Life, Liberty
and the Pursuit of Happiness
Ken Ivory
The matter of federal dominion
By Stephen L. Wilmeth
No definitive
proof would ever prevail in revealing the truth, but one of the original “five
angry ranchers”, Tom Cooper, lost his life in the pursuit of his constitutional
promise of ‘Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness’.
Tom fought continuously
for six years to prevent the designation of national monument, wilderness,
national conservation area, or overlapping combinations thereof on lands him
and others ranch in Dona Ana County, New Mexico. In the midst of the relentless
onslaught of the threat of the federal designations and the unending demands of
his own businesses, he suffered a catastrophic aneurism. He didn’t survive.
The genesis
In an
earlier era, another five men stood against the tyranny of a similar force that
compromised hopes for their life and liberty, and their pursuit of happiness.
Their names were Adams, Adams, Warren, Hancock, and Franklin.
The force
was King George and everything in his field of view compromised any permanence
of fundamental, human rights. They knew what limitations they faced in the
dominion of his presence. If he wanted it, he took it. If he desired it for
trade, he brokered it. If he deemed it necessary for collateral, he seized it.
All mankind within his kingdom was subservient. He was king.
The
cornerstone of the outcome of that great conflict and its suppression of
tyranny and the matters of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was … the
blessing of private property.
The western states conflict
The West has always been a region of conflict over original intent.
Years after
the Declaration of Independence was signed and men gave their lives for the
idea of human sovereignty, a skirmish broke out in the West that again threatened
the peace and tranquility of the nation. The legislature of one of the states
threatened with a modern brand of King George tyranny wrote, “this state … has
the exclusive right to the soil and eminent domain of all the unappropriated
lands within her acknowledged boundaries”.
Another
wrote, “…it is deemed a matter of the utmost importance to the interests of the
State that it should have and possess the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of
the unappropriated lands within it limits.”
Yet another
wrote, “the system of disposing of the public lands of the United States now
pursued is highly injurious … to the States in which those lands lie, and to
none, perhaps, more so than to the State of Missouri” … Missouri?
The years
were 1828-1833 and the ‘western states’ were not the western states as we know
them today. In fact, the list of states demanding constitutional equality
included Illinois,
Indiana, Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida, and, as noted, Missouri.
Documents from each of those states
demonstrated outrage over the breach of constitutional promise regarding the
disposition of lands within their boundaries. The federal government had
reneged on the promise to seek permanent title only to lands “for the Erection
of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock Yards, and other needful buildings.”
Missouri’s stance on the matter was
pertinent to the day. Their legislature reminded the federal government its
best interest is also the best interest to the individual states. The rationale
was to enhance the ability of the individual states to increase the revenue of
the states which, in turn, reduced the national debt and contributed directly
to the health and well being of the citizenry.
Such public lands were in form and
function blessings to be bestowed for the purpose of building wealth and firm
underpinnings of economy. The Congressional Public Land Committee of 1828
agreed. In their report to Congress, the committee reminded law makers such
disposal of lands was essential to the education of youth. Furthermore, without
such lands the states could not increase the comfort and wealth of the frontier
without the ability “of taxing the soil” to pay for such mutual benefits. Most
importantly, it was essential to the general welfare that new states share an
equal standing with original states in order to gain the foundation necessary
to create permanent wealth and well being.
The outcome was the idea of equal
footing. After all, the Constitution substantively outlined such equality of federal
actions.
Recapitulation of the Western States Conflict
The equal footing doctrine was recognized,
clarified, and honored in those western states. Today, government ownership of
lands within their boundaries is less than 10% of the land mass.
Fast forward to the next generation
of states and the common theme tediously reappeared. Left unto its own
recognizance, the federal government has no memory and no mechanism to assure
constitutional discipline. The states west of the 100th Meridian have a combined
government ownership of about 61% of the land mass. Since statehood, they have
faced the same matter of tyranny that plagued the five original revolutionaries,
and, now, the five angry ranchers.
Dominion of the landscape by a king
in any form has consequences, and those consequences are not arrayed in the favor
of the citizenry. They are placed in the favor of those who extract indirect
rather than direct wealth from the soil those legislators in Missouri wrote about in 1829.
The states of 1830 prevailed with
the matter of equal footing because they had no proxy for the attributes of
wealth that came from the soil. The world today is much different. Today, there
is a whole segment of society that derives its well being from indirect
extraction of wealth from private lands and property, and … the national
treasury.
A new Champion
In 2010, a Utahan by the name of
Ken Ivory won a seat in his state’s House of Representatives. He gave up a law
practice in West Jordan, Utah in pursuit of ‘securing the blessings
of liberty” to his posterity.
Representative Ivory is not just an
attorney. He is a constitutional scholar. In a parallel devotion to service, he
has help create and serves as executive director of the American Lands Council
(ALC). In his commitment to ALC, he travels the country speaking and teaching constitution
originality.
He is a primary force behind Utah’s landmark
legislation, H.B.148- Utah’s Transfer of Public Lands Act. In that legislation,
the state of Utah
has served notice to the federal government to extinguish title to specified
public lands within the state by December 31, 2014.
In discussing the bill, Ivory
matter-of-factly reminds audiences that it is no longer a belated matter of equal
footing. It is now a matter of American survival. Utah estimates it runs a
minimum annual loss to federal dominion of lands to the tune of $5 billion, and
that doesn’t reflect the opportunity cost to private citizenry had those lands
been conveyed to the state.
In a recent study, Utah was judged as one
of the five best managed states in the union. Absorbing its estimate of losses
predicated on federal dominion, one has to only wonder what losses are to
states like California that are considered among the five worst managed.
The problem is simply immense. It
isn’t limited to those programs that are government driven. It affects all aspects
of the states, and, thus, the nation. Whole industries are being victimized
directly and indirectly from the oppressive dominion. Mining, logging,
ranching, energy, and support industries are impacted by the inability to make any
long term plans and goals, to secure capitalization, and to seek parallel
enterprises.
Incentive is being demolished. It
is a debacle of gigantic proportions.
We, the minions
In his recent presentation in Deming, New
Mexico, Ivory stood in front of a polarized audience.
Those that represented the segment of society that sought to produce wealth
from primary enterprises were clearly drawn to his staunch adherence to matters
of private lands rights. Those representing the social forums that rely upon
the harvest of wealth extracted from primary producers were clearly
antagonistic to his position. Their rebuttals were venomous
The divide harkens back to the fact
that the world is much different than it was in 1830. Today, there is the
growing realization that more people make their living off the system than from
primary productive efforts reliant on the natural abundance from the system. It
is not helped nor is it being changed in Washington,
and, now, the realization is becoming more abundantly clear that it is a
problem on both sides of the aisle. If Utah
prevails in the pernicious world we live in, it will be a monumental
accomplishment.
Ken Ivory may be a future
senatorial candidate. If he is, he brings something to the national scene that
isn’t new. It is as old and pertinent to the American model as “We, the
people.”
His fight, though, is our fight,
and … it is a fight we can ill afford to lose.
Stephen
L. Wilmeth is a rancher from southern New
Mexico. “May I be the first to nominate
Representative Ken Ivory to the seat to be vacated by Utah’s senior senator?”
THE WESTERNER sez:Having been part of the original Sagebrush Rebellion, this entire concept is of great interest to me. It involves history, the concept of federalism and the Constitution.
I will always remember attending the LASER meeting in Salt Lake City, right after Reagan had been elected President, with the leaders of the movement in NM and historian J. Evetts Haley. It was exciting times and little did I know that a few months later I'd be appointed to a senior level position at Interior.
To educate yourself and make up your own mind on this issue, you can't do better for a start than visiting Mr. Ivory's American Lands Council website and download his talking points.
No comments:
Post a Comment