Biden’s Latest Land Grab Less About Saving Native American Culture Than Seizing Control of Uranium

The White House has claimed control over more than 900,000 acres of land in Arizona. President Biden insists that the land grab was necessary to “tell a more complete story of our nation” and to “strengthen climate resilience across America’s National Parks system,” but the real reason is likely a little less noble.

As reported by Reason, the control of critical deposits of uranium might have motivated the president to “preserve” this particular swath of the Southwest:

According to a senior administration official, the area hosts 1.3 percent of the country’s known uranium reserves. But this figure doesn’t tell the whole story.

“Maybe if you’re trying to count molecules then it’s only 1.3 percent, but I’d say it’s 100 percent of America’s high-grade uranium deposits locked up in the monument,” says Curtis Moore, senior vice president of marketing and corporate development at Energy Fuels—a uranium-mining company that owns the Pinyon Plain mine in the Grand Canyon area. “And grade typically corresponds to lower-cost, more-accessible, and lower-environmental-impact mining. For every ton of ore you pull out of the ground, there is more uranium in that ton.”

What could possibly go wrong with giving the federal government complete control over such a rich resource?

Besides, who is going to oppose the policy when it’s presented in a such a way as to discourage any criticism or questioning? Here’s an excerpt from the White House’s “Fact Sheet” regarding the “protection” of the land in question:

President Biden will sign a proclamation establishing the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument in Arizona. Baaj nwaavjo (BAAHJ – NUH-WAAHV-JOH) means “where Indigenous peoples roam” in the Havasupai language, and i’tah kukveni (EE-TAH – KOOK-VENNY) means “our ancestral footprints” in the Hopi language. The name reflects the significance of the Grand Canyon area, not just to one, but to many Tribal Nations.

This designation, which marks the fifth new national monument established by President Biden, honors Tribal Nations and Indigenous peoples by protecting sacred ancestral places and their historically and scientifically important features, while conserving our public lands, protecting wildlife habitat and clean water, and supporting local economies.

Who has the political capital required to tell the truth about an act wrapped in such politically correct packaging?

Furthermore, who has the knowledge to explain that, although this theatrical pandering may be popular, it is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution’s limits on the federal government’s authority to possess land within the territories of sovereign states?

Let’s look at the exact wording of the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 states that Congress shall have power:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”

From this passage, we can derive the constitutional prerequisites for the federal government to gain control of land within the United States.

Firstly, the land must be acquired through purchase.

Secondly, the acquisition of the desired land by the federal government necessitates permission from the state government in which the land is situated.

Thirdly, the land’s usage is limited to forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, or “other needful buildings” of a military nature.

How did the Founding Fathers come to adopt the notion that the central government could only assert dominion over land when it served military purposes? This concept traces back to Anglo-Saxon law known as the Trimoda Necessitas. This law, first documented in English legal writings in A.D. 680, restrained the monarch from asserting exclusive control over land within the realm unless it was intended for military purposes such as arsenals, facilities for crafting military armaments, or fortifications.

That’s pretty clear — and pretty clearly ignored.

Read the Whole Article