Who owns the west?

[ThoughtCrimes]

What in the Hell does that have to do with Pollard v. Hagan and the Equality of States Doctrine you were so hot about? Guess you decided you couldn't defend such an idiotic position so you shift it to territorial homesteaders! Does the number count for anything or their claim to the land they homesteaded? I'm thinking you're still digging!

You appear to have missed my post #136 to you while you were digging that hole. Here is the portion to answer that redundant query yet again...do try to keep up!

It all has to do with constitutional purpose dummy.

In your mind maybe asshole, but what does it have to do with the topic of the thread vis-à-vis Public Lands held by the People and "Who Owns the West", the title of this thread? You're just pissed because you can't get anything you're throwing at the wall to stick. Life's a bitch, ain't it!!!!

We the people own nothing, the federal government is holding lands, depriving States of revenue and most all of it is for unconstitutional purposes. They are NEITHER MANDATED BY OR ALLOWED IN THE CONSTITUTION to do so. So unless you believe there are no constitutional restrictions on the federal government, it's as plain as the noise on your face.

You're just spraying more generalities on the wall and nothing is sticking because you cannot back it up with ANYTHING but your faulty and wacko opinions. Keep on digging, Tex!

Going to dinner and a concert now. Ta ta!

Poor thing, you choice to remain willfully ignorant is amazing.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45

Your trying to duck the topic of this thread and I'm not going to let you do your pivot, twit, so here is my post #172 you ignored yet again, which fits perfectly, AGAIN!

'In your mind maybe asshole, but what does it have to do with the topic of the thread vis-à-vis Public Lands held by the People and "Who Owns the West", the title of this thread? You're just pissed because you can't get anything you're throwing at the wall to stick. Life's a bitch, ain't it!!!!'

Respond to the topic asshole, or not at all with your dodging drivel!

 

[OKTexas]

It all has to do with constitutional purpose dummy.

In your mind maybe asshole, but what does it have to do with the topic of the thread vis-à-vis Public Lands held by the People and "Who Owns the West", the title of this thread? You're just pissed because you can't get anything you're throwing at the wall to stick. Life's a bitch, ain't it!!!!

We the people own nothing, the federal government is holding lands, depriving States of revenue and most all of it is for unconstitutional purposes. They are NEITHER MANDATED BY OR ALLOWED IN THE CONSTITUTION to do so. So unless you believe there are no constitutional restrictions on the federal government, it's as plain as the noise on your face.

You're just spraying more generalities on the wall and nothing is sticking because you cannot back it up with ANYTHING but your faulty and wacko opinions. Keep on digging, Tex!

Going to dinner and a concert now. Ta ta!

Poor thing, you choice to remain willfully ignorant is amazing.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45

Your trying to duck the topic of this thread and I'm not going to let you do your pivot, twit, so here is my post #172 you ignored yet again, which fits perfectly, AGAIN!

'In your mind maybe asshole, but what does it have to do with the topic of the thread vis-à-vis Public Lands held by the People and "Who Owns the West", the title of this thread? You're just pissed because you can't get anything you're throwing at the wall to stick. Life's a bitch, ain't it!!!!'

Respond to the topic asshole, or not at all with your dodging drivel!

I did and I proved the retention of lands that don't lend to the critical constitutional mission of the federal government are unconstitutional. That includes about 97% of all federal lands.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's why Trump is doing such a great service by overturning obama's land grabs and returning the land to the states.

Bless him.

The land never belonged to the states. Take for example the Louisiana Purchase. That was ALL federal land until the federal government allowed the various states to form under the Constitution,

which is the Supreme law of the land OVER the states.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In your mind maybe asshole, but what does it have to do with the topic of the thread vis-à-vis Public Lands held by the People and "Who Owns the West", the title of this thread? You're just pissed because you can't get anything you're throwing at the wall to stick. Life's a bitch, ain't it!!!!

We the people own nothing, the federal government is holding lands, depriving States of revenue and most all of it is for unconstitutional purposes. They are NEITHER MANDATED BY OR ALLOWED IN THE CONSTITUTION to do so. So unless you believe there are no constitutional restrictions on the federal government, it's as plain as the noise on your face.

You're just spraying more generalities on the wall and nothing is sticking because you cannot back it up with ANYTHING but your faulty and wacko opinions. Keep on digging, Tex!

Going to dinner and a concert now. Ta ta!

Poor thing, you choice to remain willfully ignorant is amazing.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45

Your trying to duck the topic of this thread and I'm not going to let you do your pivot, twit, so here is my post #172 you ignored yet again, which fits perfectly, AGAIN!

'In your mind maybe asshole, but what does it have to do with the topic of the thread vis-à-vis Public Lands held by the People and "Who Owns the West", the title of this thread? You're just pissed because you can't get anything you're throwing at the wall to stick. Life's a bitch, ain't it!!!!'

Respond to the topic asshole, or not at all with your dodging drivel!

I did and I proved the retention of lands that don't lend to the critical constitutional mission of the federal government are unconstitutional. That includes about 97% of all federal lands.

lol you proved nothing. The federal government owns the states, to whom certain limited powers are delegated.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In your mind maybe asshole, but what does it have to do with the topic of the thread vis-à-vis Public Lands held by the People and "Who Owns the West", the title of this thread? You're just pissed because you can't get anything you're throwing at the wall to stick. Life's a bitch, ain't it!!!!

We the people own nothing, the federal government is holding lands, depriving States of revenue and most all of it is for unconstitutional purposes. They are NEITHER MANDATED BY OR ALLOWED IN THE CONSTITUTION to do so. So unless you believe there are no constitutional restrictions on the federal government, it's as plain as the noise on your face.

You're just spraying more generalities on the wall and nothing is sticking because you cannot back it up with ANYTHING but your faulty and wacko opinions. Keep on digging, Tex!

Going to dinner and a concert now. Ta ta!

Poor thing, you choice to remain willfully ignorant is amazing.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45

Your trying to duck the topic of this thread and I'm not going to let you do your pivot, twit, so here is my post #172 you ignored yet again, which fits perfectly, AGAIN!

'In your mind maybe asshole, but what does it have to do with the topic of the thread vis-à-vis Public Lands held by the People and "Who Owns the West", the title of this thread? You're just pissed because you can't get anything you're throwing at the wall to stick. Life's a bitch, ain't it!!!!'

Respond to the topic asshole, or not at all with your dodging drivel!

I did and I proved the retention of lands that don't lend to the critical constitutional mission of the federal government are unconstitutional. That includes about 97% of all federal lands.

Your understanding comes to nil of the critical constitutional mission of the federal government.

You have no evidence.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

In your mind maybe asshole, but what does it have to do with the topic of the thread vis-à-vis Public Lands held by the People and "Who Owns the West", the title of this thread? You're just pissed because you can't get anything you're throwing at the wall to stick. Life's a bitch, ain't it!!!!

We the people own nothing, the federal government is holding lands, depriving States of revenue and most all of it is for unconstitutional purposes. They are NEITHER MANDATED BY OR ALLOWED IN THE CONSTITUTION to do so. So unless you believe there are no constitutional restrictions on the federal government, it's as plain as the noise on your face.

You're just spraying more generalities on the wall and nothing is sticking because you cannot back it up with ANYTHING but your faulty and wacko opinions. Keep on digging, Tex!

Going to dinner and a concert now. Ta ta!

Poor thing, you choice to remain willfully ignorant is amazing.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45

Your trying to duck the topic of this thread and I'm not going to let you do your pivot, twit, so here is my post #172 you ignored yet again, which fits perfectly, AGAIN!

'In your mind maybe asshole, but what does it have to do with the topic of the thread vis-à-vis Public Lands held by the People and "Who Owns the West", the title of this thread? You're just pissed because you can't get anything you're throwing at the wall to stick. Life's a bitch, ain't it!!!!'

Respond to the topic asshole, or not at all with your dodging drivel!

I did and I proved the retention of lands that don't lend to the critical constitutional mission of the federal government are unconstitutional. That includes about 97% of all federal lands.

You didn't prove a damn thing, other than you will take every opportunity you can to conjure up excuses to avoid taking responsibility for your errors and lack of basic knowledge while displaying how bereft of critical thinking skills you truly are! What does your Madison quote from The Federalist #45 have to do with the topic of this thread? Absolutely nothing, but it does point directly toward your central misconception of Constitutional authority. Your stunt trying to somehow connect the decision in Pollack v. Hagan and the Equality of States Doctrine was just asinine!

Our Constitution was purposefully created as a democratic form of government with shared powers, responsibilities and sovereignty between the National and State governments with the National holding supremacy; in other words FEDERALISM! When the Constitution was ratified in 1788, the decision was made that of the two main factions with different concepts of governance, the federalist plan prevailed, and the antifederalists failed to maintain their concepts of State supremacy which had failed so miserably under the Confederation. The antifederalists lost and we have the Federalist system of today, like it or lump it, Tex!

Whether you like it or not, Federalism prevailed. Because a State was granted statehood, that grant didn't automagically convey all the property rights and titles belonging to the National and the People within that new State's borders. You can't prove that in the Constitution, you can't prove that in law, and you can't prove that in any judicial review! You've tried to bluff it, but failed miserably!

 

[OKTexas]

We the people own nothing, the federal government is holding lands, depriving States of revenue and most all of it is for unconstitutional purposes. They are NEITHER MANDATED BY OR ALLOWED IN THE CONSTITUTION to do so. So unless you believe there are no constitutional restrictions on the federal government, it's as plain as the noise on your face.

You're just spraying more generalities on the wall and nothing is sticking because you cannot back it up with ANYTHING but your faulty and wacko opinions. Keep on digging, Tex!

Going to dinner and a concert now. Ta ta!

Poor thing, you choice to remain willfully ignorant is amazing.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45

Your trying to duck the topic of this thread and I'm not going to let you do your pivot, twit, so here is my post #172 you ignored yet again, which fits perfectly, AGAIN!

'In your mind maybe asshole, but what does it have to do with the topic of the thread vis-à-vis Public Lands held by the People and "Who Owns the West", the title of this thread? You're just pissed because you can't get anything you're throwing at the wall to stick. Life's a bitch, ain't it!!!!'

Respond to the topic asshole, or not at all with your dodging drivel!

I did and I proved the retention of lands that don't lend to the critical constitutional mission of the federal government are unconstitutional. That includes about 97% of all federal lands.

lol you proved nothing. The federal government owns the states, to whom certain limited powers are delegated.

Typical regressive, ass backwards from reality.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Libertarian or 'constitutionalist' interpretations are generally inaccurate.

Oh, a constitutionalist is a facade for folks who just want to yell "got off my lawn" and "I don't want to pay for public roads" but yell to the police to get their young girls off the street corners.

 

[OKTexas]

We the people own nothing, the federal government is holding lands, depriving States of revenue and most all of it is for unconstitutional purposes. They are NEITHER MANDATED BY OR ALLOWED IN THE CONSTITUTION to do so. So unless you believe there are no constitutional restrictions on the federal government, it's as plain as the noise on your face.

You're just spraying more generalities on the wall and nothing is sticking because you cannot back it up with ANYTHING but your faulty and wacko opinions. Keep on digging, Tex!

Going to dinner and a concert now. Ta ta!

Poor thing, you choice to remain willfully ignorant is amazing.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45

Your trying to duck the topic of this thread and I'm not going to let you do your pivot, twit, so here is my post #172 you ignored yet again, which fits perfectly, AGAIN!

'In your mind maybe asshole, but what does it have to do with the topic of the thread vis-à-vis Public Lands held by the People and "Who Owns the West", the title of this thread? You're just pissed because you can't get anything you're throwing at the wall to stick. Life's a bitch, ain't it!!!!'

Respond to the topic asshole, or not at all with your dodging drivel!

I did and I proved the retention of lands that don't lend to the critical constitutional mission of the federal government are unconstitutional. That includes about 97% of all federal lands.

You didn't prove a damn thing, other than you will take every opportunity you can to conjure up excuses to avoid taking responsibility for your errors and lack of basic knowledge while displaying how bereft of critical thinking skills you truly are! What does your Madison quote from The Federalist #45 have to do with the topic of this thread? Absolutely nothing, but it does point directly toward your central misconception of Constitutional authority. Your stunt trying to somehow connect the decision in Pollack v. Hagan and the Equality of States Doctrine was just asinine!

Our Constitution was purposefully created as a democratic form of government with shared powers, responsibilities and sovereignty between the National and State governments with the National holding supremacy; in other words FEDERALISM! When the Constitution was ratified in 1788, the decision was made that of the two main factions with different concepts of governance, the federalist plan prevailed, and the antifederalists failed to maintain their concepts of State supremacy which had failed so miserably under the Confederation. The antifederalists lost and we have the Federalist system of today, like it or lump it, Tex!

Whether you like it or not, Federalism prevailed. Because a State was granted statehood, that grant didn't automagically convey all the property rights and titles belonging to the National and the People within that new State's borders. You can't prove that in the Constitution, you can't prove that in law, and you can't prove that in any judicial review! You've tried to bluff it, but failed miserably!

Your argument fails miserably on one pivotal point, Article 5 which give the States the power to change or even abolish the federal government at will. And Federalist 45 has everything to do with the OP in that the federal government was never intended to be involved with the welfare of the individual that is left to the States. The feds are clearly supposed to attend to matters beyond the States. The unnecessary retention of State lands are not within constitutional federal authority.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You're just spraying more generalities on the wall and nothing is sticking because you cannot back it up with ANYTHING but your faulty and wacko opinions. Keep on digging, Tex!

Going to dinner and a concert now. Ta ta!

Poor thing, you choice to remain willfully ignorant is amazing.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45

Your trying to duck the topic of this thread and I'm not going to let you do your pivot, twit, so here is my post #172 you ignored yet again, which fits perfectly, AGAIN!

'In your mind maybe asshole, but what does it have to do with the topic of the thread vis-à-vis Public Lands held by the People and "Who Owns the West", the title of this thread? You're just pissed because you can't get anything you're throwing at the wall to stick. Life's a bitch, ain't it!!!!'

Respond to the topic asshole, or not at all with your dodging drivel!

I did and I proved the retention of lands that don't lend to the critical constitutional mission of the federal government are unconstitutional. That includes about 97% of all federal lands.

You didn't prove a damn thing, other than you will take every opportunity you can to conjure up excuses to avoid taking responsibility for your errors and lack of basic knowledge while displaying how bereft of critical thinking skills you truly are! What does your Madison quote from The Federalist #45 have to do with the topic of this thread? Absolutely nothing, but it does point directly toward your central misconception of Constitutional authority. Your stunt trying to somehow connect the decision in Pollack v. Hagan and the Equality of States Doctrine was just asinine!

Our Constitution was purposefully created as a democratic form of government with shared powers, responsibilities and sovereignty between the National and State governments with the National holding supremacy; in other words FEDERALISM! When the Constitution was ratified in 1788, the decision was made that of the two main factions with different concepts of governance, the federalist plan prevailed, and the antifederalists failed to maintain their concepts of State supremacy which had failed so miserably under the Confederation. The antifederalists lost and we have the Federalist system of today, like it or lump it, Tex!

Whether you like it or not, Federalism prevailed. Because a State was granted statehood, that grant didn't automagically convey all the property rights and titles belonging to the National and the People within that new State's borders. You can't prove that in the Constitution, you can't prove that in law, and you can't prove that in any judicial review! You've tried to bluff it, but failed miserably!

Your argument fails miserably on one pivotal point, Article 5 which give the States the power to change or even abolish the federal government at will. And Federalist 45 has everything to do with the OP in that the federal government was never intended to be involved with the welfare of the individual that is left to the States. The feds are clearly supposed to attend to matters beyond the States. The unnecessary retention of State lands are not within constitutional federal authority.

There you go again trying to get more of your crap to stick to the wall. I haven't a clue of which argument I made you might be claiming failed regarding the amendment process of Article V with your typical vagueness surrounding your comment, but that is not necessary to determine in any case given your failed logic. The national government held title to the lands it had purchased with treasury funds, lands acquired by treaty and lands acquired as the spoils of war. Now where is/are the amendments that have magically changed that? They only exist in your mind and not in the realm of the living! But you keep digging, Tex!

Is The Federalist #45 LAW and AGAIN I ASK, what does it have to do with the public lands held by the national government for which the several States have not lawfully obtained title? What the Hell are you thinking? Here's an ACTUAL law regarding THE ACTUAL TOPIC;

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976), Pub. Law 94-579 - It states in part; "The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that the public lands be retained in federal ownership..." Its Constitutional authority comes from the property powers of Article IV, § 3 and the General Welfare and Necessary and Proper Clauses in Article I, §§ 1 & 18. It is codified in 43 USC, §§ 1701-1787! Now you will probably claim it too is unconstitutional like everything else that disagrees with your warped impression of how things are actually set out in law regarding the topic of this thread, but that is just you trying to exert your impotent will within your cocooned and myopic universe.

Ta ta, Tex!

 

[OKTexas]

Poor thing, you choice to remain willfully ignorant is amazing.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45

Your trying to duck the topic of this thread and I'm not going to let you do your pivot, twit, so here is my post #172 you ignored yet again, which fits perfectly, AGAIN!

'In your mind maybe asshole, but what does it have to do with the topic of the thread vis-à-vis Public Lands held by the People and "Who Owns the West", the title of this thread? You're just pissed because you can't get anything you're throwing at the wall to stick. Life's a bitch, ain't it!!!!'

Respond to the topic asshole, or not at all with your dodging drivel!

I did and I proved the retention of lands that don't lend to the critical constitutional mission of the federal government are unconstitutional. That includes about 97% of all federal lands.

You didn't prove a damn thing, other than you will take every opportunity you can to conjure up excuses to avoid taking responsibility for your errors and lack of basic knowledge while displaying how bereft of critical thinking skills you truly are! What does your Madison quote from The Federalist #45 have to do with the topic of this thread? Absolutely nothing, but it does point directly toward your central misconception of Constitutional authority. Your stunt trying to somehow connect the decision in Pollack v. Hagan and the Equality of States Doctrine was just asinine!

Our Constitution was purposefully created as a democratic form of government with shared powers, responsibilities and sovereignty between the National and State governments with the National holding supremacy; in other words FEDERALISM! When the Constitution was ratified in 1788, the decision was made that of the two main factions with different concepts of governance, the federalist plan prevailed, and the antifederalists failed to maintain their concepts of State supremacy which had failed so miserably under the Confederation. The antifederalists lost and we have the Federalist system of today, like it or lump it, Tex!

Whether you like it or not, Federalism prevailed. Because a State was granted statehood, that grant didn't automagically convey all the property rights and titles belonging to the National and the People within that new State's borders. You can't prove that in the Constitution, you can't prove that in law, and you can't prove that in any judicial review! You've tried to bluff it, but failed miserably!

Your argument fails miserably on one pivotal point, Article 5 which give the States the power to change or even abolish the federal government at will. And Federalist 45 has everything to do with the OP in that the federal government was never intended to be involved with the welfare of the individual that is left to the States. The feds are clearly supposed to attend to matters beyond the States. The unnecessary retention of State lands are not within constitutional federal authority.

There you go again trying to get more of your crap to stick to the wall. I haven't a clue of which argument I made you might be claiming failed regarding the amendment process of Article V with your typical vagueness surrounding your comment, but that is not necessary to determine in any case given your failed logic. The national government held title to the lands it had purchased with treasury funds, lands acquired by treaty and lands acquired as the spoils of war. Now where is/are the amendments that have magically changed that? They only exist in your mind and not in the realm of the living! But you keep digging, Tex!

Is The Federalist #45 LAW and AGAIN I ASK, what does it have to do with the public lands held by the national government for which the several States have not lawfully obtained title? What the Hell are you thinking? Here's an ACTUAL law regarding THE ACTUAL TOPIC;

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976), Pub. Law 94-579 - It states in part; "The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that the public lands be retained in federal ownership..." Its Constitutional authority comes from the property powers of Article IV, § 3 and the General Welfare and Necessary and Proper Clauses in Article I, §§ 1 & 18. It is codified in 43 USC, §§ 1701-1787! Now you will probably claim it too is unconstitutional like everything else that disagrees with your warped impression of how things are actually set out in law regarding the topic of this thread, but that is just you trying to exert your impotent will within your cocooned and myopic universe.

Ta ta, Tex!

1, Article 4 has nothing to do with land within a States boundaries.
2. The General Welfare Clause is a spending category and is restricted by the the remainder of the Article which grants no such authority.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

3. And the Necessary and Proper Clause only applies to the powers enumerated to the feds by the Constitution which grant no such authority.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

4. Don't even get me started on the number of times SCOTUS has made extra-constitutional decisions.

I sincerely hope the States will finally get the balls to do something about all of it.

 

[initforme]

Once land is given to private hands, people lose. Keep private slimeball corporate hands off. They will hurt people.

 

[Old Rocks]

The federal government, who represents We the People, owns most of the West.

Not the locals. Not the extraction industries. We the People.

Show me the constitutional authority for the feds to retain land in a territory granted Statehood.

It IS in the Constitution. For acquisition of DC, forts, monuments, etc. But it's vague. And certainly not in perpetuity and forever within a fully functioning State...

Me thinks you should read that again, here, I'll help. My bold

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

So where do you see national parks, monuments, wildlife refuges or anything else not necessary to the function of the federal government?

It's in the same place as the authority for National Parks. Or Atomic Weapons testing. Or ICBM silos.. You wanna buy some Fed land in Nevada for cheap? It's got a LOT of 2 headed snakes on it..

Atomic weapons were tested on military test ranges and most silos are on land purchased with the consent of the State. There is no authority for National Parks. That was invented by SCOTUS.

The National Parks are one of the best ideas we have ever had. Reserving the very best and most unique for the use of all citizens. Fuck bastards like you that want to give them to the very rich.

 

[Old Rocks]

Federal government cannot afford to pay for the maintenance of all that Federal land, best if it's turned over to the states

No, best if we use that land to pay for the maintenance of it. Most of it was commons at one time, and was overgrazed, and degraded.

 

[Old Rocks]

There are only three Constitutional circumstances wherein the federal government may claim state lands in perpetuity.

Parks and monuments are not included.

Those lands never belonged to the states

I'd be willing to sell them at fair market value

I would not. They are invaluable to citizens. They are places where you can still go and live for a while alone, with just the quiet land around you for company. Most of these lands, BLM, would be classified as badlands. Many areas will only support one cow per hundred acres. Any more, and you damage the land. Before the BLM started controlling those lands, they were being rapidly degraded. In some areas where greedy assholes are still grazing more than the land can support without degrading it, we have assholes threatening the people that are supposed to enforce the laws.

 

[OKTexas]

Show me the constitutional authority for the feds to retain land in a territory granted Statehood.

It IS in the Constitution. For acquisition of DC, forts, monuments, etc. But it's vague. And certainly not in perpetuity and forever within a fully functioning State...

Me thinks you should read that again, here, I'll help. My bold

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

So where do you see national parks, monuments, wildlife refuges or anything else not necessary to the function of the federal government?

It's in the same place as the authority for National Parks. Or Atomic Weapons testing. Or ICBM silos.. You wanna buy some Fed land in Nevada for cheap? It's got a LOT of 2 headed snakes on it..

Atomic weapons were tested on military test ranges and most silos are on land purchased with the consent of the State. There is no authority for National Parks. That was invented by SCOTUS.

The National Parks are one of the best ideas we have ever had. Reserving the very best and most unique for the use of all citizens. Fuck bastards like you that want to give them to the very rich.

Fine, get an amendment to authorize them, if they're so popular it should be a piece of cake. All I'm saying is do it the right way instead of using the courts to rewrite the Constitution or just ignoring it just because you think it's a good idea.

 

[Old Rocks]

You are talking loonyville again. When the territories petitioned for state hood, they made contracts with the federal government about those matters. Only Texas was exempt and did not give up its lands.

You are talking loonyville again. When the territories petitioned for state hood, they made contracts with the federal government about those matters. Only Texas was exempt and did not give up its lands.

If you want to look up the admission agreements, you can probably find them online.

Show me the admission agreements for these.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/...monument-bears-ears-utah-gold-butte.html?_r=0

If you want to look up the admission agreements, you can probably find them online.

Show me the admission agreements for these.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/...monument-bears-ears-utah-gold-butte.html?_r=0

Dumb ass, those were and are federally owned lands already. The National Monument designation merely changes some of the uses that they can be put to.

 

[Old Rocks]

It IS in the Constitution. For acquisition of DC, forts, monuments, etc. But it's vague. And certainly not in perpetuity and forever within a fully functioning State...

Me thinks you should read that again, here, I'll help. My bold

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

So where do you see national parks, monuments, wildlife refuges or anything else not necessary to the function of the federal government?

It's in the same place as the authority for National Parks. Or Atomic Weapons testing. Or ICBM silos.. You wanna buy some Fed land in Nevada for cheap? It's got a LOT of 2 headed snakes on it..

Atomic weapons were tested on military test ranges and most silos are on land purchased with the consent of the State. There is no authority for National Parks. That was invented by SCOTUS.

The National Parks are one of the best ideas we have ever had. Reserving the very best and most unique for the use of all citizens. Fuck bastards like you that want to give them to the very rich.

Fine, get an amendment to authorize them, if they're so popular it should be a piece of cake. All I'm saying is do it the right way instead of using the courts to rewrite the Constitution or just ignoring it just because you think it's a good idea.

Look, dumb ass, Camp has already pointed out that there is a section of the Constitution that specifically states that the federal government has jurisdiction and ownership of those lands. So cease your silly and lying nonsense.

 

[Old Rocks]

Show me the constitutional authority for the feds to retain land in a territory granted Statehood.

It IS in the Constitution. For acquisition of DC, forts, monuments, etc. But it's vague. And certainly not in perpetuity and forever within a fully functioning State...

You're correct that it's in the Constitution, but you've cited the wrong Article. Actually, it's in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 and not too terribly vague;

"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."

I'd say continuing to claim 80% of Nevada and Most of the West does " prejudice any claims of the US or of any particular State" --- wouldn't you?

Nope! If Nevada wants a portion of public lands within there borders, they are perfectly able to either purchase it, request a grant of it or do a land swap with the title holder of that land; the People. I had to pay for my house and its improvements, so why should Nevada or any other State expect such largess as implied from the People to improve their House?

Well of course.. I didn't suggest that the it get transferred for free. But the people of Nevada are also the CITIZENS of Nevada with livelihoods and businesses and conservation groups who could ALL PURCHASE that land. Doesn't have to be the State doing all the real estate transactions. AND -- it should be OPEN for unsolicited bids..

Oh fine, another fucking asshole desiring to sell US land that now belongs to all citizens to the Saudis and Chinese.

 

[Old Rocks]

That's why Trump is doing such a great service by overturning obama's land grabs and returning the land to the states.

Bless him.

The land will still be federal land. Trump is proposing taking away the Federal Monument status that protects the land from certain types development of some of the land. His proposal is to open the lands to private industry for extraction of resources.

US taxpayers have been paying for the protection, caretaking, and maintenance of those lands. The states do not have the financial ability to do the same.

And none of that is true. These brand new out the door federal land grabs did nothing but take land from the states. The US taxpayer did not pay a dime for the maintenance of these sites. Trump's proposal is to return the land to the states where that land has been since before the state was a state. Trump cannot open state land up for private development. It's state land. Only the state can make that decision.

You dumb ass, the Golden Ears area is BLM. The Feds already own it. All that is happening is that there are some new restrictions on how it can be used.