A BeeLine reader pointed me to another area where President Obama is going out with a flourish. He is wielding his pen to designate millions of acres of land and sea under federal control as "national monuments" to place them beyond the reach of development and to secure his environmental legacy according to this article in The New York Times.
The latest "national monuments" established by Obama were 1.35 million acres of federal land surrounding the Bears Ears Buttes in southeastern Utah and about 300,000 acres around Gold Butte in Nevada, northeast of Las Vegas.
Prior to these designations, during his eight years in office, President Obama had proclaimed 553 million acres of land and sea within the jurisdiction of the United States to be considered as "national monuments" under authority he believes he has under "The Antiquities Act of 1906."
This is how Wikipedia describes the purpose of "The Antiquities Act"
The Act was intended to allow the President to set aside certain valuable public natural areas as park and conservation land. The 1906 act stated that it was intended for: "... the protection of objects of historic and scientific interest." These areas are given the title of "National Monuments." It also allows the President to reserve or accept private lands for that purpose. The aim is to protect all historic and prehistoric sites on United States federal lands and to prohibit excavation or destruction of these antiquities. With this act, this can be done much more quickly than going through the Congressional process of creating a National Park. The Act states that areas of the monuments are to be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected. (my emphasis added).
What is particularly troubling about these actions of President Obama is whether, unlike executive actions and many regulations, it is possible for Donald Trump or another future President to reverse these designations under The Antiquities Act. The statute is silent on that point and no "national monument" designation has been reversed previously. Then again, there also has never been a President who has so monumentally abused his power under the statute.
I often write in BeeLine that context is everything when assessing anything. Let's assess President Obama's actions here in context.
I am a conservationist at heart. Most conservatives I know are. Conserving our history and natural resources is smart and prudent.
I understand the intention of the statute. There are times that Congress may act too slowly in providing protection of objects of historic or scientific interest. Executive action might be desirable in limited situations. However, it should be the exception rather than the norm.
Let's put 553 million acres in context. It is big number but do you realize how big it really is?
President Franklin Roosevelt also used the Antiquities Act to designate some "national monuments." He was in office over 12 years. The total acreage that he took under federal authority was 2.8 million acres. Obama's actions places 200 times more acreage as designated "national monuments" than FDR did. In addition, consider for a moment that those 550+ million acres had been in existence since 1906 and no prior President saw any urgency to act to protect them before.
What is more shocking is realizing how large an area 555 million acres is (the 553 million Obama had previously designated together with the 1.6 million in Utah and Nevada) when you compare it to the acreage in various states.
In fact, 555 million acres is more than the combined acreage of Alaska (375 million acres) and Texas (171 million acres) which are the two largest states we have in land mass.
Does it sound as if the monuments that President Obama has declared are "confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected" as the statute requires?
Does it sound as if this President is faithfully executing the Office of President of the United States when Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states that one of his key responsibilities is as follows?
"shall take Care that the Laws are faithfully executed."
This is yet another example of our 44th President who turned out to be "The Constitutional President Who Ignored the Constitution."
Another man is taking the oath of office this week. This is what he will recite with his right hand raised and his left hand on the Bible on Friday.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
He may not be a constitutional lawyer but I am confident he understands the oath and responsibilities of the Office of President of the United States a far sight better than his predecessor.
No comments:
Post a Comment