First, we find the limitations of what the nation is authorized to own:
"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"
Next, we run across this odd provision that, by your interpretation, would seem to say that the Congress could sell it's "property" in Nevada to Pennsylvania:
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;
So, if they own 80% of Nevada, then they can sell 80% of Nevada. By my way of thinking, they would not be able to do that because they are not property owners.
As always, you have been a principled, logical FRiend in our discussions, and I appreciate it. If we all agreed all the time on some partyline, then we might as well be liberals.
If you want to state an opinion and make an argument, you must begin with a set of facts. Mr Roger is providing facts in the law that have been in operation since the country was founded. My ancestors received federal land grants for Revolutionary War service in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Georgia. These lands were ceded to the Federal Government when these states entered the Union. The states did this in exchange for the Federal Government assuming our Revolutionary War debt. Sales of these lands helped retire that debt.
Stomping your feet is not going to change those facts. It’s all part of American history and anyone can learn about it.
xzins, I had a long talk last night with my rancher friend, who was my college roommate in the 70s. He has lost 2 allotments outright in the last 6 months and is scrambling to find grazing anywhere. He said he was very sympathetic to Bundy because he’s tired of needing to kiss butt each year with the BLM and is beginning to think his sons will have nothing to inherit.
However, he also said that around 1990, there was a guy who went around telling ranchers that they didn’t need to pay grazing fees, and that the federal government could not own land and that people were citizens of states, but not of America. One of his close friends bought off on it and has spent 20 years refusing to pay income taxes, get a drivers license, etc.He’s sympathetic to his friend as well, but admits it sounds pretty crazy to most people.
Regardless of what one thinks about a law, I think it is important to at least be clear what the law currently is. Under current law, the US could sell much of the BLM land in Nevada to a Chinese investor to build whatever. The Chinese investor would probably soon learn what many settlers learned in the 1800s - that in the mountain west, land without water rights isn’t worth squat. That is why land was not given away during the 1800s: No one wanted it because it has no steady water. No water, no life. You cannot run a factory or a farm without water.
Water rights law might have made it possible for Bundy to make a case. But as it stands, his case is based on his not being an American. That won’t get him or us far in political debate. It will not get him anywhere in court.
It is completely reasonable to argue that the federal government should turn over most of its land to the states. I’d love to see that in Arizona. But I shouldn’t go around telling people that the feds have no authority in Arizona. If I drive to the north of Tucson and hike in the Catalina Mtns, and park along the road without paying, my car will get a ticket and they can collect that ticket in court. I’ll lose, and so will anyone who follows my example.