, greedy buds just waiting and salivating to get their hands on some great cheap real estate ... Bye bye America.
Agreed. This is stupid as someone whose a hiker and loves being outside I see this has a big loss for people like myself. And even more so for the country as a whole now we get to set back and watch this land and others be raped.
I made a joke before Trump got elected that he would sale the U.S out from under us. Not too funny after reading this.
I'm saying let the local government figure it out, the federal government shouldn't be in control such large percentages of state land.
You still make no sense. Federally-owned land is federally-owned land, and the feds are responsible for managing it. State-owned land is state-owned land, and the state is responsible for managing it. City-owned land is city-owned land, and the city is responsible for managing it. And privately-owned land is privately-owned land, and the private owner is responsible for managing it.
Unless he plans to return them to the Native Americans, the only thing I see here is turning over our beautiful national parks and monuments to be exploited by private interests.
Right now, these treasures belong to all of us. I would love to see it stay that way.
????? State and local governments can't protect federally-owned land.
National monument designation only applies to federally-owned land. That's why a president can designate a monument w/out an act of congress.
How would Utah come close to protecting this land even if allowed, where are they getting the funding. This was the same argument by the Bundys when they wanted Malheur to back to the state.
My understanding is this is primarily about the land in Utah. If Utah wants to give up protected federal lands, it's their loss really. I would not want Washington to give up the Olympic National Park but we are a blue state. Let Utah turn it into a carnival park and fill it with billboards, their loss, not mine.
Right, as long as they dont end up as Trump hotels, I dont care.
I believe this is incorrect. Monument designation is essentially a land management directive originating from the president's office, congressional approval is not required. Past presidents have changed monument boundaries before, but those actions have never been legally challenged. The legal argument is that if a president has the power to designate a monument, then another president has the power to walk it back.
I think you are confusing parks with monuments.
This will not be a slam dunk for Trump however. It takes years to build up a constituency large enough and powerful enough to successfully petition for monument status, and those folks will not have changed their minds. Many of them are, guess what, Utahans. And they will have lots of legal help on this one.
Nope. The same goes for both parks and monuments.
The issue was decided by SCOTUS in 1938.
In that decision, FDR tried to re-designate a national monument he created. SCOTUS declared the power to designate monuments was bestowed on the president by congress in a specific act of 1906, but it was like all other presidential work; once signed, it takes permission from congress to reverse anything a president signs.
Every president has to sign a treaty, for example, but he cannot break it on his own. It takes congress' permission. Any president can sign a pardon, but he cannot change his mind and remove the pardon. Every law needs a presidential signature, but all laws have to go through congress to be modified, nullified, or changed in any way.
So essentially, all presidential work is only one way. Trying to turn around and go the other way requires congress' approval.
This decision has been applied in many other things, but not in changing a national monument. If Trump tried to go around congress, it would end up in SCOTUS. And SCOTUS rarely ever reverses a previous decision.
Wonder when the US is going to return the land they seized from the Native Americans to their legal owners?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
