Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Constitution says what the federal government can do. The federal government cannot do anything that is not specifically mentioned.
Well, you did a good job there.
However, my original statement still stands.
There is NO good reason why the federal government should own 80% of the land in Nevada and more than 50% in other western states.
Congress needs to act to put an end to what amounts to internal imperialism and a garrison state in the west.
The very idea that this would be allowed to continue is obscene.
If ranchers want to fight a civil war over this, they have good cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Guard
First, if this is even true, why do you keep stating this as if it is a meaningful point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Guard
If you are so sure why not take it to court?
No need to make up an answer because we know the answer. You are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Guard
Dude, I am from rural America. I served in the US Army. I think people are interested in knowledge and facts but when asked specific questions you deflect or offer overly broad answers like "The Constitution" without specifics to back it up. This to many people is a sign that a person knows that they are wrong and cannot admit it.
I second all of Old Guard's questions to you, Mr. Dechalet.
It's more than a little disturbing that you seem to be inciting or at least encouraging a Civil War, first on behalf of faux ranchers & more recently your 'War on White People' rhetoric? C'mon man, haven't enough lives been sacrificed to Civil Wars?
I second all of Old Guard's questions to you, Mr. Dechalet.
It's more than a little disturbing that you seem to be inciting or at least encouraging a Civil War, first on behalf of faux ranchers & more recently your 'War on White People' rhetoric? C'mon man, haven't enough lives been sacrificed to Civil Wars?
I would say "evidently not" given the recent past/current government overreach in many areas of our lives.
This could be fixed at the ballot box but hasn't been so far. Hopefully the changes will happen this time around and a civil conflict can be avoided.
Eventually the "serfs" get tired of being dictated to and having their path out of serfdom cut off even more...
I would say "evidently not" given the recent past/current government overreach in many areas of our lives.
This could be fixed at the ballot box but hasn't been so far. Hopefully the changes will happen this time around and a civil conflict can be avoided.Eventually the "serfs" get tired of being dictated to and having their path out of serfdom cut off even more...
I don't suppose it ever occurred to you rabble-rousing rebels that you're really a tiny minority who are out of step with what the vast majority of Americans believe ... which is why you can't win at the ballot box and you don't get much sympathy when you "occupy" a FWR and you aren't winning any "civil war" that you think you're gonna start. Get a clue.
I would say "evidently not" given the recent past/current government overreach in many areas of our lives.
This could be fixed at the ballot box but hasn't been so far. Hopefully the changes will happen this time around and a civil conflict can be avoided.
Eventually the "serfs" get tired of being dictated to and having their path out of serfdom cut off even more...
Talk, talk, talk. I am always amazed at how many of these freedom fighters live off the government teat.
Although I don't agree with how these people are handling this issue in Oregon, I can understand their position.
Under the "Equal Footing Doctrine" the federal government surrenders all lands to the state once it is granted statehood, with the exception of lands spelled out in Article 1 sec 8 clause 17 and National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges and Tribal Lands. The State may choose to cede lands to the Federal Government however, the State may also choose to reclaim those lands if it decides to do so.
The SCOTUS has ruled this as such in the case of Alabama: The enabling act for Alabama had contained both a declaration of equal footing and a reservation to the United States of these lands. Rather than an issue of mere land ownership, the Court saw the question as one concerning sovereignty and jurisdiction of the States. Inasmuch as the original States retained sovereignty and jurisdiction over the navigable waters and the soil beneath them within their boundaries, retention by the United States of either title to or jurisdiction over common lands in the new States would bring those States into the Union on less than an equal footing with the original States. This, the Court would not permit. “Alabama is, therefore, entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law, to the same extent that Georgia possessed it, before she ceded it to the United States
There is NO good reason for the federal government to own 80% of the land in Nevada.... And the states in turn should sell most of it to private owners.
Right...and who do you think would end up buying that land? Hedge funds and huge investment groups would buy it and lease it back to the same ranchers who now lease from the Government, but it would be at market rate, somewhere between 3 and 10 times what they pay now.
And the people in Nevada who spend their time enjoying BLM land, recreating; running their dogs, hunting, going out in 4WD vehicles, riding their horses would be paying admission to the new private owners, or the land would be fenced with no public access. THAT is not what the people of Nevada want, maybe you should look into that before you start telling us what 'should' happen to federal land.
Right...and who do you think would end up buying that land? Hedge funds and huge investment groups would buy it and lease it back to the same ranchers who now lease from the Government, but it would be at market rate, somewhere between 3 and 10 times what they pay now.
And the people in Nevada who spend their time enjoying BLM land, recreating; running their dogs, hunting, going out in 4WD vehicles, riding their horses would be paying admission to the new private owners, or the land would be fenced with no public access. THAT is not what the people of Nevada want, maybe you should look into that before you start telling us what 'should' happen to federal land.
These people would **** a brick when the Chinese and Russians bought this land.
Although I don't agree with how these people are handling this issue in Oregon, I can understand their position.
Under the "Equal Footing Doctrine" the federal government surrenders all lands to the state once it is granted statehood, with the exception of lands spelled out in Article 1 sec 8 clause 17 and National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges and Tribal Lands. The State may choose to cede lands to the Federal Government however, the State may also choose to reclaim those lands if it decides to do so.
The SCOTUS has ruled this as such in the case of Alabama: The enabling act for Alabama had contained both a declaration of equal footing and a reservation to the United States of these lands. Rather than an issue of mere land ownership, the Court saw the question as one concerning sovereignty and jurisdiction of the States. Inasmuch as the original States retained sovereignty and jurisdiction over the navigable waters and the soil beneath them within their boundaries, retention by the United States of either title to or jurisdiction over common lands in the new States would bring those States into the Union on less than an equal footing with the original States. This, the Court would not permit. “Alabama is, therefore, entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law, to the same extent that Georgia possessed it, before she ceded it to the United States
I would appreciate a citation to the case you are describing.
You are misunderstanding some key concepts. The "equal footing doctrine" was first spelled out before the Constitution was ratified in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. It speaks of states being admitted to the union on "an equal footing with other states". It has nothing to do with land tenure. What this concept has to do with is political power. If new states that were admitted to the union were only allowed one US Senator as opposed to two, than this doctrine would be applicable. If new states got fewer members in what was than the "Continental Congress" based on existing states with similar populations than again, the doctrine would be applicable.
States are sovereign over federal lands within their borders that are "unreserved lands". Unreserved lands are those that are not part of a national park, defense installation, national monument, national recreation area, etc. Sovereignty simply means that the state has the power to police those lands, and regulate the behavior of those upon them. This is true even though the states do not own those lands. Sovereignty and land tenure are different concepts.
The way various federal lands are acquired does affect issues of land tenure. I have referred to the fact that the western states of California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado are all part of territory acquired from Mexico following the Mexican War of 1846-1847. The Treaty of Guadulupe Hidalgo ceded these lands to the United States of America. These lands became property of the federal government at that time. Those lands that are owned by the state or by private individuals were usually transferred pursuant to specific laws such as the Homestead Act, the Land Grant College Act, and the Railroad Land Grants Act. Utah, like many states, was given a chunk of federal land to help finance its public school system.
Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to make rules and laws which affect all of this territory. IN the case of of U.S. v. City and County of San Francisco, the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that the power of Congress to administer federal lands was absolute. Congress can choose to sell land, give land away, or hold on to land. There is no time limit or restriction on this. There is no clause in the Constitution that says that territorial lands revert to state ownership when a territory becomes a state.
Finally, the enabling act in each state that I am aware of specified exactly how much public land the state would get upon being admitted to the union. Each state was also required to end any claim to other public lands.
Frankly, few things in the law are more clear than that. Until Congress decides to give or sell these lands to the states they belong to the United States which, in effect, are all the citizens of this country.
Although I don't agree with how these people are handling this issue in Oregon, I can understand their position.
Under the "Equal Footing Doctrine" the federal government surrenders all lands to the state once it is granted statehood, with the exception of lands spelled out in Article 1 sec 8 clause 17 and National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges and Tribal Lands. The State may choose to cede lands to the Federal Government however, the State may also choose to reclaim those lands if it decides to do so.
The SCOTUS has ruled this as such in the case of Alabama: The enabling act for Alabama had contained both a declaration of equal footing and a reservation to the United States of these lands.
Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan does not establish precedence for States reclaiming federal land. A number of states renounced their claims to federal lands as a condition of being accepted into the Union:
Utah: “That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof”
Arizona: “That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated and ungranted public lands lying within the boundaries thereof and to all lands lying within said boundaries”
Wyoming: “The people inhabiting this state do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof”
New Mexico: “That the people inhabiting said proposed state do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated and ungranted public lands lying within the boundaries thereof”
Colorado: “That the people inhabiting said Territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said Territory”
Nevada: “That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States”
Idaho: “And the people of the state of Idaho do agree and declare that we forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof”
All of the nonsense about reclaiming the federal land started with the Koch Bros and "ALEC" who provided 'model legislation' for it. This is not a well conceived plan and is designed to make the rich investors richer at a great cost to the public
these people would **** a brick when the chinese and russians bought this land.
bingo!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
