That's... not what happened.
The Antiquities Act of 1906 empowers the President to designated federal lands as monuments.
Obama designated 1.65 million acres in Utah and Nevada as national monuments in December. The federal government already owned the land. What this designation does is add a layer of protection on the lands, similar to that of a national park. Meanwhile, activities like grazing and timber management will continue.
State and private lands within the national monument are excluded from the designation. The Forest Service factsheet explains it best:
The national monument designation will not impact the rights of private landowners within or adjacent to the national monument, including existing access within the national monument boundary. In addition to the approximately 1.35 million acres of Federal lands, the Bears Ears National Monument boundary encompasses approximately 109,100 acres of land owned by the State of Utah and 12,600 acres owned by private landowners. The non-Federal lands within the national monument are not be part of the national monument unless subsequently and voluntarily acquired.
https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/...fact-sheet.pdf
Given that Bears Ears National Monument has around 100,000 sites with archaeological significance, including cliff dwellings, it hardly sounds all that absurd.
There is nothing unconstitutional about the Antiquities Act. Congress gave the Executive the power to designate national monuments over 100 years ago. The SCOTUS has repeatedly reviewed it, and found it to be constitutional. No land or property was seized. And if Congress doesn't want the President to be able to designate federal lands as a national monument, they can revise the Antiquities Act.
A duly elected President signs an executive order and a day or two later an appointed Judge never being elected to anything quashes it and ties the issue up in the courts for god only knows how long. Where does that kind of power come from fot unelected Judges?
From the Constitution.
The role of the Judiciary is to act as a check on improper use of power by the Legislative and/or Executive branches.
The Framers deliberately chose to make federal judges an appointed position, in order to isolate them to a degree from the normal political/electoral process.
The judiciary, in these cases (both travel ban and sanctuary cities), believe they've found those EOs to be unconstitutional, are blocking them until or unless the SCOTUS does a full review.
By the way, did you also think it was "authoritarian" when Obama declared he wanted to delay deportations for selected unauthorized immigrants? That was shot down by the courts, too. Was it absurd for the SCOTUS to scrutinize the ACA for possible violations of the Constitution? Yes, no?
Does anybody aside from me find such actions absurd, authoritarian and unconstitutional?
Nope.
The fact that you don't like something, or that it was enacted by a President you dislike, doesn't make it either authoritarian or unconstitutional.
