Front Page
NMJ Search
International
Islamofascism
Government & Politics
National & Local
Progressivism
Culture Wars
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google




The federal lands measure, which would amend the state constitution, poses a likely legal battle for a state that recently fought one over immigration.
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
Arizona to Vote on ‘Taking Back’ the Grand Canyon
FOX News
Arizonans will vote next month on a ballot proposal to give the state control over the Grand Canyon -- the latest move in the so-called “sagebrush revolt” in which western states are trying to reclaim federal land.

The issue was put on the ballot after the proposal passed the Republican-controlled legislature. It would amend the state constitution to give Arizona sovereignty and jurisdiction over not just the Grand Canyon but all the "air, water, public lands, minerals, wildlife and other natural resources” within its boundaries.

The 227-mile-long canyon is the most iconic landmark under that category, though the bill encompasses millions of federal acres, excluding Indian reservations and military installations.

The decades-long "sagebrush" movement recently got new life when several western states argued the federal government has blocked oil drilling on public land and demanded Washington return millions of acres to state control.

Utah Gov. Gary R. Herbert, a Republican, has already signed a law asking the Obama administration to return 20 million acres, which could be used to develop oil and other natural resources to bolster the state economy.

Arizona state Sen. Sylvia Allen argues in support of the measure by saying the federal government has failed to keep a promise to western states to turn over the land, limiting their ability to attract new businesses that create jobs and collect taxes to fund education and other public services.

"Our states are at an extreme disadvantage,” the Republican lawmaker said Tuesday.

Allen and other supporters also point to North Dakota where the recent development of oil and natural gas has resulted in a booming state economy, with one of the country's lowest unemployment rates.

However, the bill, which would amend the state constitution, also poses a likely legal battle for a state that recently fought one over immigration. Arizona’s efforts to crack down on illegal immigration in the absence of comprehensive federal law made its way to the Supreme Court, which struck down key parts of the law.

The likely outcome of the federal lands measure remains unclear. Gov. Jan Brewer recently vetoed a smaller-scale state bill, but in this case voters could have the final say. If it's approved, the push would still need congressional support to get anywhere -- and would almost assuredly result in constitutional challenges and opposition from environmental groups that argue Arizona can barely take care of state land and the change could undermine such essential federal regulations as the Clean Water Act.

READ FULL SOURCE ARTICLE

Editor's Note: What better and more efficient way to neuter a grossly over-reaching federal government than to support State's Rights movements across the country?


The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a tax deductible donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal, BasicsProject.org, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to The New Media Journal.  The New Media Journal is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  The New Media Journal is not supported by any political organization. The New Media Journal is a division of BasicsProject.org, a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and educational initiative.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org is copyrighted. Basics Project's goal is the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2013    Content Copyright © Individual authors
A Division of BasicsProject.org
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server