23 Mar 17
Originally posted by vivifyThat's a good point and certainly state laws do apply in national parks within their boundaries.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the states would still be able to legislate hunting and laws governing wildlife, right? If a state were to ban the hunting of a particular animal, does that mean the law has no jurisdiction in a national park?
Still, under the supremacy clause, if Congress specifically allowed a certain conduct in a national park, it's questionable as to whether the state would be able to ban it.
23 Mar 17
Originally posted by finneganBut all of their authority comes from Congress. So, of course, Congress could revoke or amend that authority.
I would need someone who knows to clarify but the way I interpret this, the people working for the National Parks are employed by the Federal Government, so their decisions are in theory decisions of the administration, but in practice usually delegated to professionals. So the people who manage the parks are being prevented from making professional decisions.
23 Mar 17
Originally posted by sh76Ok thanks. So does this mean that the authority normally / formerly delegated to competent professionals is now to be withdrawn and only politicians in Congress will be able to act, assuming they can muster the energy and a majority to bother?
But all of their authority comes from Congress. So, of course, Congress could revoke or amend that authority.
Originally posted by sh76That isn't what Congress did here; it used the Congressional Review Act to overturn an administrative rule passed last year. Info on the CRA (passed in 1996 but only used once before this January) is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act
That's a good point and certainly state laws do apply in national parks within their boundaries.
Still, under the supremacy clause, if Congress specifically allowed a certain conduct in a national park, it's questionable as to whether the state would be able to ban it.
Presumably, States could pass laws banning such practices. I think there's a good chance that Alaska and other States will.
EDIT: Seems like the reality is a bit more complicated:
Young's bill would repeal a regulation finalized in August by the Fish and Wildlife Service. It applies only to federal refuges in Alaska. A similar rule issued by the National Park Service, also for Alaska, was completed too long ago to be repealed. The dispute between Alaska's federal workers and the state Department of Fish and Game managers centers around control of predators like wolves and bears.
https://www.adn.com/politics/2017/02/16/u-s-house-passes-rep-don-youngs-bill-to-repeal-alaska-wildlife-management-regulation/
So the rule against these practices in National Parks will stand.
EDIT2: As the Alaska Dispatch News points out, this debate gets to the core of a long-running dispute:
"At the heart of the disagreement between state and federal wildlife managers is what each group thinks should guide its purpose. The federal government has argued that the goal on refuges and in parks should be biodiversity. The state Board of Game has an interest in ensuring maximum sustained populations for hunting."
Ensuring the "maximum sustained populations" of commonly hunted prey species like elk, moose and caribou often means reining in the populations of their predators — namely, bears and wolves. In the 2016 restrictions, federal regulators argued that the Alaskan Board of Game had gone too far in prioritizing the populations of prey species over predators.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/22/521089304/congress-rolls-back-obama-era-rule-on-hunting-bears-and-wolves-in-alaska
23 Mar 17
Originally posted by finneganIt means one specific rule was overturned. The authority delegated to administrative agencies is subject to review based on the CRA as stated in my last post.
Ok thanks. So does this mean that the authority normally / formerly delegated to competent professionals is now to be withdrawn and only politicians in Congress will be able to act, assuming they can muster the energy and a majority to bother?
23 Mar 17
Originally posted by EladarDid you even open the link? It answers your question in the second paragraph:
I said the Constitution.
The authority for creating national parks is found in the Constitution under the “Property Clause” (Article IV, Section 3). “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….”
“Dispose of” is used in the sense of, “the act of transferring care, ownership or possession, or ownership to another”. Congress determined that it was “needful” to conserve certain lands unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. The authority for creating the National Park Service is found in The “Necessary and Proper Clause” (Article I, Section 8).
“Congress shall have the right to…make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
23 Mar 17
Originally posted by no1marauderWhen a State becomes a State, it is no longer a territory. The territory rights go out the window with Statehood.
Did you even open the link? It answers your question in the second paragraph:
The authority for creating national parks is found in the Constitution under the “Property Clause” (Article IV, Section 3). [b]“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the ...[text shortened]... nstitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”[/b]
23 Mar 17
Originally posted by EladarWhere in the Constitution does it say that?
When a State becomes a State, it is no longer a territory. The territory rights go out the window with Statehood.
The Northwest Ordinance passed in 1787 banned slavery forever from the territories that became a number of the MidWest States. That provision did not become inapplicable when the States were admitted into the Union.
23 Mar 17
Originally posted by no1marauderI fail to see how admitting those states as free states has anything to do with this.
Where in the Constitution does it say that?
The Northwest Ordinance passed in 1787 banned slavery forever from the territories that became a number of the MidWest States. That provision did not become inapplicable when the States were admitted into the Union.
The people who settled there were against slavery. It is like the Russians settling the Crimea with Russians and giving local power to the Russians.
23 Mar 17
Originally posted by EladarI know you "fail to see". That is because you don't understand the principles by which the Constitution was formed.
I fail to see how admitting those states as free states has anything to do with this.
The people who settled there were against slavery. It is like the Russians settling the Crimea with Russians and giving local power to the Russians.
The Northwest Ordinance didn't admit any States; the territory covered in it did not become individual States until decades later. It did set rules for that territory that carried over for when it became States, however.
The same principle applies to Federal ownership of property that precedes the admission of the State. The Feds may cede whatever portion of that to the State being admitted as it desires.
23 Mar 17
Originally posted by no1marauderIf a State wanted to declare itself a slave state, the Federal Government could not stop it.
I know you "fail to see". That is because you don't understand the principles by which the Constitution was formed.
The Northwest Ordinance didn't admit any States; the territory covered in it did not become individual States until decades later. It did set rules for that territory that carried over for when it became States, however.
The same prin ...[text shortened]... the State. The Feds may cede whatever portion of that to the State being admitted as it desires.
The Constitution clearly states what the Federal Government can own.
As long as a simple majority of Supreme Court Judges say is what governs the land.