I’ve read the laws in that connection. Maybe marsh2 knows.
You apparently like Gargantuan Uber-controlling fedgov. I do not. I live in a county of which more than 70% is federally owned, and it has extremely high unemployment and poverty. If the lands were state and county owned, we would be a productive and prosperous county.
That you have read the laws in that connection does not help me understand that "...they weren’t supposed to “own” it forever" and "They were supposed to cede it back to the states at some point.”
I've read or looked at some of the law in question to, though certainly not all of it. For instance the following, which can be found at http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/other/enabling_act.htm :
ENABLING ACT
AN ACT to provide for the division of Dakota into two States and to enable the people of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington to form constitutions and State governments and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to make donations of public lands to such States. (Emphasis added.)
Further down it states:
SEC. 4. (snip) And said conventions shall provide, by ordinances irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said States:
(snip)
Second. That the people inhabiting said proposed States do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States;(Emphasis added.)
I do admit subsequent legislation of which I am not aware may have amended the above, but as far as I can tell, that doesn't jibe with "...they weren’t supposed to “own” it forever" and "They were supposed to cede it back to the states at some point.”
"You apparently like Gargantuan Uber-controlling fedgov."
That's certainly a leap. If I may reply in the same tone, it's just that I think some of you ignoramuses have got the basics wrong and will drag everyone else down with you as you fail.
U.S. Constitution: Article 1, Section 8 powers:
“To exercise [b]exclusive Legislation[/b] 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;” is the exclusive power that the feds have over federal enclaves. Public lands are NOT federal enclaves.
“The words ‘public lands’ are habitually used in our legislation to describe such as are subject to sale or other disposal under general laws.” Newhall v. Sanger, 92 U.S. 761; See also Leavenworth, etc., R. Co. v. U. S., Id. 733; Doolan v. Carr, 125 U.S. 618, 8 Sup. Ct. 1228.
However, in 1976, Congress passed FLPMA (Federal Land Policy and Management Act- BLM Organic Act, P.L. 94-579) (90 Stat. 2743, codified at 43 U.S.C. 1701.) It states:
“The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that the public lands be retained in federal ownership.”
The jurisdiction the feds have over reserved lands withdrawn from the homesteading or disposal process is covered under Article 4 Section 3: “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property [b]belonging to the United States;[/b] and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”
This is not “exclusive” legislative jurisdiction and is jointly held with state jurisdiction. See [u]Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States “ http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/fj0-0000.htm
For instance:
Regarding the reservation of lands subsequent to Statehood, in Friedman v. Goodwin, (CC.1856) Fed. Cas. No. 5, 119, 1 McAll. 142, the court decided:
“On the cession of [Mexican] California to the United States, all the public lands therein became the property of the United States. On her admission to the Union, she became the owner of all the public land not disposed of by law of congress.”
After extensive lobbying by John Muir, Yosemite was designated a National Park in 1891. However, in order to vest exclusive jurisdiction and ownership in regard to these lands in the United States, it was necessary for the California Legislature to approve a deed of cession for Yosemite to the U.S in St. 1891, p. 262 as follows:
“The State of California hereby cedes to the United States of America exclusive jurisdiction over such place or parcel of land as may have been or may be hereafter ceded or conveyed to the United States...”