Frontier Freedom

Former Sen. Malcolm Wallop on Republican promises, the limits of federal authority, and the way of the West

Rick Henderson & William H. Mellor III from the November 1995 issue

(Page 3 of 6)

But the Constitution doesn't distinguish between the stature of property holders. I was in trouble over the last couple of years of my tenure in the Senate because I was against the idea that the federal government would take the water rights of the Church Universal and Triumphant in Yellowstone to satisfy the public's natural desire to protect the geothermal features of Yellowstone. I was saying that it was up to Montana to determine whether under Montana law the church had a valid existing water right. If it did, and if the government said the church couldn't use the water because we want to protect creatures, fine, it's the government's obligation to buy the water rights.

I have absolutely no doubt that if that land- owner had been named Steven Jones, the issue would have been very clear­­of course the government has an obligation. The Church Universal and Triumphant was sort of an apocalyptic outfit and therefore not popular.

The previous owner of the water rights was Malcolm Forbes. I'm not even certain he would have had a comfortable political reaction, probably more comfortable than the Church Universal and

Triumphant, but people would say, "Hell, he could afford it."

Reason: The 1994 and the '95 crime bills have centralized law-enforcement powers, contra dicting the Contract's decentralist message. Might the Republicans reconsider their tendencies to nationalize law enforcement?

Wallop: Republicans are in a constant quandary. They believe in the security of their citizens, and they believe in the suppression of crime. And they live in Washington where crime is visible and the only way they can do anything about it there is through a federal police force. But they seem to have lost the notion of what a federal government is all about.

The idea that we would sit here and mandate the state penal code in order for states to qualify for funds for prison building and the idea of hiring 100,000 new police officersthese things don't make sense. Ruby Ridge and Waco may help the public relocate their ground. That's what happens when you have a national police force that is acting as a local police forceand in each instance they were.

Reason: In the areas of illegal immigration and drug enforcement, the federal government is considering a much broader use of the RICO law and asset forfeiture. Republicanswith no resis tance from Democratsseem to be absolutely determined to expand the use of both these law -enforcement tools. Is there any chance of getting them reined in?

Wallop: Well, there'd better be. Or again, I sense that here comes a third party. It's very easy for the Pat Buchanans and others of this world to fan the flames of anxiety of citizens about illegal immigration. And it's very easy for the Clinton people to propose and the Republicans to embrace the idea that the military might become one of the biggest assets we know of to address these issues.

I'm a big supporter of immigration. Republicans [make a mistake] when they think they're going to protect jobs by eliminating illegal or legal immigration. It is the obligation of the United States to protect its borders but it's far more important for that protection to come from a force that is organized for that specific purpose, namely the INS.

Reason: How about the drug war? In particular, abuses of the asset-forfeiture laws have real property rights implications.

Wallop: They do, and I'll tell youit was all right, in the minds of most Americans, to use RICO and asset forfeiture if they thought you were seizing the property of some Colombian. But when HUD starts using RICO as a challenge to Americans who disagree with it, then the forfeiture laws begin to take on another dimension. My guess is you cannot define them so specifically as to apply only to foreign drug lords.

When you've seen RICO-like provisions becoming part of the terrorist bill when we don't have a terrorist problem then it's time for Republicans and civil libertarians to say, "What the hell are you doing to the Constitution?"

Reason: Let's talk about national security issues. Bosnia is collapsing as we speak, Republi cans are clearly skeptical about direct intervention there. What should the U.S. response be?

Wallop: On the one hand you have the president and leaders of both parties expressing anxi eties about pictures on television and the news of ethnic cleansing and on the other hand you have a sitting Democrat president and the previous Republican president unwilling to put American con cepts in play, [instead] using the U.N. as an excuse for a lack of national policy.