Utah to try to take federal land by eminent domain! (Seattle, federal government)
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.
It sounds good on paper but our retarded local policial leaders would sell off the state of Utah for a handful of magic beans if they could.
Lots of federal land is better than all private property. You can go onto the land, camp, hunt, graze your cattle, explore and generally escape civilization across vast tracts of open territory. It is the biggest reason I live here instead of the urban wastelands of California or the East. I don't trust the state of Utah to manage the land. Leave it in the hands of the feds.
The 10th Amendment gives every state the right to leave the union.
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
-- Chief Justice Salmon Chase, Texas v White (74 US 700)
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
-- Chief Justice Salmon Chase, Texas v White (74 US 700)
Non-binding dicta, not even based on the Constitution...
Non-binding dicta, not even based on the Constitution...
According to you folks these days, everything is dicta. The word has become your special Magic Wand or Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card. In reality, dicta are points extraneous to the development of the holding. Those cited above do not qualify.
The United States federal government acquired what is now Utah from Mexico in 1848. That IMO makes all land that was not privately owned at the time or sold/granted by the government since then federal land. Utah can try eminent domain, but there's a principle in law of federal preemption and at any rate the dispute will be handled in federal court. Texas is an example of a different situation. Texas was a country before it joined the union as a state. The federal government didn't buy it. Public Lands in Texas are state property.
It was President Clinton that "declared" a large portion of southern Utah to be a wilderness area. He just announced it, without the state even having a say. The ceremony for opening the wilderness area was at the Grand canyon in Arizona. The area in question has some beauty, some oil, not really any population, and is very remote.
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.