Secondly, the terms of the original grant are clear with regard to purpose, and if a willing buyer comes along offering a decent price, then one theory would have that entrusted land revert. It was not given over to Montana to offer free or greatly reduced price rangeland to cattlemen, and the favored disposition of resources on the cheap is at the heart of a lot of Western disputes, so follow the $$$.
Lastly, the terms of the Supremacy clause alone would void any state statute prohibiting sale to the US.
Hey Bird Brain Chancellor-- a seller, in this case, the State of Montana, has the ultimate right to REFUSE to sell to anyone, including the Feds.
The supremecy clause isn't functional in any way shape or form in this case- that's the beuaty of this ENACTED LAW.
I'm guessing you're pissed because a state has exercised its Constitutional rights under its statehood Enabling Act and Compact provisions which Montanans take seriously.
This is probably, and I say this with guarded optimism, the most significant inroad to quashing one of the legal toys the enviro-whacks thought they had under their shorts.
Deal with it nutzo... It's the LAW in Montana... The federal Government is PROHIBITED from buying state land in Montana. Seller's rights... He/she who owns can refuse ANY offer for any reason... and that is EXACTLY what the people of Montana have decided to do.
Really? Let’s take a look at the ‘Supremacy clause:’
”This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof. and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Tell us: which article of the Constitution (or which treaty) prohibits the States from retaining their own land? Hmm? While you’re searching for an answer, please feel free to read James Madison’s Report on the Virginia Resolutions (a link to which I have provided on my FR home page). As Mr. Madison noted:
”...(T)his Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact--as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties, appertaining to them."
“...the General Assembly views the powers of the federal government ‘as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact,’ and ‘as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants therein enumerated.’ It does not seem possible that any just objection can lie against either of these clauses.“
Now let’s take a look at the “powers of the federal government... enumerated in that compact” which would be applicable to the case at hand:
” 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...”
First, “the Consent of the Legislature of the State” is required – and it looks like the State of Montana may be denying that consent. Second, land may be acquired “for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.” Clearly, no mention is made of ‘United Nations ecological preserves,’ wilderness areas, or similar gimcrackery.
If you are going to refer to the United States Constitution, at least take the time to read the document...
;>)
ARTICLE II
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
Section 1. Popular sovereignty. All political power is vested in and derived from the people. All government of right originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.
Section 2. Self-government. The people have the exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state. They may alter or abolish the constitution and form of government whenever they deem it necessary.
Please bear in mind that the federal government approved this State constitution when Montana was admitted to the union. Perhaps you can tell us: do the peoiple of the State of Montana "have the exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state," who "may alter or abolish the constitution and form of government whenever they deem it necessary," or was the federal government being less than honest when it approved the State constitution? Hmm?
;>)