[McConnell] "She said the 'Rights' word"
Posted on 04/06/2016 8:39:50 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
“Time and time again, the Federal government has breached its promises with respect to the public lands. Western states are moving to compel the Federal government to honor the same promise it made and kept with all states east of Colorado: to timely dispose of the public lands so they can be managed by those whose lives and livelihoods depend upon the wide management of those lands.” - American Lands Council
When the western states were asked to join the union, they each agreed to sign a compact with the federal government much as the eastern states had done. The federal government had turned over lands to the eastern states as they became established, to control and develop their resources for the benefit of those states, in compliance with the compact signed by both parties.
However, the western compacts were not treated the same as the east’s legal, binding contracts. The federal government did not want to relinquish its claims on the rich resources held in the west; resources of timber, mining and minerals. There was a “gold rush” going on at the time and the federal government wanted in on it, so it defaulted on the agreement with the western states.
Excessive federal control and regulation eventually stripped the western states of their right to graze cattle, to mine and to generate a tax base from their natural resources as the eastern states do. The west had watched the fed’s malfeasance and mismanagement of forests, rivers and mining for decades. This created an ongoing feud called the “Sagebrush Rebellion”.
In 1828, the states of Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama and Florida repeatedly complained to Congress. The Enabling Act for those states had not been honored. The Act required the federal government to “extinguish title” to the states...
(Excerpt) Read more at thecoachsteam.com ...
I like Trump’s plan to sell excess federal property to pay off the debt. Unfortunately, the debt won’t stay paid off as politicians will just run it back up.
As long as said property can never be sold to foreign citizens, companies or governments.
Agreed.
Muchof the land by right should belong to thestates. Not just by ‘compact’ either, but because the Constitution does not permit the Federal Government to be a general landowner.
“...the Constitution does not permit the Federal Government to be a general landowner.”
Where is this in the Constitution?
The Constitution allows the federal government to possess land in three forms: territories, enclaves and other property. Territories referred to land that was owned by the federal government but had not been formally made into states. Enclaves referred to land within a state that was owned by the federal government for essential purposes such as ‘Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards.’ Other property refers to land holdings for enumerated purposes, and gives the federal government limited discretion to possess land.
However, the Constitution does not authorize permanent land-grabs by the federal government. It authorizes Congress to make “all needful Rules and Regulations” pertaining to land. ‘Needful’ was a word carefully chosen to indicate that the regulatory power only expanded to powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The feds were expected to sell off non-essential land and distribute the subsequent monies in ways that benefited the public good such as paying off the debt or tax cuts.
The current regime of federal land management is blatantly unconstitutional. The founding fathers never intended to create a Republic where the feds could impose draconian fees on peaceful individuals and force them from the land. As a matter of fact, that is exactly the arrangement that the Constitution was written to prevent, as it clearly violates the principles of fiduciary government, sympathy and independence.
When the historical record is examined, it makes it abundantly clear that the Republic has gone awry since the days of the founders. Systematic attacks on the property rights of Americans have been justified through deliberate misreadings of the Constitution. This will only be changed when the public wakes up, re-discovers their rights and takes action against unjust federal power.
“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; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.” (Article IV, Section 3, second clause)
Note the words “Territory or other Property belonging to the United States”. The “United States”, not the “Federal Government”. Federal Government ownership and possession may stem from “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations”, but I found nothing in the Constitution to support the following statements regarding the Federal Government and ownership or possession:
“The Constitution allows the federal government to possess land in three forms:”
“...land that was owned by the federal government...”
“...gives the federal government limited discretion to possess land.”
My original question was in regard to what is in the Constitution.
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.