Damn All of You Who Want All the Facts!

see article

SedonaEye.com financial columnist J. Rick Normand

Sedona AZ (August 25, 2015) – On October 18, 2012, Angela LeFevre, current City of Sedona Councilor and a very
vocal supporter of KSB, had released in her behalf by Steve DeVol, owner and publisher of Sedonadotbiz and a
former President of KSB, a campaign video of her failed 2012 run for Arizona Legislative District 6 House of
Representatives. (The link to this video is here.) The video was a plea for the defeat of Arizona State
Proposition 120, which this writer also opposed, but for different reasons than LeFevre. In the midst of the
current debate over the proposed Sedona-Verde Valley Red Rock National Monument designation (hereinafter
referred to as the “SVVRRNM”), Councilor LeFevre and KSB, the Sierra Club, Sedonadotbiz, Congressperson
Ann Kirkpatrick, House candidate and current KSB President Tom O’Halleran, and the advocates for the passage
of the SVVRRNM designation tend to mimic one another. Councilor LeFevre also gives the appearance of
speaking for the entirety of the SVVRRNM advocacy group. In other words, it seems they all speak with one
voice for support of the subject national monument designation proposal. So, if any of her (LeFevre) spoken
advocacy of federal land stewardship is faulty, and no other advocates disagree with her, then it has to be
assumed that the entirety of the official advocacy group agree with her statements.

During the taping of this video, however, LeFevre made two interesting comments, mimicked by KSB, that caught my
attention and should catch the attention of every citizen of Sedona and the Verde Valley. I do not recite these two statements
in the context of Prop 120, or its fortunate demise, but rather in the context of the related belief-system(s) of the majority of
supporters of the Sedona-Verde Valley Red Rock National Monument designation, for whom she unofficially speaks and
whom they parrot, including Keep Sedona Beautiful, the Sierra Club, Rob Adams, Tom O’Halleran and Ann Kirkpatrick. The
two videotaped public statements I refer to occur at the 4:42 mark and again at the 5:05 mark. Beginning at the 4:42 mark,
candidate LeFevre remarks “…our federal government does an awful lot of work to keep this place the way it is. They are
stewards. There are hundreds and hundreds of instances where our federal government does an amazing job of protecting
our lands…” and at the 5:05 mark she launches into this “…Sovereignty [of states] is a misnomer when it comes to one state
which is a part of the United States of America and I don’t think that trying to create a sovereign state of Arizona does us any
good whatsoever.”

These statements evidence a complete and utter ignorance of the Constitution of the United States, its Amendments
(especially the Tenth), the interpretive rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States relative to state’s rights and
sovereignty, the interpretive rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States and U.S. federal Appellate Court’s rulings
concerning the Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. CONST., Art. IV, § 3, d. 2., and the National Park Service
Organic Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1 (1994), and of our Founding Father’s Federalist Papers, not to mention the repeatedly and
overwhelmingly demonstrated incompetence of the various federal bureaucratic agencies charged with the duty of federal
land, resources, and antiquities management that I have pointed out in my two articles here at the SedonaEye.com entitled
“Is there a National Monument designation downside? Parts I & II.“

The latest example of incompetent and dangerous federal stewardship subject to the Antiquities Act of 1906 is the
environmental catastrophe that has devastated gorgeous Durango, Colorado and Monument Valley, Arizona which is
immediately downstream from Durango’s Animas River. Or, as Arizonans, you might want to think back to the June 2002
Rodeo-Chediski Fire which began near Cibique, Arizona—that fire burned over 462,000 acres, caused evacuation of over
8,000 people, destroyed 426 residences and cost approximately $153 million taxpayer dollars to fight. Four Type I Incident
Management Teams and an Area Command Management Team were involved to fight the largest fire in Arizona history. The
Rodeo-Chediski Fire was human-caused, but its massive devastation was exacerbated by the failure, for decades, of the
USFS failure to clear underbrush from the forest floor and failure to cut-in access roads for future fire equipment to use, not
to mention federal misallocation of aerial assets in a timely manner.

And then, there is the story of one of the most beautiful of all National Monuments…the Organ Pipe National
Monument in southern Arizona, which has been almost irreparably damaged from decades of unrestricted illegal
immigrant traffic and commandeering by highly armed Mexican drug cartel operatives.
Several years ago I sent
pictorial evidence of this heart-wrenching damage on a massive scale (and that is not a grossly overstated adjective to
prejudice the readers of this article) to Marlene Rayner of the Sierra Club who chose to ignore the issue to my knowledge
and certainly won’t acknowledge this fiasco now. So much for the politically motivated support for KSB and the Sierra Club
whose belief systems, relative to the proposed SVVRRNM designation, are borne of a Marxist utopian concept of federal
land, resources, and antiquities stewardship which hasn’t performed well in nearly 40 years. Rethink this paragraph in light of
Angela LeFevre’s aforementioned public statement “…our federal government does an awful lot of work to keep this place
the way it is. They are stewards.”
If this statement is true, then why do we need a new and different Red Rock
Country federal stewardship designation and why does it need to be fast-tracked to yet another egregious
Presidential Executive Order without any public input from you?

So, why did I choose to entitle this article “Damn All of You Who Want All the Facts!” anyway? Well, it’s obvious! How dare
any of you question the authority-status of KSB, the Sierra Club and our would-be “always truthful” politicians who are
running for office or in the midst of creation of their own legacies (at least in their own minds!) as to their self-anointed status
as our only credible spokespersons concerning federal stewardship? And, this presumed fact, of course, justifies their tactical
method of circumventing the 109 year old “tried and true” practice of Congressional debate over the designation of National
Parks and National Monuments, subject to the 1906 Antiquities Act, promulgated by fast-tracking the use of the vaunted
Presidential Executive Order, so often used by President Obama in order to prevent public discourse vetted through
Congress. Right?

OK, I’ve written this last paragraph tongue-in-cheek to underscore the absurdity of permitting the KSB and the
Sierra Club and their respective SVRRNM designation supporters to style themselves as authorities and
benevolent caretakers rather than propaganda outlets with political motives.

How can I be so audacious as to make this statement? Because, as I’ve already done in my aforementioned articles
published here at The Eye, I can easily prove the commission of the sin of omission of relative and detrimental facts left out of
the multitude of pro-SVVRRNM presentations that may cause massive loss of support for the proposed Sedona Verde Valley
Red Rock National Monument if they were known.

For instance, as I stated in a comment to one of my aforementioned articles, from a thorough reading of the Natural
Resources Journal (Vol. 39), report entitled “Not So Helpless: Application of the U.S. Constitution Property Clause to Protect
Federal Parklands from External Threats” authored by Harry R. Bader,
I feel it necessary to address the following again
as an absolutely critical matter of concern relative to the proposed Sedona Verde Valley Red Rock National
Monument designation:

[For the record, I am not a licensed attorney. Anything I’ve written in this commentary should be reviewed by legal counsel for
Keep Sedona Beautiful and our district’s Congressional delegation who intend to request of President Obama that he sign an
Executive Order creating the SVVRRNM designation.]

Many conservationists worry that National Parks and Monuments may be threatened by development activities occurring
outside established park or monument boundaries, thereby threatening preservation objectives.

Currently, the extra-territorial reach of the federal Constitution’s Property Clause enables park and monument managers to
address perceived external threats to park and monument integrity. The Property Clause is available, and has been
successfully relied upon, to control activities adjacent to, or within the perimeter area of, a federal conservation unit which
significantly interferes with the primary purposes for which the federal land is designated.

The U.S. Supreme Court and Appellate Courts have consistently ruled that under the Property Clause of the U.S.
Constitution, U.S. CONST., Art. IV, § 3, d. 2., and the the National Park Service Organic Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1 (1994),
that the power of Congress over the public lands is without limitation.

However, these cases only address threats to federal land management objectives resulting from state and private conduct
occurring upon the federal lands. The issue soon arose, however, as to whether federal agencies may use the Property
Clause, and their enabling statutes, to protect public lands from extra-territorial threats. A federal court first addressed this
issue in U.S. v. Brown, 552 F.2d 817,817 (8th Cir. 1977) just one year after Kleppe v. New Mexico ruling, 426 U.S. 529
(1976), and Kleppe, 426 U.S. at 540.

In the Brown case, the Court ruled that the Property Clause is broad enough to reach beyond territorial limits.
Applying this rule to the facts presented in the case, the court stated that Congressional power over federal
lands includes the authority to regulate activities on Non-Federal public land/waters in order to protect wildlife
and visitors on the federal park land. The Court, relied solely on the Property Clause, requiring no additional
statutory authorization from Congress to permit the Park Service to regulate conduct on non-federal property.

The next important case addressing extra-territorial application of the Property Clause was Minnesota v. Block wherein the
Court upheld the a state statute finding that “Congress’ power must extend to regulation of conduct on or off the public land
that would threaten the designated purpose of the federal lands,” 660 F.2d 1240,1249 (1981). Almost any state activity, even
the most traditional of police powers endeavors, fall before the Property Clause if the activity poses a significant impediment
to federal land management objectives.

Federal ability to reach beyond the confines of public land and regulate activity on adjacent state and private
lands has startled many states, particularly in the West, where federal lands are extensive. When deciding
whether it is appropriate for federal agencies to regulate private and state property to protect federal lands
from external threats, the federal courts have consistently ruled that several rules must be developed to
determine the availability of the Property Clause for extra-territorial application. The rules that may be gleaned
from case law can be generalized as relating to three primary subject areas: (1) the location of lands to be
regulated in proximity to federal land, (2) the purpose which the regulation is to serve, and (3) the nature of the
federal interest to be protected.

In order for the Property Clause to bestow its enormous extra-territorial power, each rule must be satisfied.

Private and state lands subject to regulations under statutes pursuant to the extra-territorial application of the Property
Clause must be within the perimeter area of a designated conservation unit or ENTIRELY SURROUNDED by federal lands

(as would be Sedona and the Village of Oak Creek)
under various management agencies. This is known as the
“inholders rule.” Under the “inholders rule” a property owner within federal unit perimeters falls subject to potential regulation
automatically. The “inholding rule” gives reasonable notice to potentially regulated parties that the application of agency rules
may be extended “extra-territorially” towards them, but it does place an absolute limit on the extra-territorial extension of the
Property Clause.

Thus, this question, from an ethical if not legal perspective, should be addressed in the Keep Sedona Beautiful,
The Sierra Club, and the pro-SVVRRNM designation websites, as follows:

Is it possible, that it could be interpreted under the above mentioned “inholding rule” that the federal
jurisdiction of the Sedona-Verde Valley Red Rock National Monument would extend into the Village of Oak Creek
and the unincorporated environs of the Verde Valley and possibly into the incorporated municipalities of
Sedona, Camp Verde, Cottonwood and Clarkdale that would be immediately adjacent to the proposed SVVRRNM
designated boundaries? If the inholding rule can be applied to the extra-territorial areas just mentioned, the
fact of local self-governance could be impaired and we could find the place we live and love under indirect
federal authority. At the minimum, if the inholding rule does apply in our case if the subject National Monument
designation is accomplished, this could give the Feds a choke-hold on our local economy.

Have the hard-charging proponents of the subject National Monument designation obtained a legal opinion
from an attorney thoroughly acquainted with the current case law regarding the inholding rule of the U.S.
Constitution’s Property Clause as it would, or would not apply, to the proposed SVVRRNM designation? I doubt
it, and this is why I question all commenters who rabidly imply or state that Keep Sedona Beautiful is an authority
rather than a purveyor of propaganda motivated by a political purpose.

The 10th Amendment Movement has spread to 32 state legislatures...

Finally, as to the sovereignty of the State of Arizona the Tenth Amendment says “The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Apart
from the Supremacy Clause, limitation of state authority is an issue that is left to the people of those respective states… and
that fact does define “sovereignty.“

The enforcement provision of the Tenth Amendment is known as the Nullification Clause which more generally
falls under the law of agency wherein the principals (the states) may revoke the agent’s (the federal
government’s) authority at will. It would be unreasonable to force the principals to honor promises of an agent
that has acted outside the limits of its authority as set out in the document that created the agency in the first
place…the U.S. Constitution. Can the National Monument proponents find a Constitutional lawyer to dispute
this? Of course, but then the issue is debatable, isn’t it?

And that’s the point…if the issue is debatable, then it should be in front of Congress, not on the President’s

So notwithstanding, subject to the intent and provisions of the Tenth Amendment which I just stated, namely, the Nullification
Clause, Arizona voters approved Prop 122, in the General election last November, a state constitutional amendment that
enshrines the anti-commandeering doctrine in the state constitution. Arizona will now have the ability to “exercise its
sovereign authority to restrict the actions of its personnel and the use of its financial resources to purposes that are [only]
consistent with the [U.S.] Constitution.”

In other words, the people of the Arizona now have the power to prohibit their state’s cooperation with the
federal government in the implementation or enforcement of federal acts or regulations they deem
unconstitutional. That includes Presidential decrees by un-legislated Executive Orders. As the Tenth
Amendment Center says, “Despite what federal supremacists tell you, there is absolutely nothing that says the
states have to help the feds with any federal program. The constitutionality issue doesn’t even come into play.”

So, if you feel that you need to expressly oppose the Sedona-Verde Valley Red Rock designation, let your Congressional
representatives know, and rest assured that if President Obama tries to create the designation as a matter of law by
Executive Order, it can and will be challenged in the next Congress in 2016-2018 or by the state’s legislatures subject to the
Tenth Amendment.

It is very EASY to send your vote against the subject “Sedona-Verde Valley Red Rock National Monument”
designation to your Congressional Representatives in Washington, D.C. Just go to the link below, open it, fill out
the requested information fields and hit the big red…VOTE NO. That’s it, and your vote and your voice will be
sent to your Arizona Congressional delegation in Washington.
Damn All of You Who Want All the Facts!