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.
No, it's the federal government that needs to be reminded of it's place. There's a problem when the feds OWN 60% of state. The state is saying that federal ownership impedes commerce in the state leading to a reduction of needed funds....how are they being justly compensated for the loss?
It's ridiculous that anyone could defend the feds owning 60% of Utah or ANY state.
I agree, reminder to some, the reason feds own so much of Utah is the national monuments which has to be done by the president??? and the last one done ( can't remember the name) was done in AZ with no input from Utah.
No, it's the federal government that needs to be reminded of it's place. There's a problem when the feds OWN 60% of state. The state is saying that federal ownership impedes commerce in the state leading to a reduction of needed funds....how are they being justly compensated for the loss?
It's ridiculous that anyone could defend the feds owning 60% of Utah or ANY state.
Most of that land happens to be park land for one.
Impeding commercial development? Who will drive 10 hours into a desert to buy crap at a Walmart? I mean. The entire state's popualtion live within 1 hour of salt lake city. It's a massive state with no population.
Again, we're a federation. States are sovereign from each other not the central government.
We're not just talking issues of developing the land (building stores, etc.), but simply accessing resources to improve local economies. The environmentalists have shut down logging and other sustainable uses throughout millions of acres of Western lands (and thousands here in the East). The Sierra Club for instance wants to end all commercial logging on federal lands, despite the fact National Forests were created specifically for that purpose. The people in these states have suffered greatly by being at the mercy of those groups, and congressmen who live thousands of miles away yet seek to control them. If both the feds and environmentalists had been more reasonable in recent decades we wouldn't be seeing this fight today. Anger has simmered for years in those areas over locking up the land.
That's a rather specious argument. Utah was a US territory before it was a state. All the land was held by the feds.
Article I section 8 of the U.S. Constitution:
Quote:
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; And
States must give their consent for the feds to own any real estate in a state. Utah is withdrawing that consent.
the fact National Forests were created specifically for that purpose. The people in these states have suffered greatly by being at the mercy of those groups, and congressmen who live thousands of miles away yet seek to control them. If both the feds and environmentalists had been more reasonable in recent decades we wouldn't be seeing this fight today. Anger has simmered for years in those areas over locking up the land.
"While the Agricultural Appropriation Bill was passing through the Senate, in 1907, Senator Fulton, of Oregon, secured an amendment providing that the President could not set aside any additional National Forests in the six Northwestern States. This meant retaining some sixteen million of acres to be exploited by land grabbers anq by the representatives of the great special interests, at the expense of the public interest.
But for four years the Forest Service had been gathering field notes as to what forests ought to be set aside in these States, and so was prepared to act. It was equally undesirable to veto the whole agricultural bill, and to sign it with this amendment effective. Accordingly, a plan to create the necessary National Forest in these States before the Agricultural Bill could be passed and signed was laid before me by Mr. Pinchot. I approved it. The necessary papers were immediately prepared. I signed the last proclamation a couple of days before by my signature, the bill became law; and when the friends of the special interests in the Senate got their amendment through and woke up, they discovered that sixteen million acres of timberland had been saved for the people by putting them in the National Forests before the land grabbers could get at them.
The opponents of the Forest Service turned handsprings in their wrath; and dire were their threats against the Executive; but the threats could not be carried out, and were really only a tribute to the efficiency of our action."
"While the Agricultural Appropriation Bill was passing through the Senate, in 1907, Senator Fulton, of Oregon, secured an amendment providing that the President could not set aside any additional National Forests in the six Northwestern States. This meant retaining some sixteen million of acres to be exploited by land grabbers anq by the representatives of the great special interests, at the expense of the public interest.
But for four years the Forest Service had been gathering field notes as to what forests ought to be set aside in these States, and so was prepared to act. It was equally undesirable to veto the whole agricultural bill, and to sign it with this amendment effective. Accordingly, a plan to create the necessary National Forest in these States before the Agricultural Bill could be passed and signed was laid before me by Mr. Pinchot. I approved it. The necessary papers were immediately prepared. I signed the last proclamation a couple of days before by my signature, the bill became law; and when the friends of the special interests in the Senate got their amendment through and woke up, they discovered that sixteen million acres of timberland had been saved for the people by putting them in the National Forests before the land grabbers could get at them.
The opponents of the Forest Service turned handsprings in their wrath; and dire were their threats against the Executive; but the threats could not be carried out, and were really only a tribute to the efficiency of our action."
Theodore recorded in his Autobiography (1913):
If the National Forests were managed and used as intended there wouldn't be much of an issue with them. The problem is the politics involved. We've got the Sierra Club types on one hand trying to make National Forests the same as National Parks, and giant corporations on the other trying to rip off the taxpayers.
I guess Utah forgot that it's not a sovereign entity, but a state within a larger federal nation.
I think the Republicans should remind themselves of our federal system.
Wrong. The States are sovereign entities.
The States created the federal government. Not the other way around.
And Texas, New Hampshire and Hawaii only joined the Union on the condition that they could leave at any time for any reason.
That proves the States are a sovereign entitiy.
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.
