DOCSLIB.ORG

The Public Lands

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Public Lands \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLE\42-2\HLE203.txt unknown Seq: 1 3-JUL-18 10:59 A HISTORICAL REASSESSMENT OF CONGRESS’S “POWER TO DISPOSE OF” THE PUBLIC LANDS Jeffrey Schmitt* The Property Clause of the Constitution grants Congress the “Power to Dispose” of fed- eral land. Congress uses this Clause to justify permanent federal land ownership of approxi- mately one-third of the land within the United States. Legal scholars, however, are divided as to whether the original understanding of the Clause supports this practice. While many schol- ars argue that the text and intent of the framers show that Congress has the power to perma- nently own land within the states, others contend that these sources demonstrate that Congress has a duty to dispose of all federal land not held pursuant to another enumerated power. This scholarly debate has become increasingly important in recent years as a popular movement for state ownership of federal land has reemerged in the West. This Article argues that the debate over the history of the Property Clause should move beyond the Founding. The original meaning of the text, the intent of the framers, and the precedent of the early Supreme Court simply do not resolve the issue of whether Congress’s Duty to Dispose includes the power to permanently retain land within the states. This Article therefore provides the first detailed examination of how Congress’s Power to Dispose has been understood since the Founding. It concludes that, although Westerners have repeatedly chal- lenged Congress’s power when federal land policy has restricted western development, domi- nant opinion has always supported a broad construction of Congress’s power. In fact, those who favor federal land ownership have long argued that giving land to individual states would violate a constitutional obligation for Congress to use the land for the common benefit. When constitutional history is properly applied to Congress’s Power to Dispose, it strongly supports federal land ownership. Introduction ....................................................... 454 R I. Interpreting the Property Clause: Text, Intent, and the Need for a More Complete History ........................................ 458 R A. The Text of the Property Clause ............................ 458 R B. Original Intent and the Property Clause ..................... 460 R C. Post-Ratification History and Constitutional Interpretation .... 462 R II. Articles of Confederation to the Founding ........................ 464 R A. The Confederation Period .................................. 464 R B. The Founding ............................................ 469 R III. The Forgotten History: Ratification to Civil War ................. 470 R A. Early Public Land Policy .................................. 470 R B. Distribution, Graduation, and Cession ....................... 471 R C. Cession and Nullification .................................. 482 R D. Calhoun’s Cession Bill ..................................... 488 R E. Supreme Court Precedent .................................. 491 R * Assistant Professor of Law, University of Dayton School of Law. I would like to thank Adam Winkler, Jamal Greene, and faculty workshops at the University of Cincinnati Col- lege of Law, the University of Toledo College of Law, the University of Akron School of Law, and the University of Dayton School of Law for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this Article. \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLE\42-2\HLE203.txt unknown Seq: 2 3-JUL-18 10:59 454 Harvard Environmental Law Review [Vol. 42 IV. Reconstruction to Today ....................................... 495 R A. Federal Land Policy ....................................... 495 R B. Court Precedent........................................... 504 R C. Modern Developments: The Sagebrush Rebellion and Land Transfer Movement ....................................... 509 R V. Summarizing the History and Applying it to Congress’s “Power to Dispose” ..................................................... 513 R A. History Supports a Broad Construction of the Power to Dispose . 513 R B. The Equal Sovereignty Argument ........................... 515 R C. The Common Benefit Principle ............................. 517 R Conclusion ........................................................ 518 R INTRODUCTION The Property Clause of Article IV provides: “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”1 Pursuant to this authority, the federal government owns nearly one-third of the land within the United States.2 A growing popular movement in the West, however, demands that the federal government transfer ownership to the states.3 In 2012, for ex- ample, Utah passed legislation purporting to require Congress to transfer title to more than thirty million acres to the state.4 Since that time, politicians have pushed for similar legislation in other states and in Congress.5 Radicals like Ammon and Cliven Bundy, moreover, have galvanized Western support for the movement and drawn national attention to the issue of federal land ownership.6 Although economic and political factors are also at play, the movement’s sup- porters argue that federal land ownership within the states violates the original meaning of the Constitution, the intent of the framers, and the equal sover- eignty of the states.7 1. U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. 2. See, e.g., Donald J. Kochan, Public Lands and the Federal Government’s Compact-Based “Duty to Dispose”: A Case Study of Utah’s H.B. 148—The Transfer of Public Lands Act, 2013 BYU L. REV. 1133, 1137 (2013). 3. See Kirk Johnson, Siege Has Ended, but Battle Over Public Lands Rages On, N.Y. TIMES (Apr. 14, 2017), https://perma.cc/9YJZ-MLL5. See generally Uma Outka, State Lands in Modern Public Land Law, 36 STAN. ENVTL. L.J. 147, 152–62 (2017). 4. Transfer of Public Lands Act, H.B. 148, 59th Leg., Gen. Sess. (Utah 2012), codified at UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 63L-6-101 to 63L-6-104 (2017). 5. See Outka, supra note 3, at 152–60. R 6. See, e.g., Leah Sottile, Jury Acquits Ammon Bundy, Six Others for Standoff at Oregon Wildlife Refuge, WASH. POST (Oct. 27, 2016), https://perma.cc/HEL2-FPH5. 7. See id.; George R. Wentz Jr. & John W. Howard, Americans in the Western States are Denied Equal Rights, NAT’L REV., (Aug. 2, 2016), https://perma.cc/HSN5-LR4W; JOHN W. HOWARD ET AL., LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL CONSULTING SERVICES TEAM PRE- \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLE\42-2\HLE203.txt unknown Seq: 3 3-JUL-18 10:59 2018] Congress’s “Power to Dispose of” the Public Lands 455 There is a long-standing scholarly debate over whether these arguments are correct.8 Many legal scholars argue that the founding generation believed that Congress had a constitutional duty to divest all federal land held under the Property Clause.9 Under this reading of history, indefinite federal landowner- ship was not seen as legitimate until attitudes towards federal power and the environment changed during the twentieth century.10 Other scholars, however, dispute this reading of history and argue that the founding generation and early Supreme Court believed that Congress had the power to permanently own land within the states.11 All of these scholars rely almost exclusively on the text, evidence of framers’ intent, and early court precedent. This Article argues that both sides of the debate are wrong to assume that the Founding provides an answer. Like so many other concrete issues of mod- ern constitutional law, the framing generation had no reason to discuss the issue of whether Congress has the power to permanently own land within the states. Although the federal government owned vast tracts of western land, it owned no land within the existing states. Moreover, sources that address only Congress’s power over the territories are inconclusive, because permanent fed- eral ownership within the states arguably raises very different concerns about state sovereignty and federalism. The original public meaning of the text, intent of the founding generation, and precedent of the early Supreme Court are therefore inconclusive. When the original meaning of the Constitution does not resolve a con- crete issue of law, the Court and most theories of constitutional interpretation give significant weight to longstanding historical practices. This Article there- PARED FOR THE UTAH COMMISSION FOR THE STEWARDSHIP OF PUBLIC LANDS (2015), https://perma.cc/E6MM-4CGN. 8. Although scholars vigorously debate the history, modern legal doctrine strongly supports federal land ownership. See ROBERT B. KEITER & JOHN C. RUPLE, WALLACE STEGNER CTR. FOR LAND, RES., & ENV’T,A LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSFER OF PUBLIC LANDS MOVEMENT, WHITE PAPER NO. 2014-2, at 2 (2014), https://perma.cc/Q23Q- BA3C; cf. Nick Lawton, Utah’s Transfer of Public Lands Act: Demanding a Gift of Federal Lands, 16 VT. J. ENVTL. L. 1, 17–34 (2014). 9. See Albert W. Brodie, A Question of Enumerated Powers: Constitutional Issues Surrounding Federal Ownership of the Public Lands, 12 PAC. L.J. 693, 694 (1981); Robert E. Hardwicke, Carl Illig & C. Perry Patterson, The Constitution and the Continental Shelf, 26 TEX. L. REV. 398, 419–23 (1948); Kochan, supra note 2, at 1145–49, 1159–65; Carolyn M. Landever, R Whose Home on the Range? Equal Footing, the New Federalism and State Jurisdiction on Public Lands, 47 FLA. L. REV. 557, 578–79 (1995); Robert G. Natelson, Federal Land Retention and the Constitution’s Property Clause: The Original Understanding, 76 U.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • I Have Been Working on a Book, Stand-Ins, on The
    Workshop Participants: I have been working on a book, Stand-Ins, on the causes and consequences of temporary leadership in government, business, and religion, which is aimed at a more general audience. Given recent events, I have returned to more traditional scholarship to explore some of the issues involving temporary leadership (and the lack thereof) in federal agencies, among other topics. This paper is brand new, incomplete, and unpolished. Given its length, I would recommend reading the Introduction (pp.1-5), Scope of Actings (pp.13-27), and Statutory Questions (pp.33-42). I look forward to your reactions and suggestions for improvement. AJO Actings Anne Joseph O’Connell Stanford Law School April 1, 2019 Please do not cite or distribute beyond the workshop without permission. I. Introduction Stand-in leaders do not usually command much attention. They step up in moments of need to keep organizations running. The stereotypical interim leader is therefore a caretaker—in place to maintain stability; not to implement major changes. But not all interim leaders are caretakers. Some are auditioning for the permanent job. And a few are there to shake up the organization—so-called “fixers”. The scope of temporary leadership is vast—after all, traditional leaders are transitory, and selection procedures for more permanent leaders take time. On the public side, there are interim leaders in all branches of the federal government. In Congress, there are appointed senators, chosen by their state’s governor to fill in for an elected senator who has died or resigned, perhaps in disgrace or perhaps to take a different job.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report Summa ·Z· G Findings of the Review of Designations Under the Antiquities Act
    THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WASHINGTON MEMORANDUM F FROM: SUBJECT: Final Report Summa ·z· g Findings of the Review of Designations Under the Antiquities Act Executive Summary and Impressions of the Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke In 1906, Congress delegated to the President the power to designate a monument under the Antiquities Act (Act). The Act authorizes the President singular authority to designate national monuments without public comment, environmental review, or further consent of Congress. Given this extraordinary executive power, Congress wisely placed limits on the President by defining the objects that may be included within a monument as being "historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest," by restricting the authority to Federal lands, and by limiting the size of the monument to "the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects." Congress retained its authority to make land-use designations without such limitations. Even with the restrictive language, use of the Act has not always been without controversy. In fact, even Theodore Roosevelt's first proclamation of the roughly 1,200-acre Devil's Tower in Wyoming was controversial. Since that time, the use of the Act has largely been viewed as an overwhelming American success story and today includes almost 200 of America's greatest treasures. More recently, however, the Act's executive authority is under scrutiny as Administrations have expanded both the size and scope of monument designations. Since 1996 alone, the Act has been used by the President 26 times to create monuments that are over 100,000 acres or more in size and have included private property within the identified external boundaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Tribal-State Relations
    ISSUE BRIEF August 2012 Tribal-State Relations What’s Inside: • Key factors affecting The United States Congress and Tribal governments Tribal-State relations in have articulated the importance of protecting the safety, child welfare permanency, and well-being of American Indian and Alaska • Components of Native children. Through the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) successful Tribal-State of 1978, Congress stated that there is “no resource that is relations more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children” (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901). • Promising practices in Tribal-State relations This brief is intended to help States, Tribes, and related from across the country jurisdictions find ways to work together more effectively to • Conclusion meet the goals of ICWA. • Resources Child Welfare Information Gateway Children’s Bureau/ACYF 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20024 800.394.3366 Email: [email protected] Use your smartphone to http://www.childwelfare.gov access this issue brief online. Tribal-State Relations http://www.childwelfare.gov • State jurisdiction over Tribal affairs, for Key Factors Affecting Tribal- instance, through Public Law 280 (P.L. 280), initially enacted in 1953 in six “mandatory” State Relations in Child Welfare States and other “optional” States in 1968 that elected to assume full or partial State jurisdiction on Indian reservations, and Tribal child welfare has had a particularly eliminating Federal jurisdiction for Indian poignant history in the past century. Country (Gardner & Melton, n.d.) Thousands of Indian children were forcibly removed from their homes, families, and • Tribal-State disagreements, especially those Tribes and placed in boarding schools where that end up in court and result in a “winner” a policy of assimilation left them unable to and a “loser” speak their Native language or participate • Availability of funding for child welfare in their Native culture.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Law Review
    COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW VOL. 99 DECEMBER 1999 NO. 8 GLOBALISM AND THE CONSTITUTION: TREATIES, NON-SELF-EXECUTION, AND THE ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING John C. Yoo* As the globalization of society and the economy accelerates, treaties will come to assume a significant role in the regulation of domestic affairs. This Article considers whether the Constitution, as originally understood, permits treaties to directly regulate the conduct of private parties without legislative implementation. It examines the relationship between the treaty power and the legislative power during the colonial, revolutionary, Framing, and early nationalperiods to reconstruct the Framers' understandings. It concludes that the Framers believed that treaties could not exercise domestic legislative power without the consent of Congress, because of the Constitution'screation of a nationallegislature that could independently execute treaty obligations. The Framers also anticipatedthat Congress's control over treaty implementa- tion through legislation would constitute an importantcheck on the executive branch'spower in foreign affairs. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................... 1956 I. Treaties, Non-Self-Execution, and the Internationalist View ..................................................... 1962 A. The Constitutional Text ................................ 1962 B. Globalization and the PoliticalBranches: Non-Self- Execution ............................................. 1967 C. Self-Execution: The InternationalistView ................
    [Show full text]
  • Ryan Zinke Secretary of the Interior
    Ryan Zinke Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke was sworn in as the 52nd Secretary of the Interior on March 1, 2017. A fifth-generation Montanan and former U.S. Navy SEAL Commander, Ryan Zinke built one of the strongest track records in the 114th Congress on championing sportsmen’s access, conservation, regulatory relief, forest management, responsible energy development, and smart management of federal lands. “As a former Navy SEAL, Ryan has incredible leadership skills and an attitude of doing whatever it takes to win,” President Donald Trump said in nominating the former congressman, who built an impressive portfolio on Interior issues ranging from federal mineral leases to tribal affairs to public lands conservation. Growing up in a logging and rail town near Glacier National Park, Ryan has had a lifelong appreciation for conserving America’s natural beauty while honoring Teddy Roosevelt’s vision of multiple-use on our public lands. He has consistently led the efforts to renew the Land and Water Conservation Fund in Congress, and has also been a firm advocate for our nation’s sportsmen to gain access to our public lands with the SCORE Act and SHARE Act. Zinke also coauthored the Resilient Federal Forest Act, which initiated new reforms for revitalizing America’s timber towns and preventing wildfires by emphasizing the collaborative process. Zinke is widely praised for his voting record supporting the Teddy Roosevelt philosophy of managing public lands, which calls for multiple-use to include economic, recreation and conservation. He has pledged to explore every possibility for safely and responsibly repealing bad regulations and using public natural resources to create jobs and wealth for the American people.
    [Show full text]
  • The Soul of America by Jon Meacham
    The Soul of America By Jon Meacham Answer the following: Chapter 1 (pg. 23-47) 1. What is the difference between The First Charter of Virginia (1606) and A Model of Christian Charity (1630)? How do each represent a contradiction? Pg. 23-24 2. How is Abraham Lincoln an example of “…birth mattered less than it ever had before…” when it came to the American dream of wealth & happiness. Pg. 24 3. Starting on page 24 and continuing through page 27, Meacham explains why the American presidency is important to the American experience. Give an example of why this is so. Also explain how the competing views of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and practical experience of the Revolutionary War and Confederation period shaped thoughts on government. 4. What fundamental role did president Lyndon Johnson want to accomplish as President? Pg. 27 5. How did Alexander Hamilton curtail his enthusiasm over the role of the President in two of his Federalist essays? Pg. 27-28 6. What began to change in regard to political power by the time of Andrew Jackson’s presidency? Give some examples of how Jackson was “the most contradictory of men”. Pg. 29-31 7. Give examples of how Abraham Lincoln further changed the role of the president by expanded on the ideals of both Jefferson & Jackson, especially after is Gettysburg Address. Pg. 31-32 8. How does Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt begin to further define the role of the presidency? Pg. 35-40 Chapter 2 (pg. 51-69) 9. After the Civil War, how did the South try to reimagine the purpose of the war in their terms? Why is this a false narrative of the events? Pg.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States and the Articles of Confederation: Drifting Toward Anarchy Or Inching Toward Commonwealth?*
    The United States and the Articles of Confederation: Drifting Toward Anarchy or Inching Toward Commonwealth?* On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee proposed to the Second Con- tinental Congress "[t]hat these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States," and "[t]hat a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their con- sideration and approbation."' Lee's resolution reflected the linkage between independence and confederation in the public mind.2 The result was the Articles of Confederation, drafted in 1776-1777 and fi- nally ratified on March 1, 1781, which remained in effect until 1789 and represented the first American experiment with a written na- tional charter.3 The conventional view of this period is that it was dominated by deep factional conflict concerning the amount of power that should be vested in the national government. 4 The text of the Articles, ac- cording to this view, represented a victory for the group favoring minimal national authority, 5 and as a result the Articles government * The author acknowledges with gratitude the assistancc of Professor William E. Nelson of the Yale Law School in providing critical guidance and granting permission to make use of unpublished research materials. 1. 5 JOURNALS OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 425 (W. Ford ed. 1906) [hereinafter cited without cross-reference as JOURNALS]. 2. See NEw JERSEY IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, 1763-1783: A DOCUMENT.ARY HISTORY 402 (L. Gerlach ed. 1975) (issues of independence and confederation were inseparable) [hereinafter cited as DOCUIENTARY HISTORY]; cf. Jensen, The Articles of Confederation, in FUNDAMENTAL TESTAMENTS OF TilE AMERICAN RLvoI.UTIoN 62 (Library of Congress Sym- posium on the American Revolution 1973) (politicians who opposed confederation did so because they saw it as step toward independence) [hereinafter cited as Jensen, TESTA ENTS].
    [Show full text]
  • Trump's Interior Department Is Using the Pandemic As an Excuse To
    Trump’s Interior Department Is Using The Pandemic As An Excuse To Expedite A Controversial, Decades-Stalled Project For Interior Secretary David Bernhardt’s Former Client The Move Is The Latest In A String Of Moves To Help Bernhardt’s Client Divert Water From The Missouri River The Trump Administration Wants To Expedite A Water Delivery Project For Garrison Diversion Water Conservancy District, A Former Client Of Interior Secretary David Bernhardt The Trump Administration Is Expediting Dozens Of Infrastructure Projects During The COVID-19 Pandemic. “The Trump administration is seeking to fast track environmental reviews of dozens of major energy and infrastructure projects during the COVID-19 pandemic, including oil and gas drilling, hazardous fuel pipelines, wind farms and highway projects in multiple states, according to documents provided to The Associated Press. The plan to speed up project approvals comes after President Donald Trump in June ordered the Interior Department and other agencies to scale back environmental reviews under special powers he has during the coronavirus emergency. More than 60 projects targeted for expedited environmental reviews were detailed in an attachment to a July 15 letter from Assistant Interior Secretary Katherine MacGregor to White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow.” [Associated Press, 09/02/20] ● One Of The Expedited Projects Is The Eastern North Dakota Alternate Water Supply (ENDAWS). “The Department's efforts to streamline environmental reviews have been underway since the start of the Trump Administration. Executive Order 13807 ‘On Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,’ dated August 15, 2017, provided our initial blueprint.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rough Road Ahead
    THE ROUGH ROAD AHEAD A tasing death in a small town Red alert for Colorado River Poet Alberto Vol. 52 / March 2021 No. 3 • hcn.org Ríos on Nogales EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/PUBLISHER Greg Hanscom INTERIM EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Katherine Lanpher ART DIRECTOR Cindy Wehling FEATURES DIRECTOR McKenna Stayner MANAGING DIGITAL EDITOR Gretchen King ASSOCIATE EDITORS Emily Benson, Paige Blankenbuehler, Graham Lee Brewer, Maya L. Kapoor PHOTO EDITOR Roberto (Bear) Guerra ASSOCIATE PHOTO EDITOR Luna Anna Archey ASSISTANT EDITORS Jessica Kutz, Carl Segerstrom, Anna V. Smith EDITOR AT LARGE Betsy Marston COPY EDITOR Diane Sylvain CONTRIBUTING EDITORS Elena Saavedra Buckley, Ruxandra Guidi, Michelle Nijhuis, Jonathan Thompson CORRESPONDENTS Nick Bowlin, Leah Sottile, Sarah Tory EDITORIAL FELLOWS Homes on the Fort McDermitt Paiute Shoshone Reservation in the Quinn River Valley, with the Santa Rosa Mountains Jessica Douglas, Brandon Yadegari Moreno rising in the background, in Humboldt County, Nevada. Russel Albert Daniels / HCN EDITORIAL INTERNS Surya Milner, Wufei Yu DIRECTOR OF PHILANTHROPY Alyssa Pinkerton SENIOR DEVELOPMENT OFFICER Paul Larmer CHARITABLE GIVING ADVISOR Clara Fecht DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES Hannah Stevens, Carol Newman DIRECTOR OF PRODUCT & MARKETING Gary Love MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER Michael Schrantz EVENTS & BUSINESS PARTNER COORDINATOR Laura Dixon IT MANAGER Alan Wells DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS Erica Howard ACCOUNTS ASSISTANT Mary Zachman Know CUSTOMER SERVICE MANAGER Kathy Martinez CUSTOMER SERVICE Karen Howe, Mark Nydell, Pamela Peters, Tammy York the GRANT WRITER Janet Reasoner FOUNDER Tom Bell BOARD OF DIRECTORS Brian Beitner (Colo.), John Belkin (Colo.), West. Seth Cothrun (Ariz.), Jay Dean (Calif.), Bob Fulkerson (Nev.), Wayne Hare (Colo.), Laura Helmuth (Md.), Samaria Jaffe (Calif.), High Country News is an independent, reader-supported nonprofit 501(c)(3) media organization that covers the important Nicole Lampe (Ore.), Marla Painter (N.M.), issues and stories that define the Western U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Republican Moments: the Role of Direct Popular Power in the American Constitutional Order
    University of Pennsylvania Law Review FOUNDED 1852 Formerly American Law Register VOL. 139 DECEMBER 1990 No. 2 ARTICLES REPUBLICAN MOMENTS: THE ROLE OF DIRECT POPULAR POWER IN THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER James Gray Popet INTRODUCTION .................................. 289 I. POPULAR VS. ELITIST REPUBLICANISM ON DIRECT POPULAR PARTICIPATION ............................... 295 A. Background: The Republican Revival ............. 296 t Associate Professor of Law, Rutgers University School of Law, Newark, New Jersey. A.B. 1974,J.D. 1983 Harvard University. Earlier versions of this paper were presented to the Boston University Legal History Group and the Rutgers Law Faculty Colloquium. The final product benefitted greatly from critical comments by Akhil Reed Amar, C. Edwin Baker, CathieJo Martin, Eric Neisser, Richard Davies Parker, and John M. Payne. I am especially indebted to Vicki Been, Richard Revesz, and Aviam Soifer, who provided detailed critiques on short notice. James C.N. Paul gave guidance and encouragement throughout. Able research assistance was provided by Lisa Buckley, John Cioffi, Angela DiLeo, Nancy Gage, Sandra Levy, Mary Uva, Rosalind Westlake, and David Zuckerbrot. The S.I. Newhouse Research Fund supplied much-needed financial support. (287) 288 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 139:287 B. Direct PopularParticipation and the Problem of Size .... 297 C. The Elitist Solution .......................... 299 D. Back to Square One .......................... 301 E. A PopularRepublican Dilemma .................... 302 II. REPUBLICAN MOMENTS .......................... 304 A. Ackerman's ConstitutionalMoments ................ 304 B. Public Purpose and Creedal Passion ................ 306 C. Republican Moments ......................... 310 D. PopularRepublican Pathologies? ................... 313 III. REPUBLICAN MOMENTS AS A PARTIAL ANTIDOTE TO INTEREST GROUP POLITICS .............................. 315 A. From Narrow Self-Interest to Public Virtue ...........
    [Show full text]
  • Basin and Range National Monument Pursuant to the Department of the Interior’S “Review of Certain National Monuments Established Since 1996.”1
    Submitted electronically via regulations.gov July 10, 2017 The Honorable Ryan Zinke Secretary of the Interior U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, NW Monument Review, MS-1530 Washington, DC 20240 Re: Review of Certain National Monuments Established Since 1996; Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment (May 11, 2017) Dear Secretary Zinke: Defenders of Wildlife (Defenders) respectfully submits the following comments on Basin and Range National Monument pursuant to the Department of the Interior’s “Review of Certain National Monuments Established Since 1996.”1 Founded in 1947, Defenders of Wildlife is a national non-profit conservation organization focused on conserving and restoring native species and the habitat upon which they depend. Based in Washington, DC, the organization also maintains six regional field offices, including in the Southwest. Defenders is deeply involved in public lands management and wildlife conservation, including the protection and recovery of flora and fauna in the Great Basin. We submit these comments on behalf of almost 1.2 million members and supporters nationwide, including our 7,200 donors and activists in Nevada. President Trump’s Executive Order 137922 directed you to “review” national monuments designated or expanded since January 1, 1996, pursuant to the Antiquities Act of 1906.3 Section 1 of the order, “Policy,” states in pertinent part: “[d]esignations should be made in accordance with the requirements and original objectives of the Act and appropriately balance the protection of 1 82 Fed. Reg. 22016 (May 11, 2017). 2 82 Fed. Reg. 20429 (May 1, 2017). 3 Act of June 8, 1906, ch. 3060, 34 Stat.
    [Show full text]
  • Former Governors of Illinois
    FORMER GOVERNORS OF ILLINOIS Shadrach Bond (D-R*) — 1818-1822 Illinois’ first Governor was born in Maryland and moved to the North - west Territory in 1794 in present-day Monroe County. Bond helped organize the Illinois Territory in 1809, represented Illinois in Congress and was elected Governor without opposition in 1818. He was an advo- cate for a canal connecting Lake Michigan and the Illinois River, as well as for state education. A year after Bond became Gov ernor, the state capital moved from Kaskaskia to Vandalia. The first Illinois Constitution prohibited a Governor from serving two terms, so Bond did not seek reelection. Bond County was named in his honor. He is buried in Chester. (1773- 1832) Edward Coles (D-R*) — 1822-1826 The second Illinois Governor was born in Virginia and attended William and Mary College. Coles inherited a large plantation with slaves but did not support slavery so he moved to a free state. He served as private secretary under President Madison for six years, during which he worked with Thomas Jefferson to promote the eman- cipation of slaves. He settled in Edwardsville in 1818, where he helped free the slaves in the area. As Governor, Coles advocated the Illinois- Michigan Canal, prohibition of slavery and reorganization of the state’s judiciary. Coles County was named in his honor. He is buried in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (1786-1868) Ninian Edwards (D-R*) — 1826-1830 Before becoming Governor, Edwards was appointed the first Governor of the Illinois Territory by President Madison, serving from 1809 to 1818. Born in Maryland, he attended college in Pennsylvania, where he studied law, and then served in a variety of judgeships in Kentucky.
    [Show full text]