The BIGGER Lesson Behind the Cliven Bundy Case

With Cliven Bundy's recent exoneration, it is time for Pres. Trump to reverse years of unbridled federal imperialism.

Art I Sec 8 Clause 17, aka "Enclave Clause", specifically and unambiguously limits federal ownership of State lands to those lands needed "for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other needful buildings," e.g. post offices. Our founders NEVER said anything about federal retention of State lands for ANY other purpose--and most certainly without the consent of respective State legislatures.

Mr. Trump has already taken some remedial action to reverse this federal imperialistic trend by his returning 1.7 million acres, which had been illegally seized by Obama, to Utah. A great start and a clear indication as to just how conservatively he and Interior Secretary Zinke interpret the Constitution in this regard, an interpretation which is unarguably more in keeping with the Constitution's original intent and meaning than we've seen with any president since the early 19th century.

To further validate my viewpoint in this matter, note that Art IV, Sec 3, Clause 2 gave Congress the power to DISPOSE of property, but makes no mention of a power to acquire real estate except for those specific purposes cited in Art I Sec 8 Clause 17.

In summary, this all means that nowhere does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to seize or retain acreage for unenumerated purposes such as grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, advancing environmentalist policies or national parks. Setting aside State lands for these purposes was left to the States and to the States alone! And to alter or expand the purposes for which the feds may acquire land, the Constitution would require an amendment--not congressional legislation alone.

For the moment, and especially in this regard, I'm giving Mr. Trump a B+ as a constitutional conservative, which places him well ahead of any Chief Executive since before the War for Southern Independence in 1861. Obviously, he still has a way to go to fully comply with the Enclave Clause, but he's to be commended for what he's already accomplished in Utah alone. More broadly, and so far during his one year in office, he has yet to violate the Constitution--a truly remarkable achievement in this day and age when the Constitution is so routinely ignored. I can only hope he will faithfully continue on this course.

(If at all interested, I wrote a lengthier piece on this subject in my Opinerlog, "Federal Imperialism v State Sovereignty", 4/10/14.)