Via CacheValleyDaily.com:

Logan City Police Department’s approach to SB81 7/2/09

Chief Russ Roper

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance chairman Darrell Knuffke corrects the record in response to Rob Bishop’s recent “land grab” Op-Ed. First, Rep. Bishop writes:

Article IV of the Constitution allows all states to join the original states as legal and political equals. As with other Western states, when Utah’s enabling act (the law that established Utah’s statehood status) was approved by Congress in 1894, it stated that land was ceded until such time as the federal government “shall” dispose of the land. Western states, including Utah, were promised 5 percent of the proceeds from land disposal to fund public education and infrastructure.

The plain language of these enabling acts proclaims that the public lands “shall be sold by the United States.” There was no “may” or “might” about it; the land was to be disposed of by the national government. The United States honored the language until the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, wherein Congress, with a majority of votes coming from the East, declared that the policy of the United States was to retain public lands in federal ownership and management.

The federal government’s disposal philosophy was abandoned and the importance of the Constitution’s equal footing concept was ignored.

To which, Knuffke responds:

In 1964, the Congress chartered the Public Land Law Review Commission to comprehensively review land laws and federal agencies’ policies and practices. It was scarcely an Eastern cabal. Colorado Rep. Wayne Aspinall, quintessential Westerner, was its chairman. When the commission issued its report in 1970, of 12 congressional representatives, all six senators and three of six House members were Westerners. (Interestingly, one was Rep. Laurance J. Burton, like Bishop a Republican representing Utah’s First Congressional District.)

The PLLRC recommended “retaining in Federal ownership those [lands] whose values must be preserved so that they may be used and enjoyed by all Americans.” The commission also recommended that “No additional grants should be made to any of the 50 states.”

The PLLRC likely led directly to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 which also directed that “the public lands be retained in Federal ownership.”

None of this fazes Rep. Bishop. He relies for most of his argument on the Constitution’s Article IV and, as he interprets it, the mandate that “public lands shall be sold by the United States.” A fairer reading of that language, and in context, suggests that “shall” is meant to condition a possibility rather than dictate an action: “if you sell them,” not “sell them now.”

Bishop understandably doesn’t bother to mention the plain language of Utah’s statehood act, reiterated in the state Constitution, by which the state renounced “all claim to unappropriated federal lands within its boundaries.”

Even bizarre constitutional theories often land in the federal courts. Bishop’s has and has repeatedly failed.

All this seems persuasive enough to settle the matter. It won’t, of course. That, ultimately, is the mystery: that sentient people would oppose the very existence of public lands, open to and managed for all of us. Those lands are the great glory of the American West, something to be valued, not vilified. They are what keep native-born Westerners here, or bring us back, and lure countless others to share them.

Knuffke sums up with a reminder that though we’re discussing wilderness, the issue is really about public lands, and in protecting them, we protect them for all Americans. As a life long and frequent partaker of Utah’s wilderness and outdoor activities, this point of view makes the most sense to me. Protecting the lands ensures they are still here for future generations to enjoy.

And if we accept Knuffle’s conclusions, and wipe Bishop’s constitutional fear-mongering out of the way, Bishop’s argument can be stripped down to one solitary example. The Congressman writes: Four Western states (including Utah) have more than 60 percent of the land within their borders controlled by the federal government. By comparison, the District of Columbia, established by the Constitution as the federal city, has only 24.7 percent of its total acreage owned by the federal government.

Really Rob? You want to compare the wilderness of Utah to the streets of Washington DC?

Discovery News:

Aldrin and crewmate Neil Armstrong were members of the Apollo 11 crew, which landed on the moon 40 years ago this month. NASA plans to return sending astronauts to the moon beginning in 2020.

Aldrin plans to lobby the presidential panel reviewing the U.S. human space program for a different plan, one that puts the spotlight on breaking new ground rather than repeating past exploits.

However, Aldrin contends that the moon should not be ignored as a destination point. He would like to see the U.S. oversee an international team of lunar explorers, which includes China. A permanent presence on the moon would not be necessary, he argues, unless there are commercial markets for lunar products and services.

I’m with Buzz on this one. I’d like to see the NASA exploration program invigorated, but do we need to go back to the moon? And why? Outside of an obvious “truck stop / bar and grill” 50 years down the road when science fiction space travel becomes a reality, what’s in it for us, as opposed to exploring other planets? Discovery also has a poll if you’d like to weigh in.

I’m experiencing a little (annual/temporary) political burnout.  It happens about this time every summer, but considering the never-ending election of years past, this summer it’s hitting me a little harder.  No worries though.  It’s only a matter of time until some Republican will do something to re-energize my socialist/commie commentary (Sarah Palin’s exit speech came close… anyone know what she’s even talking about?  And same goes for Mark Shurtleff.  I mean, Huh?!).

At times like this I find myself drawn to the more “lifestyle” oriented sections of the online universe.  Slate magazine, particularly.  And today they have a great one: What stuntmen think are the best stunt films of all time.

I love stunt films. The one’s with real stunts, not CGI. Old (read, pre-Rush Hour) Jackie Chan. Jet Li. The Matrix Trilogy. 1960′s Westerns. Any one of Takeshi Kitano’s many many “angry ex-cop” films. You name it, I love choreographed simulated danger. Or in Chan’s case, not so simulated.

There is something intriguing about a person, be it an actor or a stuntman, willing to risk their lives to produce that “perfect scene” or sequence just to entertain us all. It’s perverse, if you think about it. But it’s also makes for some of the most amazing, non-CGI imagery on film.

Check out Slate’s list, and if you have any recommendations I haven’t yet seen, by all means let me know.

UPDATE: EW has a list of 12 of their favorites from my second favorite genre of movie: The Gangster Film.

Jim Huska (JimLogan, I believe?) has some concern about the words Logan Police Chief Russ Roper had last week regarding his agency’s intentions to enforce SB 81. Here is Jim’s letter to the HJ that appeared in Sunday’s paper:

Dear Editor, Logan Police Chief Russ Roper, interviewed on KVNU Radio Thursday afternoon, said he “will not” enforce Utah’s new Immigration Law. How shameful! The head Law Enforcement Official in Logan saying he will not uphold his sworn duty. To become Police Chief he did swear to ‘uphold the laws of the State of Utah’. He, and some other Law Enforcement Officials like him in Utah, are essentially making Utah (and Logan City) a de facto Sanctuary for illegals. The Chief says the illegals will be dealt with by authorities regarding their legal status AFTER they commit a crime. Gosh, I thought our Police were here to help PREVENT crime. Being in this country illegally IS a crime. In addition, Chief Roper is essentially telling the youngsters and others in Logan to…’go ahead, obey only the laws you believe are fair and proper, after all, I am going to enforce only those I believe to be so.’ What a shameful message. He and the hosts on KVNU’s “For the People”, who sadly praised the Chief for his position, continue to call the new immigration law “Senate Bill 81″. It was that when it was a bill making its way through the State Legislature. But, as of July 1st, it is no longer proposed legislation, rather, it is the Law of the State of Utah, passed by our elected State Legislators and signed by the Governor. Attorney General Mark Shurtleff reportedly says he will enforce the law. Logan’s Police Chief apparently took a different Oath of Office, one that gives him the sole authority to decide which State laws to enforce and which to not. What a shameful abdication of sworn duty. Welcome illegals to Sanctuary Logan City.

On Sunday night, I also received the following e-mail from Jim. It was also sent to every member of the Logan Municipal Council, Emilie Wheeler at The Herald Journal and Jennie Christensen.

Dear Council Members,

Is it the City Council’s position, individually and collectively, that Police Chief Roper’s public policy (stated on KVNU Radio last Thursday) to not enforce Utah Immigration Law in Logan, is official City Policy?  (Reference my attached Letter to the Editor, Published in the Herald Journal Sunday, July 5)

It seems to me the City Council should offer the public a public vote on this issue of whether or not Logan will be a sanctuary City.

Thanks for your consideration.

Jim Huska
Hyrum (formerly Logan)

Finally, in reply to Jim’s letter, Tami Pyfer sent the following response back, and also copied her response to Logan Mayor Randy Watts and Police Chief Roper.

Jim

I saw your letter in the paper and appreciate this email. My personal position is one of support for Chief Roper and the direction he is taking on this issue. The time and manpower needed to transform our local law enforcement  officers into INS agents carries a financial cost that our budget is simply unable to support – it’s like so many of those “unfunded mandates” that get passed on us. (How many new police officers would we have to hire? And how many new vehicles do we purchase for these new officers? etc. I believe you’d find the cost staggering, and it would unquestionably require a tax increase for Logan citizens.) I also believe that a move in this direction would carry a social cost that you and others may actually find unacceptable… it all sounds good in theory, but when put into practice there are unintended consequences.

I believe that the immigration system is broken – the laws are complicated and ineffective, and serious reform is needed. But I also believe that the federal government is passing the buck down to the state, who is passing it on to municipalities – the entities in the weakest position to fix the real problem.

I have appreciated your attendance at city council meetings and interest in being involved in issues that affect our community. We have agreed on a lot of things, but this is not going to be one of them.

Tami

Now that you’ve read all that and are caught up, let’s have a discussion about this.

I am on record as completely disagreeing with SB 81, but I do agree with Jim in that police should enforce the law. HOWEVER, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff has gone on record as saying the enforcement component of SB 81 (cross deputizing law enforcement officers) is OPTIONAL. Police are exercising their option to not do this. They are not blatantly disregarding the law. It’s as simple as that.

UPDATE:

Here is the audio of the interview with Roper.

I’m no fan of Sarah Palin. However, Maureen Dowd’s recent column, in which she claims that Palin is literally mentally ill, is ridiculous.

From Dowd’s column:

And so it was, Todd Purdum learned, as he traveled Alaska reporting on Palin for Vanity Fair, that the governor’s erratic and egoistic behavior has been a source of concern for people there.

“Several told me, independently of one another,” Purdum writes, “that they had consulted the definition of ‘narcissistic personality disorder’ in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — ‘a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy’ — and thought it fit her perfectly.”

Accusing a public official of literally suffering from mental illness is very serious. And yet Dowd has no problem making the accusation even though her source is anonymous, second hand and totally unqualified to make a mental health diagnosis.

About a month ago we had a group of concerned firearms owners in studio to talk about Logan’s firearms possession laws conflicting with state law.

Here is a followup e-mail I received from Jared Smith, one of our guests.

Tyler-

I just wanted to follow up on this story. I filed a formal complaint
with the State Attorney General’s Office regarding Logan City’s
blatant disregard of Utah’s Uniform Firearm Laws. Shurtleff’s office
responded to Logan’s Attorney, Kymber Housley by confirming the city’s
conflict with state laws, requiring that local law enforcement be
“required to not to enforce, charge, or otherwise impede citizens” and
urging the city to bring its laws into compliance “as quickly as
practicable”. Despite this strong response, Mr. Housley continues to
indicate that he has no pressing interest in making this right. He has
now said that it is not a priority because only a few citizens have
indicated their concern over the matter and that there is not timeline
or plan to fix these laws in the near future.

As such, we are in the process of doing a few things:
- We’re contact other press in the valley, particularly the HJ.
- We’re going to make a (hopefully) strong showing at the city council
meeting next Tuesday and make a statement to the council.
- We’re in the process of contacting a lawyer that may be interested
in pursuing this matter legally.

At this point, it seems that the utter disregard by the city for state
laws and for the constitutional rights of it’s citizens can only be
remedied through a big public stink or through legal action. And we’re
obliged to bring forth both to get this issue resolved.

Of interest, in the last few months, several other cities have been
contacted about this and many have resolved the issue very quickly.
Layton City, for example, fixed their laws through city council within
2 weeks of being notified.

Anyway, we appreciate your hosting us on your program before and would
appreciate any further press you can give this matter.

Here are some videos to get everyone in a patriotic spirit.  Happy Independence Day! -Tom

Ronald Reagan’s farewell address

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIouq2u9kUo[/youtube]

Barack Obama Iowa Speech

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNZaq-YKCnE[/youtube]

Battle Hymn of the Republic – Mormon Tabernacle Choir

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmTWVJ_pXBk&feature=related[/youtube]

God Bless America – Mormon Tabernacle Choir

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQMRHa_cn8s&feature=related[/youtube]

NEWS ADVISORY

Contact:                 Fair Boundaries Coalition
Nikki Norton
774 South 1650 East #C
Clearfield, UT
435-513-2606
www.fairboundaries.org

Lisa Watts Baskin, LLC
Attorney at Law
819 East Springwood Drive
North Salt Lake, UT 84054
801-296-1676

For Immediate Release

Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Public Hearings On Redistricting Standards

(Salt Lake City, Utah) – July 1, 2009 – Fair Boundaries coalition will host public hearings to
present their initiative, “Utah Redistricting Standards Commission,” and receive input from
citizens. Fair Boundaries believes that elected officials should not draw their own election
districts and effectively choose their own voters. An independent commission, without these
obvious conflicts of interest, should draw the maps to present to the legislature with guidelines that keep more of Utah’s local communities intact. Voters deserve accountability from leaders who represent their common interests.

The public hearings will take place at the following locations and times:

July 1, 2009
Bear River Region – Box Elder, Cache and Rich Counties
County Administration Building
Cache County Multipurpose Room
179 N Main Street
Logan, UT
6:30 to 8:00 pm

July 6, 2009
Central Region – Juab, Millard, Piute, Sanpete, Sevier and Wayne Counties
Snow College
Room 114 – Humanities Building
150 E College Avenue
Ephraim, UT 84627
5:30 to 7:00 pm

Mountain Region – Summit, Utah and Wasatch Counties
Sheldon Richins Building
6505 Landmark Drive
Park City, UT 84098
6:00 to 7:30 pm

July 7, 2009
Southeast Region – Carbon, Emery, Grand and San Juan Counties
Carbon County School District Office
251 W 400 N, Price, UT
6:00 to 7:30 pm

Uintah Basin Region – Daggett, Duchesne and Uintah Counties
Uintah Community Center
Classroom 3
610 South Vernal Avenue
Vernal, UT
5:30 to 7:00 pm

July 8, 2009
Southwest Region – Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane and Washington Counties
Kanab City Library
374 N. Main Street
Kanab, UT 84741
7:00 to 9:00 pm

Mountain Region – Summit, Utah and Wasatch Counties
Provo Library
550 North University Avenue
Provo, UT 84601
7:00 to 8:30 pm
July 9, 2009

Wasatch Front Region – Davis, Morgan, Salt Lake, Tooele and Weber Counties
Salt Lake County Complex
Council Chambers
2001 S State Street, North Building
Salt Lake City, UT
7:00 to 9:00 pm

###

James Williams is one of the many candidates running for U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett’s seat in 2010. I had a chance to speak with him today for an interview that will air on KVNU’s For the People Thursday night. For those of you busy with July 4 type stuff, however, the interview is posted here for your listening pleasure.

I thought he had a lot of good ideas and he’s aligned himself with the Jason Chaffetz-type candidacy, which has appealed to a lot of Utahns, including many of you up here in Cache Valley.

Rep. Carl Wimmer’s BFF Rick Koerber responds to Tom’s recent post on the Wimmer/Shurtleff/Koerber follies.

Read carefully, and see if you can spot his mention of ties to an elected official, or how that elected official might have abused his position to “make heads roll” for a friend. (Hint: He doesn’t mention it at all)

Marking the first day of “the law [that] seeks to correct problems that don’t exist.” From the editorial.

The law places extra burdens on business owners, requiring them to use an E-verify system for which many of them lack training. Elsewhere, this system has been shown to reject legal residents by mistake. The result will be yet another drag on a struggling economy.

It will make Utah less safe. Illegal immigrants will be afraid to report crimes because doing so might mean they will be deported.

Most importantly, the law seeks to correct problems that don’t exist. A recent Sutherland Institute study found that only 3.9 percent of inmates in county jails in Utah are undocumented, as are less than 5 percent of inmates in state prisons. Illegal immigrants do not commit crimes to a larger degree than others. Most are as law abiding as other Utahns. Crossing the border illegally is a minor offense, on the order of a speeding ticket.

A much better approach would have been to set up some sort of system by which these workers could enter and leave the state legally. That is the approach the federal government needs to take. We are astounded that all sides in this debate cannot see the wisdom of a system that would control and monitor the influx of workers across the border, eliminating the crimes committed by immigration traffickers and making it easier to spot and punish the genuine criminals.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals may soon strike down part of an Oklahoma law that mirrors Utah’s new law. Other lawsuits are in the planning stages. Utah could end up paying a heavy toll economically, and in other ways, for passing this law. The best idea would be for lawmakers to begin laying plans to repeal it as soon as possible.