Trump’s Decision on National Monuments The controversy surrounding Donald Trump and his opinion of what to do with national monuments is created from those that love nature and national monuments, Native Americans who find such national monuments as apart of their culture, and politicians that believe that Trump does not have the power to alter these monuments against those who seek lower taxes, cheaper resources that can support America, and those that believe former presidents were unjust in creating these national monuments. National monuments were created to protect Native American ruins and artifacts, historic landmarks, and places of scientific interest. The National Parks Service looks over all parks and monuments, however, the difference …show more content…
Two articles that speak on the environmental problems to follow shortly after Trump’s decision are “Archaeologists uneasy as Trump shrinks Bears Ears monument land” by Carswell and “National Monuments, Marine National Monuments, and Marine Sanctuaries” released by the Harvard Environmental Law Program. In the article released by Carswell the author explains how Bears Ears national monument protects several artifacts from native American tribes but also how much of it is unexplored and is precious land that should not be allowed to be open for destruction for anyone that comes across the unprotected land. Carswell states “Earlier this year, for instance, a genetic study of 1,900-year-old maize cobs provided important insights into how tropical maize adapted to temperate growing conditions” (Carswell par 9) explaining how corn that is not native to the land of the national monument has adapted and continued to survive in the monument grounds. Carswell also explains how Trump will have the national monument split into two parts which could disturb the migration and grazing patterns of the animals that occupy the land. In the article released by Harvard, it is explained how all the 27 national monuments and 6 marine sanctuaries that Trump are looking into reducing are important and what they contain that makes it so they should not be …show more content…
Sources that address this topic are “The President Has No Power Unilaterally to Abolish a National Monument Under the Antiquities Act of 1906” by Robert Rosenbaum, “Antiquities Act: Scope of Authority for Modification of National Monuments” by Alexandra M. Wyatt, and “Presidential Authority to Revoke or Reduce National Monument Designations” by Yoo, John and Todd Gaziano. The article by Wyatt explains why Trump does not have the authority to reduce the size of existing national monuments, While Congress has the authority to reduce the size of national monuments, the president does not clearly have the authority to do so. Wyatt states in her article “legal analyses since at least the 1930s have concluded that the Antiquities Act, by its terms, does not authorize the President to repeal proclamations, and that the President also lacks implied authority to do so” (Wyatt). One article that supports Trump is by Yoo, John and Todd Gaziano and it states that Trump does in fact have the authority to reduce the size of national monuments. One quote from the article states “The Congress that enacted the Antiquities Act did not intend monuments of [such massive] size to be established by presidential designation” (Yoo and Gaziano 5). This explains that Obama may have not had the legal right to create such national monuments and therefore Trump should be
While describing his trip to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, President Carter paints and appealing picture in the minds of Americans. He mentions a “brilliant mosaic of wildflowers, mosses and lichens that hugged the tundra” (paragraph 2). As these words roll off this tongue, a beautiful landscape rolls into the minds of Americans. Furthermore, President Carter details “As the never-setting sun circled above the horizon, we watched muskox … lumber along braided rivers that meander toward the Beaufort Sea.” (paragraph 2) After hearing this description, an elegant sunset and with innocent animals roaming about pops into mind. Picturing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in this alluring manner will greatly decrease the desire to harm it. By utilizing imagery, President Carter convinces Americans of the beauty of the reserve and therefore the need to preserve
Committee on Senate Energy and National Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. 3 June 2003: ESBCO. Mission Viejo Library., Mission Viejo, CA. 31 July 2005. http://web31.epnet.com/citation.
...c structures and other objects of historic or scientific interest in federal ownership as national monuments. National parks were established together with National Forest Service throughout U.S. for conservation and recreation purposes. These actions faced opposition from Western settlers and Congress members who had plans of using the land that was set aside but also the Indians who were forced to stop hunting and fishing. However, settlers were happy with 1902 Reclamation Act that put aside funds to irrigate unlivable chunks of land and previously dry.
...lieves that people often forget the history behind the creation. The fact that the monument was built on Mount Rushmore also illustrates the importance of these Presidents, but undermines the mountain and builds up environmental consequences. When creating a monument, agencies and groups should consider the size of the memorial.
The more than four hundred locations that are currently recognized as national parks have been set aside because they are considered special places of beauty, character, or uniqueness. Whether visitors come from the natural state or the concrete jungle, the magnificent aesthetics of these sites can cause anyone to be astonished. As they ponder on the wonderful landscapes and the closeness to the wilderness, their souls are nourished. Some people acknowledge the planet or the creator, but all appreciate the splendor of biodiversity and gain a new understanding of it. According to Frye and Nuest, “watching other species and interacting with them helps [people] better understand and appreciate [their] place among them and [their] obligations to other living creatures and the same planetary environment that sustain both [their and the lives of other species]” (54). Furthermore, since these sites have been carefully preserved, they have undergone very little physical or geological change in centuries. The NPS claimed through its website that “by preserving biodiversity, [they] also ensure that future citizens, artists, and explorers of science experience [America’s] lands as the founders of the parks did long ago.” National parks allow visitors to relive scenes from the past and appreciate the nation’s history as expressed in these iconic sites. However,
Our country faced a devastating change and the simplicity of the monument was the most ethical way to go about it. While many may disagree with me for whatever reasons my ethical perspective is situational meaning that my decisions or opinions vary given the situation. I have always made loved ones and love in general my top priority in life and I never had a word for my ethical stance until recently in the class. Johnson took into consideration what the family of the president wanted and what the citizens of the United States wanted and created a simple yet beautiful monument. I think that this is a good reflection on responsible use of persuasion because both parties; the viewers and the architect, were actively apart of the creation of the
America’s history-both good and bad-has much to teach us. Taking down, destroying these monuments is erasing, rewriting the physical symbols of the nation. This type of cultural whitewashing is inglorious. We can treat these monuments as a cautionary tool to remind ourselves what we are and what we are not. The cost forebears paid for the freedom of the nation should be remembered; therefore, people should retain these statues to remind of themselves what these monuments represent.
and the importance of their history. It is the first monument to be added to the National Park
History has a strange way of coming back around when it comes to human civilization. It has been said repeatedly that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. However, just because there is a potential for danger in the future, this does not mean that humanity must ignore what once was. History is normally remembered through what is known as a memorial. When a memorial is put into a physical representation, it is then known as a monument.The need to memorialize events or people is complex; in some cases, monuments honor moments of great achievement, while in other cases, monuments pay homage to deep sacrifice. A monument's size, location, and materials are all considerations in planning and creating a memorial to the past. Examples of such feats are the Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, and even Mount Rushmore. For the latter of the
When creating a monument, the group or agency needs to consider if the subject is compelling enough to society. The monument has to have
“… It is apparent, then, that we cannot decide the question of development versus preservation by a simple referral to holy writ or an attempt to guess the intention of the founding fathers; we must make up our own minds and decide for ourselves what the national parks should be and what purpose they should serve.”-Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire
Eye catching pieces like a giant reflective bean, or a woman holding a torch with a crown, or four men fighting to hoist our nation's flag. Each different place has it's own cultural viewpoints and personal taste. This shows the importance of history especially to Americans. We value our history and try to captivate it in a form that will be visible for ages. The different aspects going into the creation of buildings or monuments is simply put, monumental. To create a monument, the place, the theme and the response should be gauged beforehand to ensure it's building. Humans are inspired by their own doing just as much as they are by nature. Just who and why a statue is memorialized can be a very difficult topic to discuss, as will be discussed using varying sources.
Monuments are a symbol of a significant time in history. Monuments represent life, death, success, and struggle just to name a few. They have become as important to society as the events they represent. They bring history alive to new generations and memories to those who experience them firsthand. Monuments create a bridge between generations. Many parents feel a certain indescribable joyfulness when they see the look in their child’s eyes they had went they viewed the same monument.
I‘m not saying that this monument should be taken away and destroyed, I‘m saying that these people who want it on display should spend less time protesting and more time raising money to have a place built for their precious monument.
The United States passed landmark environmental protection laws in the 1970s with a goal to restore waterways and protect natural areas. To protect species from going extinct the Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973. The Act is meant to “provide for the conservation of species that are endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of their range, and the conservation of the ecosystems on which they depend” (NOAA).Since its passage, the Act has led to the resurgence of iconic species like the bald eagle and Florida manatee. Across the nation more land is being protected, with President Obama declaring three new national monuments in 2015. And it is not just the federal government that is being proactive, but also states. Located in Southern Illinois, the Cache River State Natural Area protects almost 15,000 acres of vital wetlands. There have also been clean ups of heavily polluted rivers to make them safe not just for humans but also the plants and animals that call those regions home. And down in the Amazon, multiple nations and Non-Governmental Organizations are cooperating to protect the area and combat deforestation. Peru recently declared a 3.3 million acre area as protected and countries are far away as Norway donate money to the conservation effort. With these and other efforts the hope is to slow and reverse the effects of habitat loss