XPost: ba.politics, dc.media, soc.penpals   
   XPost: alt.burningman   
   From: druggie@barackobama.com   
      
   When President Barak Obama famously said, "I've got a pen and   
   I've got a phone" in January, he was only publicly stating what   
   most observers of the Presidency already understood: He strongly   
   believes that executive orders are a much more efficient, and   
   attractive, means of governing - ruling, really - the nation   
   than by working with Congress.   
      
   Certainly, Obama has shown little reluctance in using executive   
   orders to achieve his goals than by influencing legislation; his   
   administration has issued more executive orders (leaving aside   
   the type that declares June 7th  to be National Fiddlehead Salad   
   Day, or whatever) than any other in recent decades. It was   
   exactly for this reason that Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT-01)   
   introduced legislation to rein in Presidential authority to   
   unilaterally set aside land under the National Antiquities Act.   
      
   The bill, H.R. 1459, is titled "Ensuring Public Involvement in   
   the Creation of National Monuments Act." Introduced in 2013, it   
   passed the House on March 26th  and now faces debate in the   
   Senate. It is a short bill - only two pages - but it makes three   
   important changes to the way that Presidents can set aside any   
   piece of land in the United States, of any size and under any   
   previous ownership, as a monument:   
      
   Declarations will be subject to the National Environmental   
   Policy Act of 1969.   
      
   Creation of monuments will be restricted to one per state during   
   any presidential four-year term of office, unless exempted by an   
   express act of Congress, and   
      
   A declared monument cannot include private property unless the   
   owner signs an informed written consent.   
      
   The first point would require public hearings and government   
   reviews of the impact that would be caused by the creation of a   
   new national monument.   
      
   This would include the economic and social consequences on local   
   communities, a concern that has not always been considered when   
   land has been set aside.   
      
   The limit of one monument per state per term may seem arbitrary,   
   but no more so than the concept of an executive order that sets   
   aside state or private property under federal control; at least   
   the bill offers a way for the limit to be exceeded, if Congress   
   can be convinced that more monuments need to be created.   
      
   The most important protection against overzealous use of   
   executive orders, however, is the third point: Protecting   
   private land from these takings addresses what has long been   
   perceived as an abuse of executive power.   
      
   It is not a coincidence that Rep. Bishop and the seven co-   
   sponsors of the bill are all from Western states (and   
   Republicans).   
      
   Their states already have large areas under federal control,   
   from Montana (which has "only" 28.9% of its land in federal   
   hands) to Nevada (the "winner" at 81.1%), and they have been   
   disproportionately subjected to the creation of new monuments.   
      
   While critics of the bill have pointed out that the National   
   Antiquities Act have been used in the past as the first step to   
   create some of the great national parks - Devil's Tower is   
   usually mentioned - supporters can come back with examples of   
   how the Act has been over-used. President Clinton issues 20   
   proclamations creating monuments during his administration, all   
   without Congressional oversight.   
      
   So far, H.R. 1459 has not attracted a great deal of attention,   
   let alone criticism, but that will no doubt change as the bill   
   enters the Senate. The Majority Leader will certainly not be a   
   supporter, both on partisan grounds and because he generally   
   supports federalism over state control.   
      
   After the publicity gained by the standoff between Nevada   
   rancher Clive Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management, however,   
   the issue has a higher profile and public opposition to federal   
   control of so much land is growing. The President may have a pen   
   and a phone, but the Congress has a lasso.   
      
   http://www.gnd.com/bishop-checks-president-blocking-obama-s-   
   federal-land-grab.php?ref=ob&ad_id=25579916   
      
       
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)