Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Utah on verge of passing bill demanding Feds relinquish public land
Associated Press ^ | March 06, 2012 | unattributed

Posted on 03/06/2012 7:06:52 PM PST by Hunton Peck

Lawmakers who want to seize control of federal lands are pushing a legal battle they insist is winnable despite multiple warnings their effort is highly unconstitutional and almost sure to fail in court.

Utah is poised to become the first state to pass a package of bills that demand the federal government relinquish claims to huge sections of public land. A proposal that advanced Wednesday demands that by 2014 the federal government cede control of nearly 30 million acres -- nearly 50 percent of the entire state.

A bill setting an identical deadline is also moving in the Arizona Legislature.

Rep. Ken Ivory, who is leading the effort in Utah and helped draft model legislation for use in other states, said the federal government doesn't treat states like equal partners in land management.

"If sovereignty means anything, it means not having to say pretty please, or mother may I," Ivory said.

Driving the legislative frustration is an ongoing anger over missed opportunities to develop and mine lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service.

There is also concern that access to state-owned or private lands will be increasingly restricted by Congress or even with the stroke of a president's pen, which happened in 1996 when President Bill Clinton created the 1.9-million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah.

"In our area, we feel that we have federal land management policies that ignore the needs of state, county or local residents," said Dirk Clayson, a commissioner in rural...

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: anthracite; coal; federalism; federallands; statesrights; utah
You go, Utah!
1 posted on 03/06/2012 7:07:02 PM PST by Hunton Peck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hunton Peck

I wish Arizona would do this. The Feds own too much of our state.


2 posted on 03/06/2012 7:08:17 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (It's time for the DemocRAT voter base to start paying their "fair share" of taxes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hunton Peck

Obama has pushed some states backs to the wall, and some have the nerve to fight back.

I wish Utah luck.These lands were stolen from the states by legislative action, it’s time they went back to the states.


3 posted on 03/06/2012 7:09:26 PM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hunton Peck

Excellent. Only 48 states to go.

They should team up and strip this pretender bare.


4 posted on 03/06/2012 7:10:13 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

That’s the truth. If we were to start mining gold, silver and copper again, we’ll be the richest former state after the world economy collapses.


5 posted on 03/06/2012 7:14:37 PM PST by ponygirl (Be Breitbart.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hunton Peck

“despite multiple warnings their effort is highly unconstitutional...”

When did the nazis at AP ever care about the constitution?

The only part of the constitution that AP should be concerned about is hanging these traitors at AP for sedition.


6 posted on 03/06/2012 7:17:34 PM PST by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hunton Peck

Bump to that!!!


7 posted on 03/06/2012 7:22:42 PM PST by gibsosa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hunton Peck
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;

Sound like the Legislature of the State is withdrawing Consent.

/johnny

8 posted on 03/06/2012 7:23:49 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hunton Peck

Nice!


9 posted on 03/06/2012 7:24:02 PM PST by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
My grandmother bought land in your state. You can see it as you fly to California just to the South of Phoenix. Those lots on those roads with no houses.

Your states' land sharks took lots of her money.

I think I should get it back ~ so it's not likely I'd support just GIVING you the land.

Frankly, I want a piece of the action!

10 posted on 03/06/2012 7:26:34 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
Mexico or Spain?

The US government ACQUIRED the land as a vast unorganized territory previously claimed by another country. There was no state there.

11 posted on 03/06/2012 7:28:20 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hunton Peck
Initially just short of 100% of the states of Indiana, illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio were owned outright by the federal government.

One of my ancestors was the land agent who sold off almost 95% of the state of Indiana to private individuals. The last 5% consisted of a swamp called "the Limberlost" and that sucker was very difficult to peddle. It had been an extension of Lake Erie until about 4,000 years ago and it was STILL WET and full of muck!

Much of the Western lands not acquired by private individuals were considered too hard to develop, or were WORTHLESS. There are still large tracts of land owned by the railroads ~ given to them in partial payment for construction of the Transcontinental railroad (and parallel lines). They still can't sell the stuff.

Private ownership is called for but just giving away the land, much of it having more recently discovered wealth, isn't in the cards if we want to keep intact our custom of treating each new state equally.

Any title transfers must be accompanied by hard cash.

12 posted on 03/06/2012 7:36:26 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hunton Peck

I have contended that the 50 States as a voting group do have the final say over the Federal Government and Supreme Courts under the Constitution

I would base that on the fact the States as a group created and voted in the Constitution that created the Federal Government & Supreme Court

Under that same Constitution, the Federal Government & Supreme Court only have the rights the Constitution grants

Also that same Constitution, it can only be amended after a vote of the States approving it…the Federal Government & Supreme Court cannot amended the Constitution on their own

Also States can call a Constitutional Convention on their own (Federal Government & Supreme Court have no right to stop or block a Constitutional Convention, they shall allow)

And under the rules of the Constitution, the States in a Constitutional Convention could abolish the Federal Government, the Supreme Court, the Constitution, or even the United States

This is not like the Civil War where sub group of states tried to break off on their own… the States in a Constitutional Convention could vote to let states leave

If the States, -—all of the States-— meet as a group and vote under the rules of the Constitution they per the Constitution have the final say not the Federal Government or Supreme Court


13 posted on 03/06/2012 7:41:56 PM PST by tophat9000 (American is Barack Oaken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000

Constitutionally (and upheld by the courts) new states must be admitted WITHOUT PRE-CONDITIONS
and have equality with the original 13 states.

When Oklahoma was admitted, the feds wanted Norman to be the capital; Oklahoma wanted—and got—Oklahoma City; because the courts ruled that no conditions can be imposed.

If Utah was only allowed to become a state on the condition that it permit the feds to control a portion of its territory, then that pre-condition is illegal and void.


14 posted on 03/06/2012 7:47:44 PM PST by CondorFlight (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

The US government ACQUIRED the land as a vast unorganized territory previously claimed by another country. There was no state there.

There is a state there now though. The Feds need to get out.


15 posted on 03/06/2012 7:57:23 PM PST by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

This reads like a state legislature can stop okaying Federal purchases, but cannot annul previous Federal purchases that had been okayed in the past.

On the other hand, if a state can figure out how to make money rather than consume it, maybe Uncle Sam would have interest in selling lands back to such a state.


16 posted on 03/06/2012 7:57:55 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Many of the Western states weren't allowed to have statehood unless they agreed to deed land to FedGov. Utah wasn't allowed statehood unless it incorporated non-polygamy.

In my book, that's duress.

And did the FedGov actually pay the states for the land?

Things were fast and loose back then.

/johnny

17 posted on 03/06/2012 8:03:09 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Hunton Peck

Good for Utah!!


18 posted on 03/06/2012 8:03:44 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hunton Peck

Utah has enough energy resources under its ground to power the country for a long time. But the Feds own more than half of the land.

Time to kick out the King.


19 posted on 03/06/2012 8:13:44 PM PST by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CondorFlight

The same for Nevada, where the Fed. now claim over 87% of our state.

The court of original jurisdiction in such matters is SCOTUS.

This needs to be settled before any more big government liberals are appointed.

Oh, and which candidate has the brass to revoke the Grand Escalante wilderness designation?
Time to mine that clean coal and tell the ME to FOAD that much sooner.


20 posted on 03/06/2012 8:28:21 PM PST by Loyal Sedition
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Hunton Peck

How would they enforce the law? If the Feds don’t give the land back, then what?


21 posted on 03/06/2012 9:16:26 PM PST by Cymbaline ("Allahu Akbar": Arabic for "Nothing To See Here" - Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

Bs, the lands were bought and paid for by the people of the whole country, are you completely ignorant of history.


22 posted on 03/06/2012 9:20:57 PM PST by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
Another dumb statement, that clause was to establish Washington DC.
23 posted on 03/06/2012 9:24:04 PM PST by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

That is completly backward, the land was owned by the united states and the state government was granted so much land when it became a state. Since the state did not exist it did not own jack. Where did you go to school?


24 posted on 03/06/2012 9:28:18 PM PST by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

Do you remember what we paid the Indians?

LMAO


25 posted on 03/07/2012 4:34:06 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CondorFlight
The very first NEW STATES of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, etc. were admitted to the Union with the federal government owning just about all the land.

The states GOT NOTHING. The federal lands were then sold off ~ and where there were large private holdings (Clark Tract comes to mind, or the Lee Tract) the lands were sold at a price set by Congress.

Arizona, et al, were admitted on the same equal basis as the original states admitted to the Union.

26 posted on 03/07/2012 6:18:28 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
Which states owned land in the United States before they were admitted to the Union?

Real quick ~ name them!

27 posted on 03/07/2012 6:21:31 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
There was a major accounting with the Indians that was undertaken in the vicinity of Chicago in the North, and another place in the South.

All the Indians moving to Oklahoma or other Western areas were PAID CASH MONEY by the United States government for their lands in the 1850s.

Little known fact, but a very real fact.

The Oneida were not paid because the State of New York evicted them, sold their land to illegal aliens, and then fought the tribe for most of the next century. The tribe finally won the right to REBUY their lands ~ I think that put every single property title in Rochester New York under the gun.

It is long overdue for the illegal aliens in New York to go home!

28 posted on 03/07/2012 6:25:37 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

Sorry you flunked history, Bought it off the French, and the lower part we took from Mexico, Spanish settlements, but we paid them also. And we bought Alaska off of Russia. What other childish question do you have.


29 posted on 03/07/2012 7:26:16 AM PST by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

If I have another Childish question I will be sure to ask you so that I will get a childish answer.


30 posted on 03/07/2012 8:51:46 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Its much more complicated than that but you are on the right track.

Congress' policies and prices on selling these lands worked fine in the eastern wet zone states so the problem was Congress tried to use the same policies and prices in the western dry zone states.

Because Texas had been a nation she was allowed to retain all her lands so we compare how Texas dispersed her lands and how Congress did it. Or how the Spanish and Mexican govts used the large land grants.

There have been many books published on settlement of the west but Walter Prescott Webb's Great Plains published in the 30s is still the bible and is still in print because many colleges use it as a textbook

31 posted on 03/07/2012 8:54:47 AM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

Another foolish statement from someone that knows nothing. Do you want me to explain it to you in a business since. The united states government owns assets so it can pledge them for borrowing. Borrowing against public property started under Hamilton, (I know you have no idea who that is), so when a new state is formed so much property is turned over to it by the federal government so it can borrow to run the government. Now get off the horse crap about who owns what. The supreme court has already decided the issue several time.


32 posted on 03/07/2012 8:59:45 AM PST by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

What is business since.?

Do you mean business sense?

I realize your brilliance and give up.


33 posted on 03/07/2012 9:02:45 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
Still flunked history didn't you. All you proved is my mind works faster than my thumbs, when typing on my droid.
34 posted on 03/07/2012 9:07:51 AM PST by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

IMO which is worth little:

Purchasing land from the Indians was a bit like buying property from a Alzheimer’s patient.

I am not calling the Indians stupid,what I am saying is that a lot was probably lost in the translation, they were under duress, and they had no idea the value of the land they were selling as Indians at that point in time did not understand the idea of land ownership.


35 posted on 03/07/2012 9:54:35 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
In fact the Kickapoo Indians had realized by the time of the Jefferson Presidency that Indian people were suffering an incredibly high infant death rate in the presence of whites and blacks, and there was already an alcoholism epidemic that defined any degree of control.

They, and their allies, convinced Jefferson and his political friends that the solution was to find a place for the Indians separate from the Old World People.

For that the Kickapoo became known as the most zenophobic people on Earth. They sent out riders regularly advising other Indians to MOVE AWAY FROM THE WHITES.

Jefferson and his buddies decided to make Indiana that place. The 1812 Earthquake happened ~ the land drained, and the focus shifted to Wisconsin. By the time Jackson became President, even the Southern tribes were involved ~ most willingly (the Cherokee weren't ~ they thought they could live like whites in fact).

Eventually the Indians moved West. The payments were made. That's where they are at these days ~ with some exceptions where other tribes have been resurrected from remnants left behind in the East.

The Kickapoo themselves have a tribal remnant in Michigan. They were organized by Joseph Winchester ~ who organized other remnants into recognized tribes.

Realistically land belongs to those who can use it. Even the Indians recognized that. The Iroquois were criticized by others in the early 1600s for seizing more than they could handle in the Ohio Valley.

The Indians understood land ownership ~ and individual use of that land ~ and rights of inheritance. They didn't have to do much surveying because there weren't all that many of them in the Eastern United States ~ but Indians in South America were very adamant about who owned what and where.

One of the peculiarities of Neolithic life was the use of tributary tribes. Instead of taking slaves a more powerful group would force a weaker group to provide labor, services, furs, food, etc. The Iroquois Confederation used the Mingo (unorganized Iroquois) as a supplemental source of warriors in addition to all that. Chief Powhatan, viewed by many Europeans (and modern Americans) as some sort of powerful chieftain in the Mid-Atlantic was actually a supplicant to the Iroqouis. They provided "protection" and he gave them people and goods.

When you are a warrior elite you do not have to concern yourself with property lines ~ just with the names of those who owe you. They have to work out the ownership details.

36 posted on 03/07/2012 11:01:16 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Hunton Peck; 3D-JOY; abner; Abundy; AGreatPer; Albion Wilde; AliVeritas; alisasny; ...

PING!


37 posted on 03/07/2012 6:07:43 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Occupy DC General Assembly: We are Marxist tools. WE ARE MARXIST TOOLS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks Hunton Peck.


38 posted on 03/07/2012 7:13:20 PM PST by SunkenCiv (FReep this FReepathon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson