• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Establishes National Monument in New Mexico

Ok, that's cool. If as a nation we want to remove the Antiquities Act, and require presidents go through congress, that's fine. But Boehner and his followers need to dispense with the faulty argument that it is illegal or otherwise wrong for a president to circumvent congress in this manner. PARTICULARLY sense it was a republican president that established the precedent, and it being used by republican presidents subsequently.

No, youre missing the point. Congress has to go through US. There is no text in the constitution which gives congress the power to pass such an Act. It would be akin to seizing land to build post offices, when there wasnt specifically a post office clause in the constitution. There is no Parks clause. Thus they cant seize land for such purpose.
 
What do you mean MMC?

I think Mexico's Southern Border is where one needs to start to turn the tap off to a trickle.....you don't think they can say they are doing any good job, do you?
 
Unfortunately for you, you cant predict the future. Lets stick to the debate though, and not make rhetorical claims.

that's true... in the future, they could possibly make a new law that invalidates the old law.... or in some fanciful twist, a court challenge to this law could come from Congress.. the body that adopted the law in the first place.

yeah, no.. the state doesn't have a case ... certainly not a constitutional case.
 
No, youre missing the point. Congress has to go through US. There is no text in the constitution which gives congress the power to pass such an Act. It would be akin to seizing land to build post offices, when there wasnt specifically a post office clause in the constitution. There is no Parks clause. Thus they cant seize land for such purpose.

it was already federal land, there was no seizure of any kind.... Obama simply changed the designation of the federal land in question, which he was empowered to do by Congress.

the act does not empower the President to seize private land... but it does empower him to reserve or accept such property.

additionally, SCOTUS has ruled on 3 cases involving the Act... it's been upheld in each case

for the SCOTUS nerds among us.. here are the cases in case you want to dig into them
United States v. California, 436 U.S. 32, 56 L. Ed. 2d 94, 98 S. Ct. 1662 (1978)
Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128, 141-42, 48 L. Ed. 2d 523, 96 S. Ct. 2062 (1976)
Cameron v. United States, 252 U.S. 450, 64 L. Ed. 659, 40 S. Ct. 410 (1920).
 
No, youre missing the point. Congress has to go through US. There is no text in the constitution which gives congress the power to pass such an Act. It would be akin to seizing land to build post offices, when there wasnt specifically a post office clause in the constitution. There is no Parks clause. Thus they cant seize land for such purpose.

So is it your contention then that Yellowstone National Park, Yosemite National Park, and other federal parks and monuments should just be auctioned off to developers?
 
I didnt make that argument. However, the states have argued that point. They would know better than me.

I didnt notice any restraints in Organ Pipe National Monuments...fences, helicopers, warning signs, border patrol/immigration stations on the border highway, etc.
 
If anyone has ever seen or visited the Organ Mountain Range, they'd realize it is very rugged and very difficult to pass over or through, I doubt very many illegals would attempt such a thing, temperatures during the day are sometimes 100 degrees, and night time temperatures drop into the upper 30's and low 40's. It's a very foreboding area.

Not much wildlife wanders through the Organs either, mostly 4 legged coyotes and javelinas, rattlesnakes, and tarantulas.

Organs-MoonRise.jpg

06-11_5886.jpg
 
I didnt notice any restraints in Organ Pipe National Monuments...fences, helicopers, warning signs, border patrol/immigration stations on the border highway, etc.

Doesn't need to be, it's self restricting, that is if people are stupid enough to try to cross over them. Illegals stand a better chance of survival in the desert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_Mountains_(New_Mexico)

The Organ Mountains, a small and rugged 9,000-foot high, 32 million-year-old range in south-central New Mexico just east of Las Cruces, have long drawn the adventurous into the rocky folds and crevices of their steep granitic and rhyolite slopes

http://www.desertusa.com/desert-new-mexico/organ-mountains.html

sign~1.jpg
 
Last edited:
No, youre missing the point. Congress has to go through US. There is no text in the constitution which gives congress the power to pass such an Act. It would be akin to seizing land to build post offices, when there wasnt specifically a post office clause in the constitution. There is no Parks clause. Thus they cant seize land for such purpose.

In most cases, these lands are already held public lands that are receiving a new classification. It's not seizures.
 
Heh, we might have been geared up better but that's exactly how we used to spend our vacations. And I love all the critters you listed.

Me too, spent 5 years there in NM.

Thing is, the Organs are different, you can climb up one side with some difficulty, but descending 9,000 feet straight down is another story.
 
I think Mexico's Southern Border is where one needs to start to turn the tap off to a trickle.....you don't think they can say they are doing any good job, do you?

Oh I see, you're referring to the poor job that Mexico is doing in the war on drugs. First, the war on drugs is a rouse, but then I think you know that, otherwise this problem would have been repaired long ago. Neither party is willing to repair the drug problem or border security, otherwise it would have been done long ago. Furthermore, while it isn't an excuse, the Mexican government has a point when they note that American citizens have a responsibility in this as well, but unfortunately, they provide the demand!!
 
So is it your contention then that Yellowstone National Park, Yosemite National Park, and other federal parks and monuments should just be auctioned off to developers?

That was my take away.
 
Hopefully the state will sue the govt over it. Supreme Court is on a roll right now, ruling against these kinds of unconstitutional actions.

If the border control continue to drive onthat land, who will go after tham as they are a federal agency as well?
 
If New Mexico doesn't like this it can go to war against the USA and change it.
 
So is it your contention then that Yellowstone National Park, Yosemite National Park, and other federal parks and monuments should just be auctioned off to developers?

just a minor detail.. but Congress has control over national parks....the President can't designate a park all on his own.

the answer to your overall question, is... hell no.
 
If New Mexico doesn't like this it can go to war against the USA and change it.

:lol:..well, it doesn't really warrant a war... a simple legislative bill would work ( there's one in the House right now to limit the Presidents power to unilaterally designate public land usage)
 
just a minor detail.. but Congress has control over national parks....the President can't designate a park all on his own.

the answer to your overall question, is... hell no.

Right, but it was his contention that the government (executive or legislative) has no authority to create any sorts of parks or monuments.
 
I'll bet that goes nowhere.

How would they get it past the president's veto?
 
Generally courts rule based on established law.
 
Another land grab. THis represents about 2% of all land in New Mexico. He does this under an act passed in 1906 by Teddy Roosevelt, even though no such power exists in the constitution to do so. I dont know what the legal status of the land was before this. I assume the federal govt would argue that it owns all of southwest due to the Mexican War, and states just rent it. So it can decide how all of it will be used.

Is not the land in question already under BLM management? So it is not a land grab, but just a designation of how the federal public lands will be managed.
 
So is it your contention then that Yellowstone National Park, Yosemite National Park, and other federal parks and monuments should just be auctioned off to developers?

Yes. Preferably so we can build cliffs to push old people off of. Its amazing how you knew exactly what I was saying.
 
Is not the land in question already under BLM management? So it is not a land grab, but just a designation of how the federal public lands will be managed.

The BLM is unconstitutional. If the states never gave the federal govt the power to own land outside of DC or in relation to specifically enumerated powers (with due process and just compensation, then all laws and actions that flow from it are also illegal. The federal govt cant pass a law saying it has the power to do something. Only states can.
 
If the border control continue to drive onthat land, who will go after tham as they are a federal agency as well?

Thats a good point. Who watches the watchmen? All the more reason to stop the Executive from grabbing more power. Eventually they end up like Caesar, making the laws and enforcing them.
 
Back
Top Bottom