A Token Meeting

Posted on by

The Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bob Abbey, made his way to Montana yesterday to meet with people about a National Monument in northeastern Montana.

It was widely covered by the media.

One reporter said there were 1200 people attending the meeting. Another one said there were 1500. Another said close to 2000. So, the major thing we discovered from this meeting is that Montana reporters have problems counting. Sadly, this meeting won’t make a difference. It would not have made a difference if 12,000 people attended.

It was a token meeting by the BLM leader – one more box to check off for the Obama Administration to use as proof that they met with citizens and heard their concerns.

The Administration needs to check off these boxes because they would like to have another term – although they know that Montana, with just three electoral votes and a state that went to McCain last time, is not that important.

Another term may delay the inevitable – but the bottom line is that Presidents have the Antiquities Act to use at their own discretion.

We knew well before the BLM Director landed in Montana that there was an idea floating around to make another National Monument in Montana – we’ve seen the document. We just don’t know when it may happen. The document told us that the use of the Antiquities Act is one way to get it. My best guess is that Montana will get a new National Monument in late 2012 or sometime early in 2013.

Many of us remember back in 2000 when Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt ventured into Montana to hear from the people, which was another token meeting to say they listened. Many folks turned out to voice their concerns against the idea of making another National Monument in Montana.

It did not help. On January 17, 2001, President William J. Clinton issued a proclamation making the Upper Missouri Breaks National Monument using the Antiquities Act. Clinton said it was in the public’s best interest.

By the way, when the Upper Missouri Breaks National Monument was designated it contained about 81,000 acres of private property within its boundaries and that is, in my opinion, a major problem with National Monument designations.

About the only answer to curtail the use of the Antiquities Act is to exempt the State of Montana from the Act. Earlier this year, Congressman Denny Rehberg introduced legislation (H.R. 4754) to do just that. It would be interesting to see if Montana’s senators, Max Baucus and Jon Tester, support Rehberg’s legislation.

2 thoughts on “A Token Meeting”

  1. “About the only answer to curtail the use of the Antiquities Act is to exempt the State of Montana from the Act.”

    True, but the Constitution already exempts all states from the Act. The only authority granted to the Federal Government over land within a state is found in Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 17:
    “Congress shall have power … to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”.

    The Antiquities Act is not an amendment to the Constitution. Therefore, it does not change this limited scope of power. With or without it, the only purposes for which the Federal Government can govern land within a state are for “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”.

    National Monuments do not qualify. National Parks do not qualify. “Wilderness Areas” do not qualify.

    (the other qualification, that such lands must be purchased with the consent of the State Legislature, likely disqualifies all of the above as well)

    Every member of the Montana State Legislature swears an oath to uphold the US Constitution. This is an opportunity for them to do so. They need to declare their jurisdiction over all Federally controlled land in Montana that doesn’t meet the constitutional requirements!

Comments are closed.