August 06, 2010
Friday

Editor- Sitnews

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 this.

"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. Click 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 voting actions.

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 career.

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 to respond.

Regards,

A.M.Johnson
Ketchikan, AK

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:

Webmail Your Opinion Letter to the Editor

SitNews ©2010
Stories In The News
Ketchikan, Alaska