Skip to comments.Utah on verge of passing bill demanding Feds relinquish public land
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 ...
How would they enforce the law? If the Feds don’t give the land back, then what?
Bs, the lands were bought and paid for by the people of the whole country, are you completely ignorant of history.
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?
Do you remember what we paid the Indians?
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.
Real quick ~ name them!
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!
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.
If I have another Childish question I will be sure to ask you so that I will get a childish answer.
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
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.
What is business since.?
Do you mean business sense?
I realize your brilliance and give up.
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.
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.
Thanks Hunton Peck.