questions:
1.Nation parks are protected by the federal government. Do you believe that the supremacy clause will come into play in this situation?
2.is Trumps actions justified?
link:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42226752
Monday, December 4, 2017
Trump shrinks monuments
about 39 minutes ago, on December 4th 2017, 45th president of the united state has significantly decreased the size of two national monuments in Utah, decreasing the size of them by 85%. With his act, there are highly likely chances for lawsuit to rise from the natives and environmentalist groups.with the idea that the land should not be controlled by a small group in Washington,Trump takes action on the belief of taking action as being a historical turning point for ending the "overreach of Washington
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Trump's actions are not justified. I really hope that the supremacy clause will be used in this case because we need national parks. I read up about this a few months ago and read that Trump was going to bid the land that is not protected anymore to large companies. This is not fair because national parks/monuments are protected for a reason, to preserve history and or protect certain parts of land.
I don't think it was fair for Trump to do that. What were Trumps reasons for shrinking these monuments?
I'm not sure if the supremacy clause will stop this, but I certainly hope it does. I think this another in a series of bad decisions made by Trump. Our national parks are some of our country's greatest treasures and it would be a tragedy to see them destroyed. In my opinion, it is prevalent that we protect these lands for future generations. As lifelong environmentalist David Brower once said, "we do not inherit the earth from ancestors, we borrow it from our children." We have to set a good example for conservation and preserve these parks.
I agree with Gabby, these actions are not justified and seems like another thing Trump has done for no reason. These monuments mean something to the people in Utah, and it seems selfish to do what he wants without thinking.
In this move by Trump, he is acting in the self interest of large corporations such as those in the oil and mining industry. His move intends to benefit these industries as locations of national monuments can be valuable to them and their profit. Even though industries may not be specifically interested in Utah’s specific lands, Trump sets a precedent for what may happen with other monuments. I don’t believe Trump’s actions are justified because there is an act, the Antiquities Act, that grants presidents the ability to set land aside for conservation, and opposers may use this to fight his actions.
I personally feel that Trump made a bad decision decreasing the size of two national monuments, spanning millions of acres. His actions, like Ashley said, are purely out of self interest and based on benefiting large corporations, which I believe does not justify shrinking down the monuments. I read that Trump is also looking into other national monuments, suggesting that he may pursue similar actions in the future. During Obama's presidency he worked to preserve the Bears Ears Monument because it protected many natural resources and the Native American ceremonial sites on the land, which I feel is a justified use of the Antiquities Act. However, Trump's more narrowed interpretation of the act, which puts the land at risk for oil extraction, is not justification for shrinking national monuments enjoyed by locals and tourists.
From my personal experience visiting and camping in Utah multiple times, Utah is probably the most naturally beautiful state (other than California, maybe). They have multiple large and amazing national parks, including Zion, Bryce Canyon, and Arches, and I love visiting them. Because of this, I was very saddened by Trump's decision to reduce the size of one of Utah's prized national monuments because of the effect it will have on the region's beauty and nature. I firmly believe that the region shouldn't be used for oil drilling or any other destructive mining that would ruin its natural beauty, and I hope that environmentalists and natives and others will win this legal battle against Trump.
Recently, many outdoor retailers have been retaliating against Trump's shrinking the monuments. Patagonia's general counsel is said to be planning to file a lawsuit to challenge the shrinking and to maintain the sanctity of protected lands. Many other retailers are donating large sums of money to different organizations or programs in Utah to show their support. I'm glad that many people are showing their distaste for Trump's unlawful actions and that the public are not idly standing by.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/business/patagonia-trump-utah.html
I do not think that Trumps actions were justified and I think that it is wrong to decrease the size of national parks. These parks are part of America's natural beauty and are a part of some of the worlds natural beauties as well. Destroying them for the benefit of oil drilling and large corporations is an irreversible action and is simply wrong. I really hope that the environmentalist and natives are able to win this case in order to save national monuments and preserve history.
I don’t believe that Trump’s action is justified, and I agree with Ashley that there is a corporate motive to Trump’s shrinking of these monuments. By dramatically shrinking the sizes of these monuments, it’s probable that the land will be used for oil drilling, which is harmful to the environment. Additionally, according to the article, the land is considered sacred to Native American tribes, further demonstrating the detriments of Trump’s action. To answer the first question, I don’t believe that the supremacy clause would apply to this situation. Nevertheless, reversing the designation of national monument given by previous presidents (via the Antiquities Act) sets a bad precedent.
Post a Comment