Trump Pardons Oregon Cattle Rangers, Signaling Support for the Movement to Transfer Federal Lands to the States

The White House just announced that President Trump is pardoning Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond.  They were serving prison sentences for arson on public lands.  Their sentencing triggered the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in 2016 that lasted more than a month and resulted in the death of a rancher.  You might recall that Ammon Bundy and the other leaders of the occupation justified it by arguing that federal control of the public lands was unconstitutional.  This pardon sends a clear signal that Trump is sympathetic to these claims, just as his pardon of Joe Arpaio demonstrated his support for “tough” (and illegal) immigration enforcement.  In fact, during her press conference, Sarah Huckabee Sanders noted that the Hammonds have the widespread support of “farmers and ranchers across the West.”

As FL readers may recall, I have an article coming out in the Harvard Environmental Review contending that the constitutional arguments against federal land ownership are wrong under all major theories of constitutional interpretation, including originalism. Simply put, the text of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and constitutional history all strongly support the fact that Congress has the power to indefinitely own land within the states.  I find it ironic that Trump is showing his support for such a specious constitutional argument the day after he nominated a new Justice to the Supreme Court.  Given Bundy’s acquittal and recent state level policies, however, this will probably play well with his base in the West.

Comments

[Anon]

"Given Bundy’s acquittal and recent state level policies, however, this will probably play well with his base in the West."

Please recall that coastal California, Oregon and Washington are in the West too. So it might play to his conservative or libertarian Western base, or to the sagebrush rebellion crowd, but it paints too broad a brush to say that supporting the lawless actions of these convicted felons will play widely throughout the Western U.S.

[Scott Pruitt Edndowed Chair in Enviconmental Justice]

Manifest Destiny.

[anymouse]

it is as perplexing as Obama's commutation of Chelsea Manning's prison sentence

i just don't understand it

[Anonymous 2]

I'm not sure that it will play well with the west outside of the coastal states. Although Congressman Chaffetz introduced a bill to move federal land to state control, he withdrew that proposal in 2017 because of opposition from those who enjoy outdoor sports, including fisherman, hikers, and hunters. Most

[Anonymous 2]

Sorry--posted prematurely. To continue--most people in the Mountain West realize that state governments can't be trusted to maintain public access to wild land. The push is from mining interests, not people.

[Jeff]

I agree that western support for the land transfer movement is far from uniform. However, judging from the actions of Republican state legislators, the 2016 Republican Platform, etc., I think Republican voters in the West tend to support the movement. Yes, many conservative hunters and fisherman oppose it, but, overall, conservatives want less federal control. I have much more detailed discussion in the paper that is referenced in the post.

[anon]

Jan. 5, 2016, NYT

"The United States government owns 47 percent of all land in the West. In some states, including Oregon, Utah and Nevada, the majority of land is owned by the federal government. Of course, it used to own nearly all of it."

Of course, for a "progressive" that result should be the inverse: government ownership should increase, not decrease, until all the land, and the commanding heights of the economy, and ... and what you think and what you say (and who is allowed to speak), and what you do and so forth ...

Freedom will only be possible when there is total control.

[Just stop it]

Of course, anon. Progressives support Stalinist planned economies. Thanks for enlightening us...again.

[anon]

That's actually close to accurate, Just Stop It.

Study, for example, the Wilson administration: its attitudes toward the separation of powers, free speech, etc. Look today at the attitudes of those whose attitudes I believe you epitomize toward free speech!

If you don't know, you need to enlighten yourself!

[Just stop it]

Yes, clearly the Wilson administration represents the cutting edge of progressive politics in the 2010's. How could I have forgotten?

[anon]

I don't know, how? Did you ever know? Can't tell.

Do you not recognize trends and themes?

Or, do you already know it all and possess infallible judgment (without knowledge), and therefore have no need to consider any other points of view?

[anon]

BTW, the "progressives" of today are openly advocating "Democratic Socialism," so, there's that. "Planned economy"? Substantial control of the "commanding heights of the economy"? Suppression of speech? Just take a look around.

We haven't even touched on whether these trends are good or bad.

The author above seems to think that transfer of control of federal lands to the states would be less consistent with the Constitution than permanent ownership by the federal government. That issue involves important legal questions.

Politically, though, my view is that knee jerk support for federal ownership, just based on hate of republicans, is sort, well, ignorant and a biased, unintellectual stance based on prejudice. (The author may have a good legal argument, but, he went there with his snarky comments about politics and the clear anti republican bias.)

[Scott Pruitt Edndowed Chair in Enviconmental Justice]

I did learn something in my law school property class. Nobody really owns the land, but owns the right exclude others. The feds really haven't excluded anybody have they? So, that bundle of sticks is intact. What's the problem with these cowboys and their pistolas?