Two weeks ago in this space, we observed that the so-called Environmental Protection Agency is “at the center of the advancing threat to private property rights and personal dominion.”

In that piece, “Fold the EPA” (available online at BaldwinCountyNow.com), I described the Sackett case (now on the docket of the US Supreme Court) and concluded that the federal government “regulatory scheme must end.”

Readers nationally agreed overwhelmingly. Online poll results show that 96 percent believe that the Federal Environmental Protection Agency “overreaches… and, should be closed.”

But, not everyone agrees.

For example, UC-Berkley Law School professor Holly Doremus when asked to comment on EPA cases has stated that “the conservative wing of the (U.S. Supreme Court) has a particular problem with wetlands regulation.”

All the Justices should.

Professor Doremus further describes conservative justices on the US Supreme Court as seeing the EPA actions as a “… breathtaking expansion of federal authority into virtually every corner of the geographic world.”

It is.

Then, returning her focus to the conservative wing of the Supreme Court, Doremus added “… those justices, which include the outspoken Antonin Scalia” … .

Yes, Justice Scalia is outspoken. It is one of his habits. Another is being, almost always, right.

That said, all nine U.S. Supreme Court justices must get the upcoming Sackett decision right.

There is too much at stake for any single justice, or combination of justices comprising either of the ‘philosophical wings’ on the court, to dare tamper with the founding principles underpinning private property rights and the personal dominion of every citizen.

Most Americans understand that. So does Sarah Palin’s successor as Alaska governor, Sean Parnell.

Parnell, while writing about over-reach by the EPA in his native Alaska, cited the Sackett case as yet another example of out-of-bounds federal encroachment that tramples on states’ rights and individual rights. 

Governor Parnell declared that “Alaska will be filing an Amicus Brief supporting the Sacketts in solidarity… .”

Every other governor should do the same. What about every other citizen? The question: How to support the Sacketts in solidarity?

Here’s an idea:

Each American could draft and file a “citizen amicus brief.”

Typically, one needs “standing” to file an amicus brief with the court.

But, in the Sackett case, as with many EPA cases, it is the individual citizen whose due process rights are infringed upon and violated by government.

Imagine if many citizens chose to “file” so to speak their own citizen amicus brief with the US Supreme court, their U.S. representative, their two U.S. senators and to every governor and state attorney general.

Here is some paraphrased typical legal verbiage for your benefit and consideration.

I, _________, a Citizen of the Sovereign State of ____________ and, as such, therefore, a citizen of the United States of America, declare my right as a Movants in the Sackett case, that I and We should be permitted to intervene in this case because We and they have a significant, direct interest in the outcome of this case that will be harmed if the Final Action is sustained, and that interest will not be adequately represented in the absence of intervention.

Such a brief might just make the difference for the Sacketts and all citizens and could show every other governor the right thing to do.

Richard is president of Olivastro Communications and founder of Citizens for Change. A professional member of the National Speakers Association, he is available pro bono for charitable fundraisers and public forums and can be reached via e-mail at RichOlivastro@gmail.com or by phone at 1-877-RichSpeaks.