Posted on 12/06/2014 7:23:46 AM PST by HomerBohn
In just about every state, when it achieved statehood the vast majority of the land was still owned by the federal government. It was generally sold off gradually to private buyers, or acquired by mining claim, homestead, etc.
In western states nobody wanted most of it, so it simply stayed in federal ownership.
I think that the feds should conform to what ever Law governs Land use in the State in which they hold land.
They may own it but they should be subject to the same terms and conditions as any other land owner.
They, like other states, tried, but the convoluted and confusing system of America's courts knocked down the will of the people.
Let’s watch and see what happens....with baited breath.
Since the perverted parasite is a craven coward, he might just go out for a round of golf. This might be an excellent time for states to get ALL their territory returned.
Excuse me but the Constitutional Defense Council is a construction of ALEC. It is the model and Utah, Idaho, Arizona, etc are using the same ALEC model.
You can say "Government of the State of Utah" but they are just the front for ALEC, Heartland, American Lands Council, etc
It is all being funded by dark money, most likely coming from the fossil fuel industry and real estate developers, and others.
Well....it's a good going in position.
Lawyers always make outrageous claims to start the negotiation.
But it has a root in the reality of the settlement. The original colonies - the States - would not have agreed that by making a federal compact they were turning over their land to a managerial elite, or even that they shared a collectivist notion of national ownership.
The federal union was a mutual cooperation society of sovereign people and their respective states.
That upon Statehood the people of Utah agreed to let the federals sell off the dirt which had been Territorial land to collect some cash was of course normal back then. But upon sale, they expected the land and the populace would then be part of the State, and eventually the federal interest would be mostly extinguished.
But times and beliefs changed. Now we have a collectivist federal government which holds State sovereignty in contempt - the ultimate result of Lincoln's nonsense arguments about contractual rights in regards to the Union.
So Utah's arguments can be seen in an Originalist light - if you aren't going to sell the land to make some money, it's ours. That's why we agreed to play the game, you said nothing about using it as a museum.
Contracts have intent, right?
The Federal government did not create Utah. The Mormons did. They were there before the Mexican war, and they did indeed settle it. There were no Mexicans there, only a few Spaniards down in the mountains of New Mexico (500 miles away), and certainly no Federal troops or outposts.
That's why they went there. No Nauvoos. They still remember.
So over time the concept of who it all really belongs to - or should - has clearly changed, but mostly on the federal side. Maybe Utah should have given the feds a time limit to sell the land, with a reversion clause. Guess they weren't in a position to do so in 1894.
But the United States are returning to an earlier notion of self determination and their relationship to the federal union - this demand being one expression of that I think.
Some of the claims may seem a stretch but considered in a historical light, not so much.
It will be, as you said, a policy debate. The one that Clinton couldnt be bothered with when he pre-emptively abused (again) his powers.
Essentially a re-balancing of the relationship over the land, as the document referenced noted.
That’s awful.
Evil developers - land rapers! - and drooling oil drillers desperate to destroy the land in search of Filthy PROFIT!
It horrible. It awful.
Yeah, I know. The document is some policy paper cooked up by an interest group, and waved around by the State to buttress its case.
Umm, so what. The Left is nothing but a bunch of policy groups mostly funded by despicable government largesse and their output used to push the latest power grab by frozen faced Marxists living in splendid marble buildings in Washington.
So Utah is just playing the game and the real estate developer who is the governor is pushing the position that he’s interested in. That’s politics.
The document still makes good points, and all the arguments are not on the side the Watermelon Front.
Gutsy, constitutional move by Utah. Let’s pray that they are successful.
The Bundy ranch, several of his neighbors, thousands of acres in south Florida for the everglades, the list is virtually endless.
You’re talking National Forest. My comments have been mostly regarding BLM land. The two are related but distinct issues.
Most Forest land in the west is in mountains and is well wooded. (Obviously.) It was withdrawn from sale as “Forest Reserves” starting in 1891. Given the way loggers were misusing timber resources on private land at the time, it’s difficult to argue this wasn’t a wise decision. (Which is not to say that it’s still relevant.)
Most BLM land is semi-arid or desert. Much of this land was still available for purchase as late as the 70s, but with few if any buyers.
You need to come up with the money and buy this land if you want it. This welfare for the rich is getting old.
Pretty much agree.
Minor nit.
The Mexican War started in spring of 1846. The Mormons arrived in Utah in summer of 1847. Which was during, not prior to, the war.
When they arrived, it was still technically part of Mexico, and they had zero legal right to settle there.
Mexican sovereignty and ownership of the land were transferred to the US by treaty ratified in the spring of 1848. At that point the Mormons became squatters on US land without legal right.
Every state needs to do this.
Hey, I tried!
Back in the day you could buy wasteland up by Promontory for like $100 per acre from the government. I think some of it was even homesteadable...but you had to have reptile genes to make that work.
I ended up with ordinary subdivided sheep ranch land which I sold too soon, but that’s a different discussion....
Most BLM land in Oregon is prime cattle grazing land. The feds need to give back state lands. The reason why they don’t want to is because lobbyists are giving politicians huge amounts of money to prevent competition. You think Georgia-Pacific wants lumber mills to start back up in Oregon? Why do you think the big players in wood products give money to watermelon organizations? Because they have large privately owned forests that don’t have smelly hippies chaining themselves to trees in.
Follow the money.
What land owned by Mr. Bundy did the federals grab?
They are still working on his ranch. Perhaps you missed it in the news.
As for that $100/acre, after the Quachita Mtns old growth was clear cut in the 20s and 30s, it could be had for $2/acre. The forest service snapped up much of it to create the Natl Forest there.
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.