NavigationBanners
Active forum topicsRecent blog postsUser loginWho's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 286 guests online.
|
Add new commentNevada leaders afraid to put federal government in its placeSubmitted by Bill St. Clair on Wed, 2002-01-23 09:19.
FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JAN. 15, 2002 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Nevada leaders afraid to put federal government in its place Nevada politicians (like those everywhere) scan the polls, figure out what their constituents expect, and put on a good show of stomping their feet and shouting "No, no!" every time the federal government takes another step toward stockpiling the nation's high-level nuclear waste in the labyrinth of rocky tunnels already being drilled some 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The familiar Kabuki was repeated last week when federal Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham made his eminently predictable announcement (OK, throwing in a reference to the increased need for post-Sept. 11 security was a fresh touch) that the "sound science" practiced by his department has determined Yucca Mountain will make a really fine site for the nuclear dump. (Come on. For the past 14 years they've only been examining the one site. Can we next expect Treasury Secretary O'Neill to hold a dramatic press conference, announcing the Philadelphia mint will henceforth be located in ... Philadelphia?) None of this is to say the federal government's conduct in siting this facility hasn't been high-handed and cynical, or that Nevadans and their elected representatives don't have every right to fight the imposition of the dump (on a state that doesn't even use nuclear power) by every legal means. Problem is, Nevada's elected representatives aren't fighting the dump through every legal means, which is precisely why cynicism is the proper response to a lot of this familiar foot-stomping. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- never repealed -- is written in such plain English that even the lawyers have not yet managed to screw it up: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The ninth and tenth amendments are the vital "default settings" of a government of limited powers, making it clear that the bureaucrats of the Potomac have only those powers specifically written down. And what does the Constitution say about the power of Congress when it comes to siting a facility inside one of the several states? Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power to ... exercise exclusive Legislation in all areas whatsoever, over such District ..." (the District of Columbia is described) "... and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful buildings. ..." So there you have it: The only way in which Congress can lay hands on a piece of land within one of the several states to use as it sees fit for a needful facility. (The tenth Amendment tells us there can't be any other way, because no other way is written down.) If the Yucca Mountain project is on the up and up, all the federals need to do is show us the written "consent of the post-1864 Nevada state Legislature" to sell Washington the lands in question, as well as the bill of sale, the receipt for the moneys paid by Washington to the state for the purchase of Yucca Mountain ... What's that? The state Legislature never consented? No such land sale never took place? There's no deed or tax assessment on file anywhere that shows the owner of Yucca Mountain is "the federal government," or any agency thereof? Then why does anyone think this landholder -- whose deed and title are not exactly clear in the first place -- has any more right to open such a facility without a state permit than would a private corporation? The federal government is barred from high-handed enterprises such as Yucca Mountain within any of the 50 states by the 10th Amendment. What's more, a lawsuit brought by one of the states on such an issue doesn't have to wind its way through the chambers of numerous clueless and politically fearful lower court federal judges -- it goes right the the U.S. Supreme Court, which has original jurisdiction to reach a resolution. So why haven't Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn and Atty. Gen. Frankie Sue del Papa filed a federal 10th Amendment suit, demanding that the Supreme Court give the federal executive branch 72 hours to pack up their tunnel-boring rigs and get the heck off Nevada land? It's not because they fear they might lose; it's because they fear they might win. Legislators and bureaucrats from Carson City all the way down to the local school district are secretly pleased to be able to say, "Aw, we're sorry, but federal regulations give us no choice ..." as they instruct us that private land owners and even local school boards have to toe the line and obey the one-size-fits-all "plenary" edicts flowing out of Washington, as though the western states were still territories, like Guam. They're secretly pleased to have the power of the federal club behind their edicts, as well as credit for helping direct the massive river of loot which flows back out of Washington to fund their pet projects. The big-government advocates in our midst whine that Washington's Yucca Mountain plan is "unfair," but secretly cringe in far greater fear of what could happen if such a suit were to succeed -- restricting Washington's jurisdiction to override the will of the state legislatures when it comes time to enforce all manner of edicts, down to and including the Endangered Species Act, except in those areas where it really has "exclusive legislative authority," those being the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the fenced parking lot of the local post office ... assuming they can show that the state Legislature ever gave them formal permission to build it. There is a way to stop Yucca Mountain -- providing the Supreme Court has the courage to enforce the Constitution as written. The question is whether Nevada's politicians really want it stopped. And if so, why this lawsuit hasn't yet been filed -- with no dodging and weaving, the words "10th Amendment" right up there in the title.
Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Subscribe to his monthly newsletter by sending $96 to Privacy Alert, 561 Keystone Ave., Suite 684, Reno, NV 89503 -- or dialing 775-348-8591.
Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong. The minority are right." -- Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926) "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken add new comment | quote | 1030 reads
Reply |
BlogrollLewRockwell.comQuotesEvery man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission. -- L. Neil Smith Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings. -- L. Neil Smith Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents. -- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report (PDF) on gun control laws Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap") "A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." -- L. Neil Smith Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP" Why Did It Have to be... Guns? Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put. If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you. If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims. What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him? -- L. Neil Smith "Tell me," I was once asked, "What do you think about gun control? Give me the short answer." To which I replied, "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you." -- Mike Vanderboegh The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war. -- Bill St. Clair Monthly ArchivesTTLB |
Recent comments
4 hours 7 min ago
11 hours 47 min ago
18 hours 10 min ago
3 days 12 hours ago
4 days 7 hours ago
4 days 18 hours ago
5 days 7 hours ago
5 days 10 hours ago
6 days 2 hours ago
6 days 3 hours ago