Frankly, I think the Federal Government has no rights whatsoever to land unless it has purchased it from the original owners. Further, to take over land once owned by states and to work under the guise of ‘managing’ it and then imposing dictatorial regulation of it is theft in my opinion. The more you give this government, the more they take from you.
Amen...The 640 million acres owned by the feds equals 1 million square miles, that’s not only ridiculous but criminal.
If the States can prevail in taking this land from the Federal Government, the States would then be empowered to lease the land and grant Licenses to “DRILL”. The Obama Admin. will fight this until the last EPA or Energy Department Employee Employee is still standing.
I personally think the constitution prohibits the federal government from owning land beyond what it needs for public use, meaning military bases, national monuments, etc. However, that could be broadly interpreted to mean just about anything, like a base that covers an entire state.
I certainly don’t see anything in the US Constitution that permits the federal government to regulate privately held land. Say you inherit property with a lake that’s been held in your family for decades, and the federal government now says you can’t build on it or alter the lake in any way. Where does it get the authority to do that? Nevertheless, that’s exactly what it’s doing.
First place to look is the US Constitution to see what it says with respect to Land the federal authority government can own. It does in two parts - one is for acquiring land and territories in Art 4, section 3 clause 2. The other is for Federal ownership of land within a State. That’s found in Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 17. To Wit:
“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, dockyards, and other needful buildings;”
Nevada is not a Territory, its a State. As such its Sovereign and owns all land within its borders. Accordingly, the only authority the Federal Government has to own land inside a State is “for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;” with “consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be,”.
It’s pretty black and white.
The US Government paid Mexico (owners prior to US ownership) $15 Million back in 1848 for the lands stated in the treaty of Guadalupe Hildago. Nevada was not a state at that time as it did not become a state until 1864. When Nevada became a state, their Constitution ceded any unallocated lands to the US Government.
In the case of Nevada and Utah the federal government took the land from the original owner - Mexico.
Further, to take over land once owned by states and to work under the guise of ‘managing’ it and then imposing dictatorial regulation of it is theft in my opinion.
In none of these cases did the land originally belong to the states. In fact the states can obtain ownership of the land simply by setting a price and getting Congress to OK the sale to them.
Well said. That, is one nasty dangerous circle.