Back to Home Page

Using the state to condemn Federal land

by In the news Sunday, May 9. 2010

dave oia.serendipityThumb Using the state to condemn Federal landFrom Dave Hunnicutt
Oregonians In Action

Last month, Utah Governor Gary Herbert approved House Bill 143, a bill that gives the State of Utah the authority to use eminent domain to condemn federal lands within Utah’s borders. At a ceremony for the bill signing, Governor Herbert urged the legislatures of all western states to follow Utah’s lead.

On April 15, we accepted Governor Herbert’s challenge. In the upcoming session of the Oregon legislature, Oregonians In Action will work with the Oregon legislature to pass similar legislation in Oregon. This legislation would provide the biggest economic boost for rural Oregon communities in decades. Faced with skyrocketing unemployment rates, the loss of natural resource industries, and a huge budget deficit, Utah leaders are taking every step possible to revitalize their economy and create family wage jobs for Utah residents. House Bill 143 is a prime example of Utah’s strategy.

Utah is similar to Oregon in many ways — both states have abundant natural resources and a long history of employment in natural resources industries. In Utah, mining plays an important role in the state’s economy. In Oregon, the timber industry has been a steady employer for many rural Oregon towns and counties.

But those industries, and the jobs they create, are increasingly hard to create, due to changes in federal policies on federal lands. In Oregon, for example, federal land management policies and federal regulations have changed dramatically in recent years. Lands that were once managed by the federal government to serve many purposes, including providing timber for Oregon mills, recreational opportunities for Oregon residents, and habitat for wildlife are now locked away by federal laws and regulations that have gone too far.

The results have been predictable — the failure to properly manage federal forestland has resulted in catastrophic wildfires, the loss of wildlife habitat, and the slow destruction of Oregon’s timber industry. Rural Oregon towns that once thrived with hundreds of high-paying blue-collar jobs have seen unemployment rates skyrocket, and jobs move from family-wage levels to low paying, dead-end jobs in the tourism industry.

When the federal government does make federal land available for harvest, bids are few and far between. As the owner of a small-town mill told me, “we don’t even bother bidding on federal contracts anymore — all you’re buying is a lawsuit.”

Some say that this isn’t a problem — after all, timber can be harvested on private lands. That’s true, except for one fact — in Oregon, nearly 55% of the state’s land is owned by the federal government. In Utah, that number is even higher — over 60%.

In short, the Utah legislature realized that the federal government has failed in its efforts to balance the economic needs of the state with the environmental concerns of those in Washington D.C. who don’t understand the role that the natural resource industries play in the western United States. Rather than sitting around complaining, however, Utah decided to take matters into their own hands.

Under House Bill 143, Utah state agencies are given the authority to condemn federal property. Ownership of that property would be transferred from the federal government to the state government. Once acquired, the state would manage the property for the best interests of Utah residents. That may mean that the land is retained in state ownership, or it may mean that Utah would sell the property to private citizens.

In either event, land that is currently mis-managed and neglected by the federal government would be transferred to either state government or private citizens, who would make use of the land to create jobs, revitalize rural communities, boost the economy, and balance state and local budgets. What a concept.

There is no reason why the Oregon legislature can’t follow Utah’s lead. Oregon’s unemployment rate is higher than Utah’s. Oregon needs jobs — especially jobs in industries that pay a good wage, so that working mothers and fathers can feed their families. But federal land policies make that far more difficult than it should be, and for no good reason.

That’s why it is time for the Oregon legislature to follow Utah’s lead and adopt a bill that allows the state to take control over federal government land in Oregon. Oregonians In Action will lead that charge.

As you can expect, although House Bill 143 was approved by the Utah legislature by a significant margin, the bill is controversial. Lawsuits challenging Utah’s authority to condemn federal land are expected at any time, and a challenge will likely reach the United States Supreme Court. That is no reason to stop the Oregon legislature from proceeding, however. Utah has stepped up to take the lead — it’s time that all western states with significant natural resource industries join Utah in defending their economies and rural citizens.

If you agree that Utah’s efforts are important, please contact your state senator and state representative and let them know that you want the Oregon legislature to follow Utah’s lead and adopt similar legislation. With your help, we can make this important legislation a reality!

In the meantime, please contact us if you have any questions.

Dave Hunnicutt
President, Oregonians In Action

tt twitter big4 Using the state to condemn Federal land tt digg big4 Using the state to condemn Federal land tt facebook big4 Using the state to condemn Federal land tt reddit big4 Using the state to condemn Federal land

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 23 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
Back to Home Page
  • a retired professor

    This is the dumbest, most idiotic, most absurd idea ever presented here, maybe ever presented anywhere! Let’s see:

    “Under House Bill 143, Utah state agencies are given the authority to condemn federal property. Ownership of that property would be transferred from the federal government to the state government.”

    So the state is going to “condemn” federal land, then ownership will be “transferred”. I suppose they’ll get around to provisions for valuing and paying for the land?

    But of course, the whole idea of states grabbing federal land is completely absurd.

    If this is where the “tea party” movement, the conservatives, Republicans are headed, they’re going to turn themselves into buffoons, which is too bad, because they have a great opportunity now, and we need at least a counterbalance to the leftist Obama rampage — even if the Republicans are not capable of governing, at least they can provide balance and gridlock.

    But not with loopy stuff like this.

    • Steve Plunk

      Professor, You did not supply any argument against this except calling it the”dumbest” idea. State’s still retain some powers under the constitution so it does make some sense. The courts will now be the place for Utah’s law to be tested.

      This is a very popular idea to many on the West so I doubt “buffoon” will be the operable word. As for Republicans not being able to govern one only needs to look at what the Dems have accomplished as well. Both have bankrupted us all.

      • Anonymous

        Uh, see 6.1 If you want to go off into cuckoo-land about the states grabbing federal land, be my guest. I’m not going to try to stop you. Some people still argue about whether secession is legal. Let them.

        The land-taking idea is dumb because it will make tea-party types sound like complete wack-jobs, at least to normal people.

        • Steve Plunk

          Cuckoo-land? Wack-jobs? Nice to see the Left acting civil as usual. Testing the constitutional limits is what’s being played out here. There are surprise rulings on a regular basis. So really, no, I’m not going to cuckoo-land by saying wait for the courts and pointing out the professor failed to give evidence in his rant against Tea Partiers and conservatives.

          BTW, nobody mentioned secession or segregation or any of the other things long settled but still being tied to Tea Party members by the Left.

          The idea that federal ownership beats private ownership because of the preservation aspect just means a one constituency gets what it wants over another. Except those who love expansive preservation don’t have to pay for it.

          • a retired professor

            Cuckoo!

          • a retired professor

            Re secession — after you’re done reforming Medford politics, cutting the unions down to size, etc etc — here’s a start (below).

            http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0409/Ron_Paul_Secession_is_very_American.html

            Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) is standing behind his governor, Rick Perry, saying Perry was on firm constitutional ground when he suggested the Lone Star State might secede to protest Democratic spending and tax policy. (h/t HuffPo’s Sam Stein)

            Paul, in a video post on his Campaign for Liberty PAC, says the secession debate “is worth a discussion:”

            “[Perry] really stirred some of the liberal media, where they started screaming about: ‘what is going on here, this is un-American.’ I heard one individual say ‘this is treasonous to even talk about it.’ Well, they don’t know their history very well, because when you think about it … it is very American to talk about secession. That’s how we came in being. Thirteen colonies seceded from the British and established a new country. So secession is a very much American principle. What about all the strong endorsements we have give the past decade or two to all the republics that seceded from the soviet system? We were delighted about it.”

            The libertarian Republican says “right now the American people are sick and tired of it all.”

          • Steve Plunk

            Making it personal again Professor? I’m not reforming politics in Medford or union busting. You and Eagle like to make that up. As for secession I think you should remember Ron Paul is a fringe element of our political system. Linking him to any reasonable attempt to secede is ridiculous. But if that’s all you got it’s all you got. Try again.

          • a retired professor

            Oh come off it. My recollection is you’ve posted here about your failures to influence local government — if not Medford, where? — how you’re going to be an enemy of government, about breaking the unions, certainly you hate the unions, you certainly don’t much like professors — am I wrong on any of that?

            OK, OK, Ron Paul is part of the lunatic fringe, so is Texas Gov. Rick Perry, I guess. That’s the whole point — don’t you get it??!! — talk of expropriating federal property is lunatic fringe talk.

            Oh, I like what you said about “any reasonable attempt to secede”. Huhh??? I guess maybe when Rick Perry talks about it, it’s reasonable????

            That’s why you guys are setting yourselves up for another big loss in Oregon — you have an opportunity and then you blow it with candidates like Art Robinson, and nutty ideas like the one here.

            With Dudley you might have a chance, though. He even supports more funding for higher education — like many of the Republicans, I have to say — that might help me decide to give him my vote!

          • Steve Plunk

            Easy there. When I say making personal I’m pointing out how you would rather talk about me than the issue. You’re right though, I don’t like arrogant professors who get angry when questioned or stood up to.

            I said it from the start, let’s see what the courts say. Until then perhaps you would like to add some substance to your argument instead of concentrating on the Tea Party and Ron Paul. How did this veer off to Oregon Politics and Dudley?

          • retired professor

            OK, you’re right. If you want to be a perfect wack-job, put this on an Oregon initiative. Bill Sizemore sounds like he’s ready. Maybe he can work on it when he’s Governor! If it passes, take it to the courts. I’m sure they’ll find the authority to seize federal land. It’s right in the Constitution! Publicize your cause far and wide! Along with the part about “reasonable attempt[s] to secede”. I can’t imagine what Ron Paul has to do with this!

            Fortunately, Oregon Republicans still seem to have a few sane people, like Dudley and Alley. I give Dudley a chance. But with all the baggage from the right-wing fringe, I don’t know.

          • Steve Plunk

            Can’t tell if your ranting or genuinely confused. Utah will be the test case so Oregon has no need to put this on the ballot Sizemore will not get the nomination (even though I respect him and like him). And finally, nobody is trying to secede. Either you’re building straw men or you’re paranoid about conservatives.

          • a retired professor

            Am I ranting or confused? No need to put this on the ballot? I am paranoid?

            Well, at least I did the assigned reading. Here is the call for action:

            “it is time for the Oregon legislature to follow Utah’s lead and adopt a bill that allows the state to take control over federal government land in Oregon. Oregonians In Action will lead that charge.”

  • Pingback: www.rental-car-hire.info

  • Bill Sizemore

    The question is simply a legal one. If a state can exercise eminent domain over federal land located within its borders, then of course it should. Unless the land is actually being utilized for legitimate fdral purposes, such as military bases and parks, the federal government has no business owning huge chunks of land within so many western states.

    Some of us have been talking about this for decades and apparently that is true in Utah, as well, only there they have stopped just talking about the idea. Utah’s actions raises a legitimate legal question, one that should have been addressed long ago.

    Granted, as heavily influenced as Oregon’s state government is by environmental extremists, we might not handle such newly acquired lands any better than the feds have, but it is hard to imagine us doing a worse job. And who knows, with a good Republican governor and legislature, these lands could become productive and produce serious revenue for schools and public safety.

    I would not get too excited about this until the SCOTUS says states’ have a legitimate legal right to proceed, but it is worth finding out.

    One aspect of this idea that is especially appealing is the effect success would have on state’s rights and long term efforts to rein in the runaway power of the federal government.

    As for the retired professor’s opinion that this idea is “loopy,” well until the courts say the idea is loopy it’s worth pursuing. Besides, the just compensation requirement of the federal constitution appears to limit the exercise of government’s right to take private property without compensation, not government to government transfers.

    One serious legal concern might be the possibility that a Democrat controlled Congress might lock these lands up and tell the courts that they do not have jurisdiction to hear cases like the one Utah is bringing. There might be enough votes in Eastern states that don’t have a lot of federal land to pass such a bill. For now, what do we have to lose?

  • Bronch O’Humphrey

    Unfortunately, arp, that’s all they have and all they seem to want.

    I agree that this is an enormous time of opportunity for a populist movement, but one run by PR firms and consultancies is not that movement. Instead, you’re going to have corporate welfare plans like this and more bank bailouts, although Tea Partiers will continue to insist that it’s “free market” or some other empty buzzword.

    Alas, I believe this movement will end with a horribly failed presidential campaign in 2012 by someone like Sarah Palin or Tim Pawlenty.

  • Bob Clark

    It might take several years before the federal government realizes its land has been condemned. Business and many individuals use a two week standard to respond to issues between parties, but with the federal government the norm is more like a year, and that’s if personnel haven’t changed in the related department. So, I am not sure you’ll ever know if this approach yields a permanent result. Then, too, the federal government once calvanized by environmental activists, after a period of years, could come back and condemn the land right back into their hands.

    Also, I wouldn’t want to give Oregon state government anymore powers than it already has because they are in more evil hands than even the U.S federal government.

    Happy Morther’s day, otherwise.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Actually condemning land for blight, usually urban blight, has long been upheld as a valid reason for taking by eminent domain. Blight is tied to non use of the land, which is clearly the accusation of Federal ownership here.

    Its generally used in urban situations – a landlord abandons land because it is impossible to charge a rent that will cover the expenses ( see rent control ). The buildings become abandoned thus affecting other property values. The state rules the neighborhood blighted and seizes the land.

    I think this would be a real stretch for the states to condemn federal land, simply because our system of government is quite clear – the federal law is the supreme law of the land.

    However intellectually, if not practically, there is no more legal folly in states condemning federal land than there is in states legalize controlled narcotics, or legalizing assisted suicide. Both violate Federal law and neither have any more solid legal underpinning than the state condemning Federal land would.

    Frankly I think it would improve overall productivity. The greater the extent to which the federal and state governments can be occupied through suing each other, the less they can concern themselves with making life hard for the rest of us. I would approve of this legal perpetual motion machine wholeheartedly to the extent it accomplishes this end.

    • Cedarfish

      Rupert, the ORS definition of blight is very broad and does not mean property or land that is abandoned, damaged in some way or improperly used.

    • Cedarfish

      Rupert,

      I cut and pasted ORS 457.010 Definition of blight:

      As used in this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise:

      (1) “Blighted areas” means areas that, by reason of deterioration, faulty planning, inadequate or improper facilities, deleterious land use or the existence of unsafe structures, or any combination of these factors, are detrimental to the safety, health or welfare of the community. A blighted area is characterized by the existence of one or more of the following conditions:

      (a) The existence of buildings and structures, used or intended to be used for living, commercial, industrial or other purposes, or any combination of those uses, that are unfit or unsafe to occupy for those purposes because of any one or a combination of the following conditions:

      (A) Defective design and quality of physical construction;

      (B) Faulty interior arrangement and exterior spacing;

      (C) Overcrowding and a high density of population;

      (D) Inadequate provision for ventilation, light, sanitation, open spaces and recreation facilities; or

      (E) Obsolescence, deterioration, dilapidation, mixed character or shifting of uses;

      (b) An economic dislocation, deterioration or disuse of property resulting from faulty planning;

      (c) The division or subdivision and sale of property or lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size or dimensions for property usefulness and development;

      (d) The laying out of property or lots in disregard of contours, drainage and other physical characteristics of the terrain and surrounding conditions;

      (e) The existence of inadequate streets and other rights of way, open spaces and utilities;

      (f) The existence of property or lots or other areas that are subject to inundation by water;

      (g) A prevalence of depreciated values, impaired investments and social and economic maladjustments to such an extent that the capacity to pay taxes is reduced and tax receipts are inadequate for the cost of public services rendered;

      (h) A growing or total lack of proper utilization of areas, resulting in a stagnant and unproductive condition of land potentially useful and valuable for contributing to the public health, safety and welfare; or

      (i) A loss of population and reduction of proper utilization of the area, resulting in its further deterioration and added costs to the taxpayer for the creation of new public facilities and services elsewhere.

      (2) “Certified statement” means the statement prepared and filed pursuant to ORS 457.430 or an amendment to the certified statement prepared and filed pursuant to ORS 457.430.

      (3) “City” means any incorporated city.

      (4) “Consolidated billing tax rate” means:

      (a) If the urban renewal plan is an existing urban renewal plan (other than an existing urban renewal plan designated as an Option Three plan under ORS 457.435 (2)(c)), an urban renewal plan that was an existing urban renewal plan on October 6, 2001, (other than an existing urban renewal plan designated as an Option Three plan under ORS 457.435 (2)(c)) and that was substantially amended as described in ORS 457.085 (2)(i)(A) or (B) on or after October 6, 2001, or an urban renewal plan adopted on or after October 6, 2001, the total of all district tax rates used to extend taxes after any adjustment to reflect tax offsets under ORS 310.105, but does not include any rate derived from:

      (A) Any urban renewal special levy under ORS 457.435.

      (B) A local option tax, as defined in ORS 280.040, that is approved by taxing district electors after October 6, 2001.

      (C) A tax pledged to repay exempt bonded indebtedness (other than exempt bonded indebtedness used to fund local government pension and disability plan obligations that, until funded by the exempt bonded indebtedness, were described in section 11 (5), Article XI of the Oregon Constitution), as defined in ORS 310.140, that is approved by taxing district electors after October 6, 2001.

      (D) The increase in the rate of ad valorem property tax allowable under section 11 (5)(d), Article XI of the Oregon Constitution, for a school district with a statutory rate limit on July 1, 2003, that is greater than $4.50 per $1,000 of assessed value, to the extent that the increase is excluded from local revenues, as that term is used in ORS chapter 327, and provided that the school district notifies the county assessor of the rate to be excluded for the current fiscal year not later than July 15.

      (b) In the case of all other urban renewal plans, the total of all district ad valorem property tax rates used to extend taxes after any adjustments to reflect tax offsets under ORS 310.105, except that “consolidated billing tax rate” does not include any urban renewal special levy rate under ORS 457.435.

      (5)(a) “Existing urban renewal plan” means an urban renewal plan that provides for a division of ad valorem property taxes as described under ORS 457.420 to 457.460 adopted by ordinance before December 6, 1996, that:

      (A) Except for an amendment made on account of ORS 457.190 (3) and subject to paragraph (b) of this subsection, is not changed by substantial amendment, as described in ORS 457.085 (2)(i)(A) or (B), on or after December 6, 1996; and

      (B) For tax years beginning on or after July 1, 1998, includes the limit on indebtedness as described in ORS 457.190 (3).

      (b) If, on or after July 1, 1998, the maximum limit on indebtedness (adopted by ordinance before July 1, 1998, pursuant to ORS 457.190) of an existing urban renewal plan is changed by substantial amendment, then “indebtedness issued or incurred to carry out the existing urban renewal plan” for purposes of ORS 457.435 includes only the indebtedness within the indebtedness limit adopted by ordinance under ORS 457.190 (3)(c) before July 1, 1998.

      (6) “Fiscal year” means the fiscal year commencing on July 1 and closing on June 30.

      (7) “Governing body of a municipality” means, in the case of a city, the common council or other legislative body thereof, and, in the case of a county, the board of county commissioners or other legislative body thereof.

      (8) “Housing authority” or “authority” means any housing authority established pursuant to the Housing Authorities Law.

      (9) “Increment” means that part of the assessed value of a taxing district attributable to any increase in the assessed value of the property located in an urban renewal area, or portion thereof, over the assessed value specified in the certified statement.

      (10) “Maximum indebtedness” means the amount of the principal of indebtedness included in a plan pursuant to ORS 457.190 and does not include indebtedness incurred to refund or refinance existing indebtedness.

      (11) “Municipality” means any county or any city in this state. “The municipality” means the municipality for which a particular urban renewal agency is created.

      (12) “Taxing body” or “taxing district” means the state, city, county or any other taxing unit which has the power to levy a tax.

      (13) “Urban renewal agency” or “agency” means an urban renewal agency created under ORS 457.035 and 457.045.

      (14) “Urban renewal area” means a blighted area included in an urban renewal plan or an area included in an urban renewal plan under ORS 457.160.

      (15) “Urban renewal project” or “project” means any work or undertaking carried out under ORS 457.170 in an urban renewal area.

      (16) “Urban renewal plan” or “plan” means a plan, as it exists or is changed or modified from time to time for one or more urban renewal areas, as provided in ORS 457.085, 457.095, 457.105, 457.115, 457.120, 457.125, 457.135 and 457.220. [Amended by 1957 c.456 §1; 1969 c.225 §1; 1979 c.621 §10; 1991 c.67 §128; 1991 c.459 §330; 1997 c.541 §442; 1999 c.21 §76; 1999 c.579 §25; 2001 c.477 §1; 2003 c.621 §106; 2007 c.884 §1; 2009 c.700 §11]

      457.020 Declaration of necessity and purpose. It hereby is found and declared:

      (1) That there exist within the state blighted areas.

      (2) That such areas impair economic values and tax revenues.

      (3) That such areas cause an increase in and spread of disease and crime and constitute a menace to the health, safety, morals and welfare of the residents of the state and that these conditions necessitate excessive and disproportionate expenditures of public funds for crime prevention and punishment, public health, safety and welfare, fire and accident protection and other public services and facilities.

      (4) That certain blighted areas may require acquisition and clearance since the prevailing condition of decay may make impracticable the reclamation of the area by conservation or rehabilitation, but other areas or portions thereof may be susceptible of conservation or rehabilitation in such manner that the conditions and evils mentioned in subsections (1), (2) and (3) of this section may be eliminated, remedied or prevented and that such areas should, if possible, be conserved and rehabilitated through appropriate public action and the cooperation and voluntary action of the owners and tenants of property in such areas.

      (5) That the acquisition, conservation, rehabilitation, redevelopment, clearance, replanning and preparation for rebuilding of these areas, and the prevention or the reduction of blight and its causes, are public uses and purposes for which public money may be spent and private property acquired and are governmental functions of state concern.

      (6) That there are also certain areas where the condition of the title, the diverse ownership of the land to be assembled, the street or lot layouts or other conditions prevent a proper development of the land, and that it is in the public interest that such areas, as well as blighted areas, be acquired by eminent domain and made available for sound and wholesome development in accordance with a redevelopment or urban renewal plan, and that the exercise of the power of eminent domain and the financing of the acquisition and preparation of land by a public agency for such redevelopment or urban renewal is likewise a public use and purpose.

      (7) That redevelopment and urban renewal activities will stimulate residential construction which is closely correlated with general economic activity; that undertakings authorized by this chapter will aid the production of better housing and more desirable neighborhood and community development at lower costs and will make possible a more stable and larger volume of residential construction, which will assist materially in maintaining full employment.

      (8) That the necessity in the public interest for this chapter is a matter of legislative determination. [Amended by 1957 c.456 §2; 1979 c.621 §11]

    • Rupert in Springfield

      And where did I say Oregon could use blight to condemn Federal land?

      Nowhere.

      And where did I say Oregon law, as currently exists would cover Federal land as blighted.

      Nowhere.

      Therefore I am not really sure why citing current Oregon law has a whole lot of relevance.

      In fact the only instances where I cited Oregon law was to give examples of cases where a state had passed laws to override Federal law. Thus for a state to override Federal law is not exactly unprecedented or “cuckoo”

      To read what I wrote and think my argument was saying that Oregon law currently allows condemnation of Federal land as blighted is really a little ridiculous.

  • valley p

    Its great to be travelling abroad and be able to tune in to see Catalyst peddeling the same nonsense as awlays. Like a global village of idiots. The state condemning federal land? Sure. Why not. Even Rupert, the resident constitutional expert seems to think this is possibly legal. And with the current supreme court, heck…maybe they would ignore over 200 years of law and the constitution and decide that it is.

    But for Dave Hunnicut and others to assert that unlogged land is unused land is even more ridiculous. Especially in the wake of the oil fiasco in the gulf. A lesson conservatives can’t ever seem to get: Sometimes unexploited land is actually quite useful at preserving that which we depend on, like food sources and clean water to name just 2. If you don’t believe then you have not ordered fillet gumbo lately.

    • a retired professor

      Relax! Everyone here except possibly Bill S. sees that’s it’s a plan that is cracked on legal grounds, if not on the merits.

      Interesting, I was hiking in one of the few unlogged areas on the Coast. Federal property, of course. Looking out over the watershed, high above the ocean, I was thinking how great it was that this, at least, was not being “managed” by the timber interests.

    • Hiya Loser

      Since you’re no doubt in Europe; why don’t you stay there you asshat? That economy in Greece (and likely Spain, Portugal and Italy) is really working out well with all their giveways to non-productive public trough feeders like you isn’t it?

    • Rupert in Springfield

      You really resent that on almost any constitutional issue you come off looking like and idiot.

      Look – get over it, you are the fool that thought illegal aliens had no standing in the Supreme court. One hardly needed to be a constitutional expert to point that out. Indeed, one just needed basic education in the matter,

      You really only serve to make yourself look more like the fool with you clear envy that you simply don’t follow and aren’t aware of Supreme Court precedent to the extent even an average person does.

      This is proof

      >heck…maybe they would ignore over 200 years of law and the constitution and decide that it is.

      I sure hope you aren’t referring to the Presidents remarks in the last SOTU where he chided the Supremes over the Citizens United decision. If you are you are, prepare to do your usual floor mop impression.

  • Pingback: www.fengqingyang.org

  • Pingback: www.homerentalagency.net

  • Pingback: jumpinganaconda.com

  • Pingback: jumpinganaconda.com

  • Pingback: jumpinganaconda.com

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)