Posted on 05/25/2014 3:22:47 PM PDT by Twotone
In the great dispute over utilization of our Federal lands in the West, the attempt is frequently made to end run the arguments over how best to manage those lands by asserting the Federal government has no capacity to own the lands. The argument goes that since the Constitution is a delegation of enumerated powers, if there is no provision therein for ownership of land, the Federal government must lack standing to be a legitimate owner. This is not an idle question. It is said to have given Jefferson great pause prior to deciding to make the Louisiana Purchase.
However, there is excellent authority in the Constitution for Federal ownership of property including territory, which is simply a peculiar form of property.
(Excerpt) Read more at oregoncatalyst.com ...
This is a fairly detailed analysis of all types of acquisition by the feds, briefly touching on the Louisiana Purchase.
Personally, I think forcing the federal gov’t to sell off or release western lands will be the most effective method to going back to limited gov’t. All the agencies controlling the land could go bye-bye & each state would have to adopt their own policies for use & protection of their resources.
Analyzing the applicable definition of FedGov pre- and post- 14th Amendment is a non-trivial issue.
I see the actual return of lands as being a process involving several reductions in government power.
The first is to nip in the bud federal authority over non-navigable waters and the regulation of carbon dioxide. Both of these are abominations. Make any requirement of environmental impact statements solely within the purview of the states.
Next is to modify the endangered species act so that the ability to enforce the act no longer lies with the federal government, but actions can only be made by state governments at the *recommendation* of the federal government. When and if the state government balances the recommendations against other uses of that land and the private property within that land.
Then would be the restoration of private lands to their owners or inheritors, as well as right of way access and water rights.
And then, finally, would be the great return of lands to the states. Doing it this way would hopefully remove obstacles and the ability of arrogant federal judges to interfere with or halt the process.
Frequently? Who's been saying this?
With hempen rope and lamp posts.
Two problems with your idea....
1) Most western states do not want all the Federal land. They are perfectly happy allowing the Federal government to pay the costs of maintaining, patrolling and improving such lands. Some do want ownership of certain choice parcels but that is a very small percentage of the available land. You have to remember that much if not most of these lands were offered up by the Feds until the 1950’s and they couldn’t even give it away.
2) It has been estimated that if even 4-5% of Federal lands in states like Nevada and Utah were offered for sale to the general public, it would so depress the real estate market to a point where rural land would become almost worthless. Think about that...supply and demand...right now there is a demand commensurate with what is available (and many argue there is way more supply than demand). if you dump hundreds of thousands of acres of land into the marketplace, even over a period of years, you will burden the market with surplus land and drive down the value of private property to levels not seen in 75-100 years. You will bankrupt thousands of ordinary citizens.
This problem is way more complicated than most people realize.
“Next is to modify the endangered species act so that the ability to enforce the act no longer lies with the federal government, but actions can only be made by state governments at the *recommendation* of the federal government. When and if the state government balances the recommendations against other uses of that land and the private property within that land.”
I disagree.
If King George could not get away with ‘quartering soldiers in private lands/homes may this unenlightened one inquire as to how Fedzilla can quarter any critter on private land?
For all their beastly behavior, Redcoats didn’t actually devour any colonists - which is more than can be said for beasts protected by the Endangered Species Act.
And? How is that my problem? Sounds like it might be a problem for vested interests, but you don't stop reducing the size of government because there are problems.
It will all sort itself out, in the end. The Feds need to turn the land over to the States, regardless of all the concerns that the concern trolls have.
/johnny
One fellow here in Oregon wants the lands handed over to the counties. The counties can then sell off for development or maintain the lands as is for ‘green space’ or to sell timber. Many of our counties are struggling as most of the land is tied up by the feds, who are no longer managing it as a resource. That’s the main issue.
And then, finally, would be the great return of lands to the states. Doing it this way would hopefully remove obstacles and the ability of arrogant federal judges to interfere with or halt the process.
*******************************
Good posting. I like your ideas on this.
“It will all sort itself out, in the end. The Feds need to turn the land over to the States, regardless of all the concerns that the concern trolls have.”
Good to see you have really thought this through.
Those that are interested in the status quo will turn those problems into insurmountable obstacles.
/johnny
“One fellow here in Oregon wants the lands handed over to the counties.”
That may be an option in some cases. But and this is a big but...you have to have a county government willing and able to follow through on the deal long term. This is where it becomes a problem.
You can believe me or not but in the past I worked on programs trying to transfer land to local/county governments......in the end, once they realized all that was involved and the responsibility and liability they would be taking on, very few remained interested in the deal.
Then those artificial responsibilities and liabilities created by government droids need to be removed with the same law that returns the land to the States.
Of course, that will cost a lot of phony-baloney jobs.
/johnny
“artificial responsibilities and liabilities “
I don’t think you really understand the nature of responsibilities and liabilities that come with land ownership at the government or private level. They may be artificial in the theoretical sense but not in the practical sense. Even the government can’t just wave a magic wand and make them go away.
You make it out to be a much greater problem than it really is.
I suspect that you have a vested interest, and are perhaps a government employee or contractor.
/johnny
First off..it is not the federal governments to sell. Second, the Federal government holds no authority to hold any land other than what is listed in the enumerated powers...17th clause/power.
Thirdly, the states shall regain control of those lands. What they do with them after is none of anyones business other than that state.
If these lands, were to be held by the federal government, then why is it that they are managed as a trust? Trustees are removeable, and it is high time the states remove those trustees and install their own.
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.