Posted on 01/29/2017 11:20:09 AM PST by Twotone
Interior secretary nominee Ryan Zinke served his country honorably as a Navy SEAL, but in affirming that he would refuse to loosen the federal government’s chokehold on America’s land, he did the U.S. a great disservice.
Reasonable people can disagree about how much territory the government should own. As an avid outdoorsman, I’m sympathetic to the conservation ideal. Zinke should know, however, that federal land ownership is often at war with that ideal. There is no reasonable excuse for the federal bureaucracy to control a whopping half of the American West, nearly 30 percent of the nation, and over 60 percent of the territory of some states. Most of this federal land is perfectly ordinary — prairie, desert, scrubland, and so forth — not wilderness areas or national parks.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolicy.com ...
No. They can't.
The Constitution clearly states that the only land the federal government can own is the ten miles square (or ten square miles, I forget) that makes up The District of Columbia and military forts, dockyards and Territories. Capital "T" Territories such as Guam and Puerto Rico, not lower case "t" territory.
Otherwise, the land belongs to the states.
Yeah, what you said.
A lot of people idolize Teddy Roosevelt, but the guy was a Progressive and had a lot to do with the notion that the Federal Government had an essential role in grabbing large amounts of land and keeping it away from the US citizens who might use it “inappropriately”.
States deserve to be much more powerful. The federal government should be weak as a kitten within our borders. But able to kick ass against enemies foreign and domestic.
That situation might be ideal, but the Property Clause opens the topic to disagreement among reasonable people, for better or for worse.
Get rid of the Endangered species act first. There’s absolutely no need for it. And then restore the lands that were stolen.
10 square miles, and necessary forts, armory and ports.
....(The Congress shall have Power 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, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;-And other needful Buildings.
Very different from lands under the hand of the BLM.
C 1780, the eastern colonial States like NY CT Mass...gave any lands in the west to the Federal Government. Then there was the Louisiana Purchase and then other pieces....all Federal lands. The Feds reserved some lands when a new state was created.
I think Ohio and Nevada are the most famous examples. The legislatures of those states screwed their citizens by agreeing to those terms.
I'm not saying that the feds owning 80% of Nevada is a good thing. But the Constitution opens the door to the federal government owning enclaves within the states. Unless and until the scope of the Property Clause is defined, I don't foresee a substantial change in the amount of property controlled by the fedgov.
The word "Territory" is capitalized because it refers to specific pieces of land such as Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Here’s the text of the second clause of Section 3 of Article IV:
“The 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; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”
When States were formed from “Territory...belonging to the United States”, the Congress, as recorded in the Enabling Acts for particular States, Congress was not required to nor did it necessarily give all the land within the new States to the newly admitted States.
For those who want to “give the land back to the States”, you can’t give them back something they never had.
(I won’t necessarily be ignoring you, I just have to leave the house now.)
Therein lies the problem. In my area the BLM has declared many of these "perfectly ordinary" deserts and scrublands as wilderness "study areas", where no vehicle can tread. Most are so far removed from paved roads that access to them is almost impossible without a supply train of water for a hiker.
To be continued.
Get rid of Dingy Harry’s minion, Neil Kornze, at the original BLM.
Federal lands (except maybe military reservations with active military bases) within the States should be returned to the States or taken back by the States.
Give all states land back to the states.
Eliminate the _federal_reserve_ and (illegal) _individual_income_tax_ so the states can take care of their own lands; there own laws; there own everything.
DC is to deal with foreign nations, rare Federal territories (like Washington, DC), the national boundary and interstate issues.
All other jurisdiction governance remains with the states and the people. This is _not_ hard to understand.
Shesh. There should be their...
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.