Out of the Box
By A. M. Johnson
August 06, 2010
Having just returned from a out of town trip, an acquaintance,
Snapper Carson, accosted me at the post office in support of
candidate Walker for Governor. Snapper expounded on Mr. Walker's
support for resource development and being out spoken on many
subjects favored by Snapper and myself. He indicated that a "Great
Debate" is to take place during the Blue Berry Festival
and that the Chamber of Commerce is taking questions to be asked.
I declined to accept his invitation to submit questions to the
Chamber on the basis that (1) there is no Great Debate in political
gatherings. (2)The Chamber while well intended,is charged with
going along to get along so it would be doubtful that an "Out
of the Box" question would see the light of the day. These
political gatherings are "Position Poppycock" designed
to not upset anybody and appear as middle of the road moderate.
In my opinion, Snapper was somewhat taken back. Perhaps for good
reason. The question that I would pose, and out of the box, is
"Currently there are several States who are preparing law
suits against the Federal Government for over reaching the authority
of the Federal Government to mandate on subjects that reside
within the powers of the States. Health care, immigration, and
more recently with a direct connection to Alaska, is the "eminent
Domain" questions being pursued by Colorado and Utah which
state similar overreaching actions by the Federal Government.
here. It is this latter issue that is the basis of my question
to Mr. Walker.
"Would Mr. Walker, as Governor, be prepared to sue the Federal
Government for eminent Domain over reach by the Federal Government.?"
First, I have read the compact between the then Territory of
Alaska and the Congress on the precept of Congress taking up
the issue of Statehood. In my opinion, Alaska was given away
by the then Alaska political members in an effort to assure that
Congress would vote favorable on Statehood. Never the less, if
the Genesis of the Constitution is to be mandate of how our Country
is to be run, the Federal Government is allowed to own only the
land required for Forts,armories, and Federal buildings as required".
While there is a provision that is in small print (My view)
for additional activity, that small print has been prostituted
much as the Commerce Act.to allow vast improper over reach authority
regarding States rights.
Should the opportunity to have a follow-up with Mr. Walker on
this initial question, I would expand on the question by stating
that Alaska and every State should have ownership of all the
land/resource, less that allowed by the Constitution's original
intent, be with the State of Alaska as with all other States.
From this point it would be up to each of your readers to picture
the result of such action. All resource development and regulation
would lay with each State's legislature. Using the framework
of various Federal agencies that exist currently, the transition
to State control would be minimal. Yes, we would have a department
of environment, We have that department already, we have a State
Forest Agency,Fish and Game. We currently have all the foundational
agencies to achieve such transition.
Protesters of development would have to come to Juneau, in Alaska's
case, to make their case to Alaska legislators. Not to elected
officials across the Nation completely absent from actual issues
within the State. Our State elected officials. Alaska or any
State, could establish legislation that would have legal and
court cost be the responsibility of the loser. Elected officials
would answer to the voters in their respective districts for
Think of the income to the coffers of the State and the Permanent
Fund if allocation of ALL resources were under the control of
the State of Alaska. We would never have to receive $2.00 for
every $1.00 received currently. We would be self sufficient.
Industry would grow, resource development in the area of Gas,
Oil,Coal,Timber, mining, and tourism would expand under State
control vs. the continued negative Federal edicts.
The first step is a bold and brave politician who, like Chris
Christy of New Jersey, was elected to do a job, not create a
Snapper assures me that Mr. Walker is a pro development on the
ground person who wants to take Alaska forward. I have my doubts.
There is too much Political Correctness in play within the Kabuki
Dance of politics. He well maybe the better of the field, however
in the end, I am not holding my breath.
In closing, The State of Alaska should own ALL the lands within
her boundaries from the top of the mountains to include the 3
mile offshore limit. She should have absolute control of what
happens on those lands. The Federal Government has its responsibility
under the original concept of the Constitution. Man makes laws,
man has the ability to change laws. Now with so many States posed
to challenge the Federal government and its over reaching, is
the time to jump in with this subject. As the Obama administration
has been quick to state, " Never waste a chaos,it is a perfect
opportunity to act."
To some this proposal is outrageous
and dangerous to consider. I submit that the voyage this country
is on under the Socialist guidelines that were started under
the administrations of Wilson, Roosevelt, continued under Carter,
Clinton, and most extreme under Obama reflects the old adage
of cooking the frog with a slow fire leading one to say that
"Change" is due and if it is not started by a bold
State Governor(s) ALL State rights will be legislated out or
even by Presidential proclamation, such as the rumored immigration
action anticipated to bypass Congress and allow tens of thousands
of illegal's to be given Amnesty. Assured, past Republican administrations
have side stepped and are just as guilty of the inside the Beltway
mentality of Washington D.C.
Do I expect such a question to be asked in a political debate?
Hell No! I do feel better having asked the question through
your good service to our community and I thank you for your open
free speech village square.
Be interesting to have Mr. Walker or any other political advocate
About: "Independent, Constitution/Bible
are rock solid, not flexible. Believe in the "KISS"
process and despise socialism.I do profile and I carry when I
feel threaten. Eye for eye type of happy go lucky coot!"
Received August 03, 2010 -
Published August 06, 2010
Viewpoints - Opinion Letters:
Your Opinion Letter to the Editor
Note: Comments published
on Viewpoints are the opinions of the writer
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sitnews.
E-mail your letters
& opinions to firstname.lastname@example.org
Your full name, city and state are required for letter publication.
Stories In The News