Western lawmakers strategize

[Missouri_Mike]

Western lawmakers strategize on taking control of federal lands | Fox News

Officials from nine Western states met in Salt Lake City on Friday to discuss taking control of federal lands within their borders on the heels of a standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management.

Personally I think this should have happened about 100 years ago but maybe it will gain some momentum after the Nevada fiasco.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is their plan to unilaterally amend the Constitution?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Is their plan to unilaterally amend the Constitution?

What in the Constitution would possibly have to be amended to make this happen?

 

[OKTexas]

Western lawmakers strategize on taking control of federal lands | Fox News

Officials from nine Western states met in Salt Lake City on Friday to discuss taking control of federal lands within their borders on the heels of a standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management.

Personally I think this should have happened about 100 years ago but maybe it will gain some momentum after the Nevada fiasco.

The Constitution is on the states side. I hope they really push it.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Western lawmakers strategize on taking control of federal lands | Fox News

Officials from nine Western states met in Salt Lake City on Friday to discuss taking control of federal lands within their borders on the heels of a standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management.

Personally I think this should have happened about 100 years ago but maybe it will gain some momentum after the Nevada fiasco.

The Constitution is on the states side. I hope they really push it.

I do too. Keep some National Forests I'm good with that but 86% of any state being fed owned and controlled is bullshit.

 

[Kosh]

Is their plan to unilaterally amend the Constitution?

Further proof that the far left has no clue about the Constitution.

 

[OKTexas]

Western lawmakers strategize on taking control of federal lands | Fox News



Personally I think this should have happened about 100 years ago but maybe it will gain some momentum after the Nevada fiasco.

The Constitution is on the states side. I hope they really push it.

I do too. Keep some National Forests I'm good with that but 86% of any state being fed owned and controlled is bullshit.

Nope, they shouldn't have any land not directly required for the operation of the government. Right now the feds control one third of the country and that's BS.

 

[tinydancer]

I was thinking earlier today we need to find out every thing we can about the Reid family. Starting heavy duty with Rory.

 

[tinydancer]

The Constitution is on the states side. I hope they really push it.

I do too. Keep some National Forests I'm good with that but 86% of any state being fed owned and controlled is bullshit.

Nope, they shouldn't have any land not directly required for the operation of the government. Right now the feds control one third of the country and that's BS.

Here's what I'm not getting OK. We know Reid and his son manipulated the sale of land to this energy giant. From China. Public lands. Pennies on the dollar. Estimated 30 million for less than 5 million.

How could this happen?

 

[OKTexas]

Is their plan to unilaterally amend the Constitution?

Have you bothered to read the Constitution on the subject? There is no authorization for the government to own land not required for it's operation. Try reading Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, it's really not that complicated.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The Constitution is on the states side. I hope they really push it.

I do too. Keep some National Forests I'm good with that but 86% of any state being fed owned and controlled is bullshit.

Nope, they shouldn't have any land not directly required for the operation of the government. Right now the feds control one third of the country and that's BS.

Actually, I think you are correct. All land goes to the state along with the revenue generated. Arizona isn't going to screw up the cash cow that is the Grand Canyon. We don't need the feds to run that we will be just fine.

Kind of amazing when you think that the only land that was supposed to be federally owned was DC. And within that ownership they were not allowed to have congressmen or senators or even a delegate for voting.

 

[tyroneweaver]

I was thinking earlier today we need to find out every thing we can about the Reid family. Starting heavy duty with Rory.

harry would be better
Rory went on an LDS mission and then BYU
probably done to court the Mormon vote He just doesn't have the scumbag record that Harry has

 

[longknife]

I was thinking earlier today we need to find out every thing we can about the Reid family. Starting heavy duty with Rory.

There's not a whole lot more to learn about the Reid family. They're all a bunch of crooks and liars hiding behind their Mormon religion. That's why Rory lost his last election bid and his father will probably be forced to retire.

Why not? With the millions he's made from politics, he doesn't need it anymore.

 

[longknife]

One can only imagine the kind of firestorm this is going to kick off in DC if it moves forward.

Sounds like a great idea to me! I can see the Feds controlling national parks and other specialized preservation areas but have long believed that each state has the right – and duty – to designate and preserve its own lands – and determine their proper usage.

 

[peach174]

Congress needs to repeal the FLMPA (Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976) and give the States management of the land back to them.
This is when it really started.
This act was the environmentalists dream come true and this is when the abuses started.

 

[OKTexas]

I do too. Keep some National Forests I'm good with that but 86% of any state being fed owned and controlled is bullshit.

Nope, they shouldn't have any land not directly required for the operation of the government. Right now the feds control one third of the country and that's BS.

Here's what I'm not getting OK. We know Reid and his son manipulated the sale of land to this energy giant. From China. Public lands. Pennies on the dollar. Estimated 30 million for less than 5 million.

How could this happen?

It was done under the radar and it was congress that let it happen. I haven't seen the details but I wonder if it was done as a long term lease and not a purchase?

 

[OKTexas]

I do too. Keep some National Forests I'm good with that but 86% of any state being fed owned and controlled is bullshit.

Nope, they shouldn't have any land not directly required for the operation of the government. Right now the feds control one third of the country and that's BS.

Actually, I think you are correct. All land goes to the state along with the revenue generated. Arizona isn't going to screw up the cash cow that is the Grand Canyon. We don't need the feds to run that we will be just fine.

Kind of amazing when you think that the only land that was supposed to be federally owned was DC. And within that ownership they were not allowed to have congressmen or senators or even a delegate for voting.

Actually they are allowed to purchase land with the consent of the States for specific purposes such as forts, magazines, shipyards and other needful buildings, which would include post offices, office buildings, service academies and such. There are no provisions for parks, national forest or anything not directly related to the function of government.

 

[OKTexas]

One can only imagine the kind of firestorm this is going to kick off in DC if it moves forward.

Sounds like a great idea to me! I can see the Feds controlling national parks and other specialized preservation areas but have long believed that each state has the right – and duty – to designate and preserve its own lands – and determine their proper usage.

So you're for big government and the feds controlling assets that aren't "required" for proper government function?