Posted on 12/04/2014 12:37:49 PM PST by george76
And I read up on the court decision. The ruling in question does not overturn the Utah law against polygamy so it does not overrule the enabling act.
Your answer came from other posters.
I simply see a statist.
Oh that angers me to no end...but, what people don't know won't hurt anyone. Live as free men, and free men you will be.
When I took civics I was taught the federal government could only own the DC land, everything else was State. The Constitution does not grant lands to the feds. Every State needs to take back their lands.
“The Federal Government has owned land since we began growing past the original colonies.”
But outside the States. The Constitution grants the federal government the area of DC of ten square miles. That’s it. Most of the lands the fed owns today were taken after the States were formed. Teddy Roosevelt started much of it.
Not really, no. And since you can't answer them either then I'll let the question drop.
I simply see a statist.
And I'd say you're seeing things.
I have driven to and through all kinds of federal forest land in Oregon and thousand of acres of burned forest some 20 years old just sit there rotting, filled with weeds and dead trees and no birds or animals anywhere in sight. The environmentalists (the feds) will not let Oregonians harvest the burnt trees and replant, why, because if they allowed that then the loggers would be setting fires all over the state in federal forest lands.
Now when another fires sweeps through that tinder fuel of dead and rotting trees it will burn so hot as to put a sterile glass sheen on the surface where no green anything will grow. It is the most asnine management I have ever witnessed, meanwhile we have 14% unemployment and our timber mills are shutting down.
Douglas fir is the most prolific tree growing in our coast mountain range on the planet. They are Oregon's resource crop. Like Iowa and corn, we grow trees, it is just a 40 year crop instead of annual.
If your claiming the federal government could never own land outside DC, how could it expand past the original colonies?
You’re ok with feds owning everything. Other posters have refuted your claims, yet you stubbornly cling to the side of socialism. Until I see otherwise, that’s what I see.
The federal government never owned the original colonies. They existed long before the USA existed.
And how did the next state come into existence after the 13? And all the ones that followed?
Aside from Texas, that was an independent nation that joined by Treaty...
That was federal land but once a State is formed the feds do not won the State. Do you own the previous house you sold to someone else?
Step one, we agree the federal government can own land. Correct?
once a State is formed the feds do not won the State.
Forming the state, it specified what land the feds would retain. I'm not familiar with all the states, but I've read the documentation for Alaska that broke up the acreage. If the document is not binding, there isn't a state.
Please understand, I'm in no was suggesting the fed should retain near the amount of land they do. They should not.
But I was responding to the claim the Fed's COULD NOT own land, and that is false.
Good example.
It is common to sell property and keep mineral rights, dividing up the original estate. Or dividing large acreage and keeping portions. I'm not required to keep it 100% intact.
“Forming the state, it specified what land the feds would retain.”
There ya go. The fed isn’t supposed to retain any lands.
Doing so lays the foundation that the fed can take back lands. States are sovereign territories (that means they have borders), and are not subject to federal discretion.
If the fed can carve up a State’s internal lands then the fed could easily just move borders around by taking land from one State then giving it to another.
I don't see that requirement. I agree they retain too much.
“I’m not required to keep it 100% intact.”
So, you can sell a house but keep the living room? Or sell a car but keep rights to drive it too?
I can keep whatever rights and access I put into the contract to sell. A simple example is also to retain roadway that passes through. I’ve include such items on other land deals.
If the seller doesn’t agree, they don’t buy and sign the contract.
Exactly, however, show me in the US constitution whereby the federal government can take lands from the States.
The ENTIRE point being made is that State’s have had lands taken against the contract they entered into.
Think about the entire concept of the federal government. It is a union, not an overlord. The ONLY thing the union participants agreed to is that the US Constitution would be the supreme law of the land in that every State had to honor it. They did not agree that the federal government would be the supreme ruler with the ability to make whatever laws they desired. The federal government is restricted in its actions by the Constitution, the contract.
As a union, the federal government does not own anything within the State boundaries. The federal government represents a union, not a land owning government of any kind. It can hold land as territories, but it cannot own a State. If it cannot own a State then it cannot own any part of a State.
If you are claiming the federal government can own any part of any State then it can own the entire State.
If the federal government can own all lands within a State then the State does not exist.
First, I was responding to a post that claimed the Federal Government could not own lands outside of DC. We both seem to agree that is false.
Secondly, I only see in this article discussion of the State trying to take land from the Feds. I hope they win, but I don't read what you are describing.
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.