Posted on 04/19/2014 10:37:15 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A nascent rebellion by western states looking to reclaim some of the land that was appropriated by the federal government is taking shape. A group of about 50 western lawmakers from 9 states met in Utah to discuss ways to bring about a revolution in land management that would see the states have a mich bigger say in how their own land is managed.
It’s time for Western states to take control of federal lands within their borders, lawmakers and county commissioners from Western states said at Utah’s Capitol on Friday.
More than 50 political leaders from nine states convened for the first time to talk about their joint goal: wresting control of oil-, timber -and mineral-rich lands away from the feds.
"It’s simply time," said Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, who organized Legislative Summit on Transfer for Public Lands along with Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder. "The urgency is now."
Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart, R-Provo, was flanked by a dozen participants, including her counterparts from Idaho and Montana, during a press conference after the daylong closed-door summit. U.S. Sen. Mike Lee addressed the group over lunch, Ivory said. New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington also were represented.
The summit was in the works before this month’s tense standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management over cattle grazing, Lockhart said.
"What’s happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem," Lockhart said.
Fielder, who described herself as "just a person who lives in the woods," said federal land management is hamstrung by bad policies, politicized science and severe federal budget cuts.
"Those of us who live in the rural areas know how to take care of lands,"
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Great video
Thanks
bump
The clear words of the Constitution are:
From those words I gather that the intent of the Constitution is that Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States. (I'm ignoring the words after the semicolon. They seem at second glance to be a wash anyway.)
To me, those clear words are not clear on whether or not Congress must turn over all land which in the boundaries of a newly created state to that state at the time of the state's creation, or ever. To clarify that, we'd probably have to turn to the penumbra and in order to do that we'd have to come to a common understanding of the penumbra to include whether or not penumbra even exist, since not everyone believes in them.
We'd also have to come to a common understanding of property and property rights. Those are discussed on this forum, but I don't remember seeing them defined very well.
And when I say "common understanding", I mean a common understanding of what the founders meant when they wrote the Constitution.
Without a reason to think otherwise, I'd have to say the answer to your question is "No", because the Constitution gives Congress the power to dispose, but doesn't say anything else about the disposition. It doesn't say all the territory within in boundary of a new state must, must not, can or can not be transferred to said state.
As to how this squares with the Tenth Amendment, the Tenth says:
Therefore, I have to ask in what way is all this not square with the Tenth Amendment? I also have to point out that most of the new states entered the Union prior to the Seventeenth Amendment, at a time when senators where appointed by the State legislatures, so the States did have a say in the proceedings.
I have to go for the rest of the night.
No
-----
If not, what was the purpose of this article?
To pay off the public debt. At least, that's what the legal treatise written not long before the 'official' start of the Mexican/American War said.
§ 1320. As if it were not possible to confer a single power upon the national government, which ought not to be a source of jealousy, the present has not been without objection. It has been suggested, that the sale and disposal of the Western territory may become a source of such immense revenue to the national government, as to make it independent of, and formidable to, the people. To amass immense riches (it has been said) to defray the expenses of ambition, when occasion may prompt, without seeming to oppress the people, has uniformly been the policy of tyrants. Should such a policy creep into our government, and the sales of the public lands, instead of being appropriated to the discharge of the public debt, be converted to a treasure in a bank, those, who, at any time, can command it, may be tempted to apply it to the most nefarious purposes.
Joseph Story Commentaries on the Constitution
And HE was quoting the first legal treatise written after Constitutional Ratification
To amass immense riches to defray the expences of ambition when occasion may prompt, without seeming to oppress the people, has uniformly been the policy of tyrants. Should such a policy creep into our government, and the sales of land, instead of being appropriated to the discharge of former debts, be converted to a treasure in a bank, those who can at any time command it, may be tempted to apply it to the most nefarious purposes.
St. George Tucker View of the Constitution of the United States
---------
I'd like to note I'd posted Story's quote a few days ago on another thread and attributed it to Tucker. Apologies to anyone who might have been confused by the error.
I thin this started with the opening of the Northwest Territories
The congress sent surveyors into the area and then sold off a lot of land. The national debt from the revolutionary war was paid.
This was the model throughout the 1800s.
We should sell of most of the federal lands. It would pay off a few trillion.
Give the rest to the states.
Best wishes!
Source: The Fabric of America
It did start with the Northwest Territories, but this model is unconstitutional.
Nowhere in anything I've read from the Founding era to the early 1800's insinuates the federal government had the authority to either retain the land once the States were formed OR extort it from the States as a condition of Statehood.
We should recognize the land in the States as belonging to the States, and allow the feds to keep the property that falls under 'providing for the common defense'.
-------
Best wishes for you and yours as well! :-)
I think my plan if coupled with a balanced budget and return of remaining land to states would be best.
However I’m not up on constitutional law. I defer to you and others.
I agree with your analysis completely.
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.