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.
The 1906 Antiquites Act allows for the President to declare any given area as a national monument. Hence, the chief executive has the authority to create federally protected areas without the approval of Congress. These national monuments as conservation areas close off most non-environmental industries such as logging and mining once declared. I remember in 1996, 2000 and 2001, Pres. Clinton declared millions of acres of land out west as national monuments before he left office. It was his environmental legacy that he laid since the Republican Congress would almost certainly have approved of it. In fact, most presidents have used their act. (((Even George W. Bush did. However, one of Bush most externsive monuments were out in the Pacific Ocean where no one gave a hoot.))) A few months ago, a memo was leaked from the Interior Department. This memo was a first step proposal to look at the possibility of 14 new national monuments in the West. Some, such as the Great Basin Proposed Monument and the Modoc Plateau Proposed Monument would be very large if actually created. It appears that the Interior Department is considering more land to be protected as national monuments. However, the Republican in Congress do not like this, especially those from states out West that are economically dependent on mining, logging and ranching. There is now a proposal in Congress to appeal the 1906 Antiquities Act. Though it will obviously fail due to the lack of control the Republicans have in Congress, it IS being introduced. Here is the link to the article in the Miami Herald concerning the matter...Bill would limit president's power to create national monuments - Politics AP - MiamiHerald.com (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/01/1710952/bill-would-limit-presidents-power.html - broken link)
Anyway, my position is this...If the government owns the land, which it always does before creating a national monument, then it is the government's decision what to do with the land. Why should we scrap a 104 year old tradition just because a MINORITY of voters are opposed to conservation and preservation? (I would like to talk more but I have to go for now). Discuss.
I read the article. Sounds like big business pushing this change via a Repub in his pocket.
No, I am against this. Can't designate a national monument after it's been devoid of trees..can you ?
We can't let big business ruin the little natural beauty of the US that is left.
The 1906 Antiquites Act allows for the President to declare any given area as a national monument. Hence, the chief executive has the authority to create federally protected areas without the approval of Congress. These national monuments as conservation areas close off most non-environmental industries such as logging and mining once declared. I remember in 1996, 2000 and 2001, Pres. Clinton declared millions of acres of land out west as national monuments before he left office. It was his environmental legacy that he laid since the Republican Congress would almost certainly have approved of it. In fact, most presidents have used their act. (((Even George W. Bush did. However, one of Bush most externsive monuments were out in the Pacific Ocean where no one gave a hoot.))) A few months ago, a memo was leaked from the Interior Department. This memo was a first step proposal to look at the possibility of 14 new national monuments in the West. Some, such as the Great Basin Proposed Monument and the Modoc Plateau Proposed Monument would be very large if actually created. It appears that the Interior Department is considering more land to be protected as national monuments. However, the Republican in Congress do not like this, especially those from states out West that are economically dependent on mining, logging and ranching. There is now a proposal in Congress to appeal the 1906 Antiquities Act. Though it will obviously fail due to the lack of control the Republicans have in Congress, it IS being introduced. Here is the link to the article in the Miami Herald concerning the matter...Bill would limit president's power to create national monuments - Politics AP - MiamiHerald.com (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/01/1710952/bill-would-limit-presidents-power.html - broken link)
Anyway, my position is this...If the government owns the land, which it always does before creating a national monument, then it is the government's decision what to do with the land. Why should we scrap a 104 year old tradition just because a MINORITY of voters are opposed to conservation and preservation? (I would like to talk more but I have to go for now). Discuss.
I can give you a very good reason why the Antiquities Act should be not just altered, but thrown out completely - it violates the US Constitution.
Quote:
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
Source: Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the US Constitution
The US Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate their constitutional powers to the President, as the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998). Therefore, it is up to Congress to determine the disposition of all US territory or other property, not the President. The Antiquities Act should be repealed entirely.
"The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States ..."
And Congress exercised that power and Constitutional authority to "make all needful rules and regulations" when it passed the American Antiquities Act of 1906.
"Sec. 2. That the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land ..." etc. etc.
The 1906 Antiquites Act allows for the President to declare any given area as a national monument. Hence, the chief executive has the authority to create federally protected areas without the approval of Congress. These national monuments as conservation areas close off most non-environmental industries such as logging and mining once declared. I remember in 1996, 2000 and 2001, Pres. Clinton declared millions of acres of land out west as national monuments before he left office. It was his environmental legacy that he laid since the Republican Congress would almost certainly have approved of it. In fact, most presidents have used their act. (((Even George W. Bush did. However, one of Bush most externsive monuments were out in the Pacific Ocean where no one gave a hoot.))) A few months ago, a memo was leaked from the Interior Department. This memo was a first step proposal to look at the possibility of 14 new national monuments in the West. Some, such as the Great Basin Proposed Monument and the Modoc Plateau Proposed Monument would be very large if actually created. It appears that the Interior Department is considering more land to be protected as national monuments. However, the Republican in Congress do not like this, especially those from states out West that are economically dependent on mining, logging and ranching. There is now a proposal in Congress to appeal the 1906 Antiquities Act. Though it will obviously fail due to the lack of control the Republicans have in Congress, it IS being introduced. Here is the link to the article in the Miami Herald concerning the matter...Bill would limit president's power to create national monuments - Politics AP - MiamiHerald.com (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/01/1710952/bill-would-limit-presidents-power.html - broken link)
Anyway, my position is this...If the government owns the land, which it always does before creating a national monument, then it is the government's decision what to do with the land. Why should we scrap a 104 year old tradition just because a MINORITY of voters are opposed to conservation and preservation? (I would like to talk more but I have to go for now). Discuss.
The government doesn't own it, the people do, and the people should not be blocked from using their land because of the agenda of a single person.
Furthermore, as Glitch pointed out, it's unconstitutional.
It's called rural cleansing, the efforts to drive people off land in all but a few large cities.
That right, the people own the land and if the people wish to see their land preserved, it is NOT up to a few big businesses to determine what to do with the land. It is up to society as a whole, since the big businesses do not own the land. Thus, when the a majority of the population support environmental protections, who are you to determine what should be done with the land for just your interests?! Note: the percentage of the population that is pro-environment is a lot more than just some elite in east coast cities. If the land belongs to the whole country, then the whole country should determine what to do with it.
Second, when Congress approved the Antiquities Act, Congress granted the President this right by doing so. Hence, I do not see how it is unconstitutional.
"The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States ..."
And Congress exercised that power and Constitutional authority to "make all needful rules and regulations" when it passed the American Antiquities Act of 1906.
What part of "The US Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate their constitutional powers to the President, as the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998). Therefore, it is up to Congress to determine the disposition of all US territory or other property, not the President." didn't you comprehend?
What part of "The US Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate their constitutional powers to the President, as the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998). Therefore, it is up to Congress to determine the disposition of all US territory or other property, not the President." didn't you comprehend?
It wasn't a matter of not comprehending - I simply ignored it. The ruling was on the constitutionality of the line item veto and the specific law passed by Congress that gave the President the authority to veto selected portions of bills. The Supreme Court found that the law - the Line Item Veto Act - was unconstitutional. See below.
Facts of the Case:
This case consolidates two separate challenges to the constitutionality of two cancellations, made by President William J. Clinton, under the Line Item Veto Act ("Act"). In the first, the City of New York, two hospital associations, a hospital, and two health care unions, challenged the President's cancellation of a provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which relinquished the Federal Government's ability to recoup nearly $2.6 billion in taxes levied against Medicaid providers by the State of New York. In the second, the Snake River farmer's cooperative and one of its individual members challenged the President's cancellation of a provision of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The provision permitted some food refiners and processors to defer recognition of their capital gains in exchange for selling their stock to eligible farmers' cooperatives. After a district court held the Act unconstitutional, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on expedited appeal.
Question:
Did the President's ability to selectively cancel individual portions of bills, under the Line Item Veto Act, violate the Presentment Clause of Article I?
Conclusion:
Yes. In a 6-to-3 decision the Court first established that both the City of New York, and its affiliates, and the farmers' cooperative suffered sufficiently immediate and concrete injuries to sustain their standing to challenge the President's actions. The Court then explained that under the Presentment Clause, legislation that passes both Houses of Congress must either be entirely approved (i.e. signed) or rejected (i.e. vetoed) by the President. The Court held that by canceling only selected portions of the bills at issue, under authority granted him by the Act, the President in effect "amended" the laws before him. Such discretion, the Court concluded, violated the "finely wrought" legislative procedures of Article I as envisioned by the Framers.
Is declaring national monuments a "constitutional Power"?
Of course, but only if Congress enacts it into law. Presidents do not have the constitutional authority, but under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the US Constitution Congress clearly does have that authority.
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.