Posted Sep 25, 2012, 1:04 pm
As every schoolchild once learned, at least before standardized testing, South Carolina precipitated the nullification crisis in 1832 by passing a law that said it could, essentially, pick and choose which federal laws would apply within the state. The immediate complaint was the tariff, but of course the deeper issues were slavery and state rights. And, as the child once learned, Old Hickory forced the South Carolina firebrands to back down, preserving the union.
What is less discussed is Andrew Jackson's situational approach to the rule of law. Indian Removal, one of the few national issues about which the Old Hero was specific and passionate, broke numerous solemn treaties and enacted theft and ethnic cleansing against the Five Civilized Tribes. When the Supreme Court finally found in favor of the Cherokee Nation, Jackson simply ignored it. Georgia and other Southern states wanted that improved and cultivated Indian land for plantations and the spread of slavery. Jackson was a slaveholder himself. He was also happy to allow South Carolina and other Southern states to ignore federal law when it furthered white supremacy. What he wouldn't countenance was secession, and hence the object lesson on nullification (and the tariff was modified anyway).
Which brings us to 21st century Arizona, the Crazy State. Prop. 120 asks voters to approve the following: "The State of Arizona declares its sovereign and exclusive authority and jurisdiction over the air, water, public lands, minerals, wildlife and other natural resources within its boundaries..." Exceptions are made for Indian reservations and federal land that had been "ceded" in a way, I suppose, Arizona decided was Constitutional. I am not making this up.
Of course, this is partly for show. Unlike South Carolina in the 1830s, Arizona is not raising troops to protect its state rights, and it lacks a John C. Calhoun. Today's conservatives love to make a show of pre-Civil War reenactment; think Gov. Rick Perry's talk about Texas secession, etc. etc. But they never seem to leave the union, too bad for us. One big reason is that most red states are net takers, getting back more in federal dollars than they send to D.C. in taxes. But talk of trampled state rights and infringed "sovereignty" helps keep the base agitated and angry.
According to Capitol Media Services, most legislative supporters realize there's little chance that Congress would give the state control of the land. "Still, they say there is a good reason for Arizona voters to declare sovereignty over all that federal land, and it could make a difference, even without congressional action, by forcing federal agencies to be more responsive to requests to make use of those public lands." The sponsor, Rep. Chester Crandell, R-Heber, trots out the forest industry as an example, how it was killed off because of environmental rulings and thus the forests weren't thinned, resulting in terrible fires that burned spotted own habitat, blah, blah, blah.
Excuse me if I question the sincerity of the distinguished gentleman, but what the hell is he doing living in Heber anyway? The only reason the Mogollon Rim has all those "cabins" (i.e. subdivisions) is because of sleazy federal land swaps that accomplished what is the real dream of Prop. 120: A real-estate hustle. Imagine how many visions of "master planned communities" — with championship golf — are dancing in their heads if the state could get control of more land.
Logging was indeed a substantial part of the northern Arizona economy at one time, but it never made money by gently "thinning" the forests. That was when the population was miniscule and the scale of the industry was small. Beyond the spotted-owl ruling, the forests of the Southwest regenerate much more slowly than those in the Northwest and Canada, and the money for decades has been in large-scale clear-cutting. If the supporters of 120 are really interested in forestry, then I am Valinda Jo Elliott, stomping off into the wilderness with my survival gear of flip-flops, cigarettes, lighter and towel.
The proportion of public lands held by the feds in Western states is a long-standing grievance. I was raised to believe that. Now, I say, "Thank God!" It has been one restraining factor (another being water) keeping the most majestic parts of the state from being one big Prescott Valley. The offense to sovereignty has been land swaps that enriched a few connected players at the expense of the forests and the public. Years ago, I predicted that if the extremist Republican tide continued, we would eventually see Arizona's public lands sold off and National Parks and Forests privatized. We're not there yet. But the larger aspiration of Prop. 120 is clear.
Thanks for reading TucsonSentinel.com. Tell your friends to follow us on Facebook and Twitter.
Saddest of all, many people actually think these lands are owned by some elitist socialist bureaucrats in D.C. The concept of public lands, of a common trust for all of us and for future generations, eludes them.
Jon Talton is a fourth-generation Arizonan who runs the blog Rogue Columnist. He is a former op-ed and business columnist of the Arizona Republic and now is economics columnist of the Seattle Times.
3 comments on this story
Here again the topic is State Sovereignty versus Federal hegemony. Who can manage State lands better - State or Federal? Who has the personal interest in State lands? Who will take care of the population in each State? Who has to obey every law written for or against every State inhabitant? Who will spend only what its taxpayers can afford without borrowing from the great grandkids? Who needs Medicare if Medicaid is sufficient? Who pays for the mistakes people make towards their retirement in New York? It should be New Yorkers, but right now, it’s everybody. Is this fair? If Arizona businesses paid for employee 401ks without adding SSI to the mix, what do you think will happen to Arizona prosperity? If Arizona could guarantee every worker a retirement income equal to what the Feds currently can’t afford, would that be a better idea? Management of the finances closest to the spender and the contributor is always more accountable - that’s accounting 101. As for the Feds keeping our land safe for everybody by being overseer to each State, the red tape mentioned before is a cost as well as a speedbump. We pay the cost whether we win or lose. I say we vote for our own property rights and inheritance, and keep the noses of the people in other states out of Arizona development or NONdevelopment. I say, WE say. If we don’t, we’ll end up like California - too many people, too little land, water, and freedom. By the way, if you sleep with dogs you wake up with fleas, right? At the Federal level, we pay for union jobs to build union-only projects in, say, Wisconsin, when there are lots of workers in Arizona willing to relocate to get that job. How is this efficient? Union members have perks and pay dues to keep their jobs, while Arizona continues to have one of the highest rates of poor people. Since when is this converstion about land when the real issue is protecting your own back yard with the power to decide things for yourself. I like Arizona and its edge-of-society freedoms. I’ve been to California and New York. Ok to visit, but never stay more than a week! And lastly, again, who do you think can patrol our Arizona border better? The US Government, or US? The Federal government controls immigration because anyone who enters the USA through New Orleans must have legal papers to allow him the same rights and freedoms allowed by the current laws of ALL States until permanent residency in one of our 50 States. Once permanent residency is established, the State regulates the voter’s participation through these legal papers, until citizenship. Federal involvement should be limited to enforcing the citizens right to vote after establishing state residency. This is supposedly what is happening, but not really. Too many illegals require SOMEONE to enforce illegal state inhabitants, not because they are necessarily unwanted, but because they cannot participate in their own future. The Feds are restricted in their hegemony in every state, as they should be, but the time is coming unless we turn this tide of Progressivism, when each state will have no other function but to collect taxes. That’s when I’ll leave for Canada or Mali.
I like the red tape. I don’t like sprawl and other short term gain, ill thought out “development” that leave future generations with fewer resources to responsibly exploit in hopefully somewhat non destructive ways. We are leaving them debt, we should leave them something as a foundation to address that debt…and perhaps something nice to look for a while.
People have is backward. The land does not belong to us. We belong to the land. Once the land no longer sustains us, we die.
Jon couldn’t have missed the point more dramatically. The idea of nullification is nowhere to be found in Prop 120. The only reason I can surmise for him to even mention the idea is to spread fear of secession among Tucsonians. Prop 120 doesn’t ‘nullify’ anything which is legally and appropriately applied to the citizens of our SOVEREIGN state. The first 13 states were sovereign in that anything not granted to the Federal Government was reserved for the States. This is the Constitutional definition of State Sovereignty. I have to ask, what is wrong with rolling back the emerging encroaching powers of the agency-infested Federal Government? And how is it a bad idea to control our own destiny when the powers of our Federal Government are abused to sell weapons to our enemies across our border, which THEY are required to control on OUR behalf? The regulation of all lands, including private lands within Arizona’s borders must be in the power of the people most affected by that regulation, not some agency wonk who may hate Arizona, or be biased towards our people for whatever reason. Just cutting the red tape of Federal regulations imposed on everybody for everybody’s own good smacks of Progressivism and eventual Federal hegemony in State affairss even more than now. The erosion of our right to Liberty has gradually surrounded our common sense to protect what we have and have a say about what we earn. We are taxed at the Federal level far above what was originally intended - I can remember my stepdad paying 2% income tax in 1954. The Johnson Presidency which was full of Democrats in Congress who wrote blank checks for Viet Nam and Johnson’s ‘new’ New Deal extended the Progressive movement beyond the wildest dreams of the politicians mentioned by Jon. What Jon has summarily left out of his ‘rogue’ column, is the wisdom of our forefathers which feared the centralization of power in order to extract concessions over security, contracts, and trade. We now have the Feds inept at securing Arizona’s border with Mexico, Federal courts and agencies telling us which laws are acceptable and which ones will be appealed and changed for us, and our Feds using laws such as Interstate Commerce Act to regulate and employ hegemony where it was never intended when enacted. If this isn’t encroaching Federal hegemony it’s time for me to leave this great State for one with more liberty. Don’t be fooled by the naturalists and ‘tree-huggers’ who say this Prop will kill off their constituents (animals) - it does just the opposite, and this Prop is just the first step. Arizona should lead the way back to a freeer society with laws enabling our citizens to act responsibly in a free land shared with others who hold the land in trust.