Posted on 04/23/2014 6:05:25 AM PDT by ReaganÜberAlles
The fight over Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s cows grazing illegally on federal land is a symbol of a much larger issue: control of land in western states, where the federal government is dominant
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
The map reminds me of a distant kingdom (DC) and it’s far flung “colonies”, the West. Why does the federal government need to possess all this land that rightfully belongs to the individual states?
That’s a telling graphic. Thanks for posting it. Interesting that there’s not one state untouched by FedGov’s grubby fingers.
It belongs to the federal government, but the federal government should have sold it long ago.
I don't see how giving state governments millions of acres of land for free helps anything.
This whole topic needs a lot more thinking and a lot less silliness.
Greg Abbott, TX Attorney General and candidate for governor, has unfurled the “Come and Take It” flag and promised to be there to defend 90,000 acres of borderland between Texas and Oklahoma. Yesterday, the BLM decided it didn’t need that land after all. It would have been poor “optics” to for slavering BLM dogs to attack a man in a wheel chair.
Maybe the “penumbras” from the Kelo v. City of New London Supreme Court decision can embolden the states to just take the Federal land.
Good for the goose, etc.
If it spurs (pun intended) the western states into action then this may be the best thing (yet) to come out of the Bundy standoff.
Nevada must have one HUGE Post Office.
APf
Once a state was admitted to the union, the Feds were to sell, offer as homesteads, and otherwise privatize the land, so that the people benefited. Any revenue raised could thus be used to pay Federal debts/contracts.
The current Federal “ownership” is unconstitutional. The Feds tried this with Missouri and several other states, but the states banded together and were successful in forcing the Feds to divest.
The Bundy issue has been going on for over 20 years. Likewise, the issue the federal lands has been going on since the beginning, but took a increased level with the passage of FLPMA in 1976.
Utah passed the Transfer of Public Lands Act(HB 148) in the spring of 2012 that requires the transfer by the end of 2014, after which, I guess, Utah would sue.
You can find a lot of internet info, pros and cons, and details of which lands
They are rescinding their loan of the land to the feral government.
“Why does the federal government need to possess all this land that rightfully belongs to the individual states?”
I see no good reason to agree with your premises.
As far as I can tell, the federal government does not “possess all this land”. The United States possess all this land. The federal government is an agent of the States. Admittedly it’s out of control, but it’s still an agent. The federal government is not the United States.
Why should this land rightfully belong to the individual states? The land was acquired and therefore owned by the United States as a group, so by what process did ownership change when a new state was created? Do we not believe in property rights or do they not apply in this situation for some reason?
BF, you’ve been a great source of thoughtfully presented information on these threads. I appreciate your contributions.
“The land rightfully belongs to the people”
By what right? Did the people buy it or inherit it? Did they conquer it? Of course if by “the people” you mean the people of the United States, not the people of an individual state, the answer to my last two questions is “yes”.
“not to the government (state or federal).”
We agree there.
Because every state has a military base, Indian reservation, interstate hightway, or National Park. Among other things.
Get the federal government to sell the land to them. All it takes is the approval of Congress.
Wow, there are actually people on FRee Republic that do not know that the very definition of a state is those entities that are soveriegn over the lands of USA. The amount of land which DC owns should be almost _none_: the District (DC) and land granted to it by the states for Federal buildings and facilities, e.g., court houses, airports. Those are the only areas DC owns; previous Indian lands not withstanding. Furthermore, Federal land is the only place where Federal law has juristiction. State and local law controls all non-Federal land.
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.