For Immediate Release
03/08/2004 Contact:The Paragon Foundation, Inc.
(505) 434-8998

Attorney General Patricia Madrid Abandons New Mexico

Alamogordo, New Mexico—Opinion statement from Bob Jones, President of the Paragon Foundation, Inc.: In observing the actions of the Attorney General’s office, one can only form the opinion that it has contempt for the rights of the citizens of New Mexico and the laws it is sworn to uphold. Through the Attorney General’s office ― and it is believed with the support of Governor Bill Richardson ― the Attorney General has apparently brushed aside state water, property and livestock laws and decided that the federal government has seized control of state institutions and they should cooperate. She does this in spite of clear Supreme Court decisions that contradict her legal positions. As the saga of the Diamond Bar Ranch unfolds it becomes clear that the system of dual sovereignty, which has served our country and our state so well in the past, is seriously broken.

In Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) the Supreme Court stated, “Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the State’s officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer, or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”(Emphasis added)

A long history of case law clearly supports the principle that without a specific grant of jurisdiction from the State, the federal government is no more than a mere proprietor (owner) like any other proprietor that has no legislative sovereignty, police power, nor dominion. See Fort Leavenworth Ry. Co. v. Lowe 114 U.S. 525, 5S.Ct. 995(1885), Camfield v. United States 167 U.S. 518 (1896), Woodruff v. Mining Co., 18 Fed. 772, and others.

This is not rocket science, nor should it be. The Court in the Laney case cites no authority for co-opting the forces of New Mexico State government to serve the selfish ends of the Forest Service. The Forest Service’s “regulatory program” should not be “enforced” by New Mexico State government under the ruling and language of the Supreme Court’s decision in Printz. The question then is why are the Attorney General’s office and the New Mexico Livestock Board bending over backwards to cooperate with the Forest Service? Could it be that the “letters of resignation in advance” required by the Governor is what has brought the Livestock Board to heel?

The Attorney General’s office needlessly injects itself into the fray to find a solution for a lawless, bullying Forest Service. The AG’s office has actually facilitated an agreement between the New Mexico Livestock Board ― while keeping some Board members in the dark ― and the Forest Service to allow the seizure of a citizen’s private property under color of law. While the Attorney General’s office fiddles, New Mexico’s sovereignty and the peace and property of her citizens are destroyed.

###