Lawless Government

Rep. Jason Chaffetz Introduces Bill To Disband Two Federal Law Enforcement Agencies

U.S. Forest Service And Bureau Of Land Management Law Enforcement Under Fire By Rep. Jason Chaffetz

Washington, DC – Utah Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz has introduced two bills to remove police powers from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S Forest Service. The law enforcement responsibilities would then be transferred on to local sheriffs.

According to Free Range Report, Congressman Chaffetz issued a press release on January 24, 2017.  In that release, he said “It’s time to get rid of the BLM and US Forest Service police. If there is a problem your local sheriff is the first and best line of defense. By restoring local control in law enforcement, we enable federal agencies and county sheriffs to each focus on their respective core missions.”

His goal is to reduce and/or eliminate as much federal control as possible and give it back to local law enforcement. This comes after the highly publicized incident involving Cliven Bundy, who had a longstanding feud with the BLM.  It is ironic that both Bundy and the BLM were born in 1946.  But that is the only thing they have in common.  The feud involved Bundy paying fees to graze his cattle on BLM land, which began in 1973, according to The Las Vegas Journal.  Bundy believes that the right to graze his cattle on what he perceived to be his land goes back to the 1800’s when the area was first settled.

For 20 years, all was well.  Then, in 1993, without any notice, the BLM reduces Bundy’s herd size on the leased land, and also restricts where his cattle can graze.  Bundy refused the conditions and the BLM cancelled his permit.  In 1994, the BLM ordered Bundy to remove his cattle from the leased land.  And the ongoing dispute with the BLM continued until it led to an armed militia pointing guns at federal law enforcement officers. BLM backed down which emboldened the Bundys.

Bundy and sons then led an armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge office in 2016.  Militia group members from across the nation joined together with the Bundys to stop what was perceived by them as unwanted and unwarranted federal intrusion.

The core of the issue is the idea that the Federal Government owns far too much land in the west; land, they say, which should belong to the States.

In the Congressman’s statement, he said that the bill would free up resources for the federal government by removing the law enforcement function from the BLM and giving it back to the local Sheriff’s Office.  Two other Utah Congressmen, Rep. Mia Love and Rep. Chris Stewart, jointly co-sponsored the bill, it also establishes funding for the extra resources that the local Sheriff’s Office would need, based on the amount of public land in each state.

According to the proposed bill, the BLM would save five percent in its annual budget and the Forest Service seven percent.  One of President Trump’s first acts was a federal hiring freeze, but that has been a first action by many previous Presidents.

Rep. Chaffetz acknowledged the long-standing tension between Utah ranchers and the BLM.  He said “Let’s not kid ourselves. The blood pressure is running high, especially in southern Utah, and I don’t want anyone to get killed,”  He also said that he wanted subpoenas issued to what he called “out of control” federal agencies to justify their need for submachine guns.

Setting aside the issues for how much land the U.S. owns and how they manage it, law enforcement officers appears to be taking the blame for federal policy. It’s like disbanding your local police force because you don’t like a law passed by the State legislature.

It’s important to remember that agencies like the U.S. Forest Service exist for a reason. If Forest Service Officers did not exist, no law enforcement officer would patrol the millions of square miles of National Forests. Providing more funding to the Sheriff’s departments to handle these areas would result in them handling calls in the area, but Sheriffs are unlikely to send their deputies out in the middle of nowhere where they would be unavailable to respond to calls in a timely manner.

The laws in the Forest Service and BLM areas of jurisdiction would be unlikely to be enforced with this plan, and maybe that’s the point. It leaves ones to wonder why they are only cutting enforcement.

Comments

mkphillips's picture

I just Give Up!
 

Jan@NLA's picture

Sorry, call was posted late. Email mailed as usual. Only one person had trouble getting on the Monday night call. Jan

mkphillips's picture

Mon nite 2/27/2017 not posted (again). Could someone please post it? Thank You.

Ginger's picture

Hello mkphillips Same thing happened to me. Couldn't find posted. As well tried to call in on Monday night. Nobody there. As well didn't receive Jan's Newsletter. Very peculiar as emailed another member she said everything was just fine? My email is auntieging@auntieging.com just in case anything else peduliar, Please don't give up before we talk. Kindest Regards, Ginger

Fourth Branch's picture

 
 
On February 23rd Connecticut Governor Danell P. Malloy stated on Tucker Carlson's show he will not comply with the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by allowing illegal aliens to remain in Connecticut.
 
Article VI Clause II states the Constitution and all Laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the Supreme Law of the land;
 
Article VI Clause III states all Executive and Judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States , shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support the Constitution;

Article I Section VIII Clause IV states Congress shall have the Power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization;
 
Article I Section VIII Clause XVIII states Congress shall have the Power to make all Laws necessary and Proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers ,and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department of Officer thereof;
 
Congress created the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) in pursuance of Article I Section VIII Clause IV, Article I Section VIII Clause XVIII and Article VI Clause II;
 
Section 274. [8 U.S.C. 1324] of the INA BRINGING IN AND HARBORING CERTAIN ALIENS, being the Supreme Law of the Land for Immigration, requires the arrest and imprisonment of anyone who aids and abets illegal aliens;
 
Malloy knowingly and willingly violated all of the above Provisions and in doing so must be arrested. It is time for We the People to contact the Department of Justice and demand Malloy's arrest.
 
There is a link to a Petition for this purpose https://www.change.org/p/department-of-justice-demand-the-arrest-of-connecticut-governor-danell-p-malloy
 
Please make your voice be heard by signing the Petition at and spread the word by forwarding this message!

jf6363's picture

Don't forget Mr Cuomo.As he has stated the same.
 

GERARD53's picture

In our system, law enforcement is an executive power. The FBI is thus an executive branch agency. Indeed, far from independent, it is a part of the Justice Department; the FBI director is subordinate to the attorney general in the chain-of-command.

Under the Constitution, all executive power is endowed in one official, the president of the United States. Every official who wields power in the executive branch thus wields it at the pleasure of the chief executive. The president may terminate any executive officer, even those who have been confirmed by Congress, for any reason or no reason. The FBI director is no different.

It is true that Congress has given the FBI director a ten-year term, but it is best thought of as a presumptive ten-year limit. There are two explanations for it.The first is J.Edgar Hoover. After his legendary (and notorious) 43-year tenure, Congress and the Ford White House decided that such awesome power should not be in a single set of hands for so long. In 1976, a law was enacted limiting the director’s term to ten years.

Why ten years? That brings us to the second explanation: the aspiration that law-enforcement should be apolitical and non-partisan. By settling on a ten-year limit, two years longer than any president may serve, lawmakers signaled a preference for the FBI director to be retained, even when presidential administrations change, regardless of party.

Understand, though: This is a preference, it is not binding on the president. Presumptively, after being confirmed, the FBI director is retained by subsequent presidents. If the president decides to make a change, however, the president is constitutionally authorized to remove the director and does not need cause – at least not legally (political need is always a different calculation).

Since Congress imposed the ten-year limitation, one FBI director has been removed: Director William Sessions was fired by President Clinton in 1993 after he refused to resign. It turns out, moreover, that the limit is not much of a limit: In 2011, when President Obama wanted to keep Director Robert Mueller for an extra two years, Congress accommodated him by enacting legislation extending the term. It was when Mueller’s term ended that Director James Comey was appointed in 2013.

Presumptively, Director Comey would serve until September 4, 2023. But that is only if the current president and any future president between now and then chooses to retain him.

see:   https://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2016/11/03/yes-the-president-may-fire-the-fbi-director/

Flicka's picture

I would like to know as well. can't find it