Yeah, I'd say that's "a lot."
Posted on 12/04/2014 12:37:49 PM PST by george76
How understated. “A lot of property”? How about most of the land mass.
Yeah, I'd say that's "a lot."
No. The states don’t own the feds. They are separate governments.
The people ‘own’ the fed. Utah didn’t exist at the time. They certainly didn’t own land before the existed. I will agree the people should insist their government sell most the land and let it be productive.
But if the fed could not own land, they could not have purchased land past the original colonies.
“But if the fed could not own land, they could not have purchased land past the original colonies.”
Sorry, but that doesn’t wash. The Fed Gov owns very little of any of the states east of the Mississippi, most of which were not one of the 13 original colonies. What happened with the West is that the Federal Government exacted most of the land in each of the new states as the “price” for admission to the Union. Now that may well have been the right course at the time, but it has long since outlived any rational reason. And FWIW, Utah did exist before it became a state, but Utah had to “pay a dowry” to the Fed to be allowed to become a state. They continue to cite the petty amounts they paid to the French (The LA Purchase), and the Mexicans ( Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo) as the primary reason for “taking the bribes.”
It’s time to start an orderly process of returning virtually all of that land to each respective state, and at the same time disband all of the Federal Land Management Agencies. Either that or change the name of the country, because clearly there is no Constitutional authority for the land staying in Fed hands.
I’d suggest educating yourself before you keep looking very uniformed.
Well, how much did the federal octopus pay Utah, or any other state for that matter???
>> “Disgraceful for such a beautiful, rugged State” <<
.
Almost as disgraceful as the state claiming ownership of the rain that falls on your roof!
.
bkmk
Then by all means educate me.
Why should the federal government pay Utah, or any other state, for property it owned when it created the state to begin with?
Those were your words. They are not true. The Federal Government has owned land since we began growing past the original colonies.
I agreed the federal government should not retain the amount of land they still do today.
Those were your words. They are not true. The Federal Government has owned land since we began growing past the original colonies.
I agreed the federal government should not retain the amount of land they still do today.
Someone else beat me to it.
Then answer the question I posed in the first part of reply 26.
I have been watching this. I hope they have the courage to do it and it will be a model for other states.
That was answered too. I am seeing a trend to your posts. You think a big federal government taking all it can is a good thing and you defend it.
And how much are they going to pay the federal government for it? .....Exactly what the Feds paid the states. Zilch.
I posted from the enabling act in reply 7.....There has been precedent set. Laws mean nothing to the Feds, ergo nothing to the States.
No, I am stating a fact of life. The land belonged to the governemnt when they created the state. The land was retained by the government when it approved the enabling act. Nothing in the Constitution prevents that. Congress, and Congress alone, has the power to dispose of the land and there is absolutely no reason why they couldn't or shouldn't sell it to Utah for a fair price.
And I noticed you still couldn't answer the question I posed.
Why should the feds pay any state for something that they already own.
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.