Lady, there are some real smart people on here, and you are one.
I go at it this way. Since Art 1 Sec 8 the 17th, states specifically what the federal government is allowed to do, and if the state of Nevada passed in its constitution violating that clause-being the 17th enumerated power, then the states constitution is in, that part, unconstitutional. They must amend it.
So, your point, is another way to go at them.
We now have our constitutional crisis. Where the hell is Kevin Gutzman? He is the only one I might refer to in this matter.
-----
Since Art 1 Sec 8 the 17th, states specifically what the federal government is allowed to do, and if the state of Nevada passed in its constitution violating that clause-being the 17th enumerated power, then the states constitution is in, that part, unconstitutional. They must amend it.
True, but the federal government also violated the Constitution when they accepted such land when it was for a purpose other than specified....i.e. for the purpose of buildings to provide for the common defense.
Joseph Story quotes Madison's Federalist #43 quite closely when he said§ 1219. The other part of the power, giving exclusive legislation over places ceded for the erection of forts, magazines, &c., seems still more necessary for the public convenience and safety. The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, and the nature of the military duties, which may be required there, all demand, that they should be exempted from state authority
Nowhere is there authorization for federal public lands for any other purpose.