Senator Crapo, Show Me Your Authority

by Rob Oates

Idaho's senator, Mike Crapo, was all over the media in the past week celebrating the passage by Congress and the President's signing of Crapo's Owyhee Initiative. Here's the summary: "The Owyhee Initiative will designate 517,000 acres of public land as the Owyhee-Bruneau Wilderness, in six units, release 199,000 acres of wilderness study areas to non-wilderness multiple use management and designate 316 miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers." Wow. This was folded into a massive bill that included hundreds of similar actions -- all approved after years of lobbying effort with essentially one vote.

So, Senator Crapo, help me out here. I'm curious about what Constitutional authority you exercised in fighting for this bill over the years? No, seriously, I want to know. Here's the part of the Constitution that defines what you are hired to do as a senator, Article 1, Section 8:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and 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, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

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.

Please, please, please, I beg you, point out where you have the authority to permanently tie up over half a million acres and hundreds of miles of rivers. While you're at it, please tell me where the federal government has any authority at all to own massive amounts of land other than perhaps on military reservations?

If you cite the "necessary and proper" clause please use the whole thing: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the forgoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."  Whatever Congress wants to do has to be specifically permitted by the Constitution or it's, as they say, un-Constitutional.

SHOW ME, Senator Crapo.

Most of you know that Idaho's Senator Mike Crapo is one of the "good guys" in Congress -- at least most of the time. His legislative success this week, though, points out that almost EVERYTHING Congress does is outside the scope of their Constitutional authority. That means they're acting because one of them thinks it would be a good idea. That's what happened with the Owyhee Initiative. Someone thought it would be a good idea. Crapo sponsored it. Eventually pushed it through Congress. Stood behind Chancellor Obama at the signing ceremony. Not even remotely constitutional.

We're living in times I used to think were impossible to contemplate. I used to believe our rulers were working for us. I used to be much more naive. Reminds me of a line from a song, "I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then" by Bob Seger. Those probably were the good old days.

Our country cannot continue down this road. This cannot end well.

Comments

[Wayne Wohler]

Hey Rob, just a guess (I haven't read the bill) but I'm going to guess that interstate commerce clause was the basis. That is the most (mis)used clause of the Constitution ... think Federal rules for weapons in the vicinity of schools.

Anyway, frankly, I think that the wilderness areas ARE a good idea. Having seen what some folks think is a good use of pristine wilderness in Idaho and Colorado, I know it needs protection. I understand your concern about authority ... it doesn't matter if it is a good idea; it does need to be legal.

I'm less worried about wilderness than I am the damage that the last administration did to due process, habeus corpus, unreasonable search and other constitutional rights.

Anyway, good to hear from you; thanks for the pointer to your blog.