New Mexico, latest rebel state? (Ha, we wish)

Readers know that TPOL has a rather low opinion of Her Imperial Highness, Michelle Lujan Grisham, overlord (governor) of New Mexico. Her reign has done possibly irreparable damage to the people, land, economy, and environment of the State of New Mexico. And certainly more than any previous governor or government of New Mexico. (New Mexico, unlike the other American States, is more than 400 years old, having been established in 1598.)

But today, we might give – might! – at least a qualified thumbs-up to the Empress of New Mexico. As reported several places including KOB of Albuqueque, she is trying to get the legislature to kick ICE out of the State of New Mexico.

Wow. Imagine the guts it takes for a pitiful little State like New Mexico to tell big bad Uncle Sam “go away,” we don’t want you here.

But in our own opinion, New Mexico (and the other Forty-Nine) DO have the power to so. And we wish a few of them would. It is right here in the US Constitution.

Article 1, Section 8, states that Congress has the power to: “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;”

Now, as engineers, management analysts, and financial affairs type folks, we here at TPO take the tack that if the State Legislature has to give consent to purchase these places, the State Legislature has the powe to revoke that consent. Even though we do accept that the “other needful Buildings” might include things like runways, radar arrays, communications towers, missile silos, and even gyms and running tracks and sports fields (to keep in shape). We do question about “needful” including such things as museums, go-cart tracks, skateboard parks, and VIP lounges. And perhaps we might consider going back to the old days when soldiers (and presumably sailors on land and airmen) were expected to spend some of their off-duty time growing their own food.

But to the main point, States should have the power to consent and not consent to military installations on their own territory. Even if the land is already “federal” (though that is a different can of worms). There are several reasons. First, especially in today’s world, having a big military base in your State makes you a higher priority target for the many enemies we have made. Wyoming and Montana, for example, are far bigger (juicier) targets for Chinese or Russian (or Pakistani, Indian, North Korean, French, and British) warheads than, say, Minnesota or Idaho, with few military installations and no missile silos or nuclear warhead storage facilities. Second, military bases attract growth to a community, and a State or a community might not want that kind of growth in population and business that impacts on local culture and economy. (Especially today, with the environmental issues.) Third, if the feds are buying more land (and even if the base starts on federal land it almost always has to buy private land – and take land for access roads and all the rest, the State and local governments lose potential revenue that land generates. Fourth, military bases attract what many would consider “unhealthy” or “undesirable” purveyors of goods and services. Drug dealers, prostitutes, used-car salesmen, and payday lenders, to name a few. Increasing law enforcement problems, risks to citizens, and encouraging poor career choices.

Admittedly, people will disagree that these things are necessarily so bad that a State would not want to host a federal military installation.

We were unable to locate many examples of a State rejecting a Federal military installation but found a few: back in the 1950s, when the USAF was still young and Congress decided they could have an Academy just like the Army (West Point), Navy (Annapolis), and Coast Guard (New London), it seems that the first choice was a location in Oregon. However, apparently Oregon’s congressional delegation and State government told DC and the Pentagon, “no thanks.” So it ended up in Colorado Springs. The other example is only indirectly “military” – and that is where to put the repository (waste disposal site) for wastes generated by the nuclear weapons program (and then power reactors). We understand that a lot of States have told the Feds no way. So the stuff just sits around.

And certainly this was pretty much ignored back in the 1940s. Notice it is not the governor of the State that has to consent, it is the Legislature. Nobody asked the esteemed Senators and Representatives there in Santa Fe if the Manhattan Project could have its labs and manufacturing of nuclear bombs at Los Alamos, just a few dozen miles away. Much less that the first atomic bomb could be detonated on White Sands in New Mexico. They found out after the fact like everyone else. Admittedly, given that it was WW2 and that it was New Mexico National Guard troops that endured (and died) in the Bataan Death March, the legislature would have almost certainly approved all of the above.

But during the Cold War, I find no evidence that the Nevada Legislature in Carson City was ever asked to consent to decades of nuclear bomb testing in the State, much less Area 51.

Yes, as someone pointed out, setting off an explosion, even a nuclear one, is not “erecting a building.” But if we stretch the constitution to including runways, taxiways, and golf courses, would it be that big a stretch to include nuclear bomb test locations?

All of course, is a forlorn hope: in 2025, Congress asks permission of State legislators for absolutely nothing. Except for individual members getting campaign contributions. After all, what is most important?

READ MORE