See this red area, that should be the ONLY FEDERAL LAND EVER!!!
Posted on 12/06/2014 7:23:46 AM PST by HomerBohn
The federal government has 31.2 million acres of Utah's land, and Utah wants it back.
According to the Washington Times on Wednesday, in three weeks, Utah plans to seize control of its own land now under the control of the federal government. Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, in an unprecedented challenge to federal dominance of Western state lands, in 2012 signed the “Transfer of Public Lands Act,” which demands that Washington relinquish its hold on the land. The land being held represents more than half of the state’s 54.3 million acres, by Dec. 31.
State Rep. Ken Ivory, who sponsored the legislation, isn't deterred even though the federal government hasn't given any indication that it plans to cooperate. “That’s what you do any time you’re negotiating with a partner. You set a date,” said Ivory. “Unfortunately, our federal partner has decided they don’t want to negotiate in good faith. So we’ll move forward with the four-step plan that the governor laid out.” That plan involves a program of education, negotiation, legislation and litigation. “We’re going to move forward and use all the resources at our disposal,” stated Ivory, who also heads the American Lands Council, which advocates the relinquishing of federal lands to the control of the states.
One might ask why Utah wants it's land back now. Well, it seems there’s hydrocarbons in those hills. The Salt Lake Tribune reported on Tuesday that an analysis from three state universities states that Utah can afford to take over more than half the state from the federal government, and may even be able to make more money on it than the feds have. It should be noted that the transfer would require either an act of Congress or a successful lawsuit.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
See this red area, that should be the ONLY FEDERAL LAND EVER!!!
I don’t really care who owns it as long as its not Washington. Washington EPA uses this land as a dagger to impose its “Special” policies on the neighbors and that needs to end. Give the land to the State or local government if nobody will buy it. We need to get Washington DC out of this Business.
That didn't make them true.
FWIW, when I lived in the West 20 years ago the greenies hated the BLM. Called it the Bureau of Livestock and Mining.
Was an article of faith among the greenies that BLM's primary goal was to despoil the environment as much as they possibly could.
I spent a lot of time hiking and camping on BLM land. Always seemed to me that they did a pretty good job given their challenges.
That may have changed since. Don't know.
One time, hiking on public BLM land, I encountered a Bundy type rancher. Insisted it was his land and I had no right to walk across it. Got kind of threatening.
Of course, he did NOT own the land, he merely leased the right to graze cattle on it, and I had every right to be there as long as I didn't molest his cattle.
But in his mind, it was HIS land, just as apparently Bundy thinks hundreds of thousands of acres of public domain adjoining his 160 acre base ranch are HIS land.
Doesn't mean they are legally, morally or constitutionally right in that belief.
There is very little federal Land in Texas
Doesnt mean they weren’t true.
The Feds have a long history of confiscating private property. It goes back a LONG LONG way. Heck you can go into the Smoky Mountains and see cabins that were forcibly taken from the private owners for no other reason then the Federal Govt wanted it.
The Feds have more lawyers than the average individual. We don’t stand a chance of winning against their onslaught of legal mumbo jumbo.
I’m curious how you think 5A applies.
I do know that as late, I believe, as the 70s, much public domain land was available for homesteading at low or no cost.
Policies for sale of land varied greatly over time.
Okay. That the federal government may have taken land for various purposes in the past doesn’t mean they took Bundy’s land.
My own family was forced to sell land to the federal govrnment because it was too close to the shore of a reservoir in Kansas.
Well said. I concur.
You’re focusing on Bundy and ignoring all of the other examples.
Why?
The point is the government is out of control and needs to be reigned in.
It's a living document. /sarc
Which other examples? We can’t discuss whether the federal government misbehaved in a particular taking without specifics.
I have no doubt the government needs to be reined in.
But your argument sounds, so far, an awful lot like the recent rape story from VA. Cite an example of federal misbehavior. When shown that it isn’t accurate, or at least is more complicated than portrayed, claim that the accuracy of the particular case isn’t important, because the real issue is bigger than specific cases.
I bought into Bundy’s BS too, till I read up on the case.
Yes, the federal government is too powerful.
No, that doesn’t mean everybody who comes into conflict with it is in the right.
As they have the right to do, if they follow due process.
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
We can argue about whether a particular taking is legitimately "for public use" or whether the compensation is "just."
But we can't argue that the government never has a constitutional right to take private property.
Good to know!
GO UTAH!!!!
Stinking federal thieves.
Why are you evading?
Amen to that! Stinking thieving government.
Specifics? This is an internet forum not a court of law. You obviously have a vested interest here.
Evading what?
Ask a specific question and I’ll answer it. As best I can.
And the States should only own land for highways and prisons. The land should belong to the people.
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.