Who owns the west?

[OKTexas]

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.

Yeah he did, except it doesn't apply to land within a State, it applies to US Territories. As the SCOTUS case that was posted says, once a State is erected a new sovereign is involved.

 

[Old Rocks]

Do lefties really think portions of the U.S. are "owned" rather than governed? Maybe that's the reason the democrat party lost most of the governorships in the last decade. Why do lefties think "we the people" isn't the same as the federal government?

Revolutionary War soldiers were given "government owned" property as payment for their service during the war. The US government became property owners as a result of the Revolution.

And then was the Homestead Act. where a person could lay claim on 160 to 320 acres, work it and improve it in specified manners, and get title to it.

 

[Old Rocks]

We the People have always owned those lands. We paid for them

States were formed on land we already owned. If they want to buy back those lands from the rest of us....let them pay fair market price

Repeating nonsense only confirms its value as nonsense.

The Constitution is the law. Period. And it covers all states.

And Art 4 Sec 3 makes it quite clear that the federal government for We the People governs national lands. Not you. Not the locals. Not the states.

And this says for what purposes the feds may have legislative authority over lands within a State:

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;--

That Article does not refer to public lands. It refers to lands in a state that have been purchased by the federal government

So where did they get the Authority to buy the Sam Houston National Forest from TX in the 1930s? Come on dude, let's see how consistent you are.

SAM HOUSTON NATIONAL FOREST. The Sam Houston National Forest is off Interstate Highway 45 and U.S. Highway 59 about forty miles north of Houston. It comprises some 161,508 acres, with 47,609 acres in Montgomery County, 59,746 acres in San Jacinto County, and 54,153 acres in Walker County. The preserve is administered by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service local headquarters in Lufkin. The national forests in Texas were established by an act of the Texas legislature in 1933 that authorized the purchase of lands for the national forest system. President Franklin D. Roosevelt proclaimed these purchases on October 15, 1936.

SAM HOUSTON NATIONAL FOREST | The Handbook of Texas Online| Texas State Historical Association (TSHA)

My goodness, OKTexas, you are looking pretty Goddamned stupid right now. Established by an act of the Texas legislature.

 

[OKTexas]

Repeating nonsense only confirms its value as nonsense.

The Constitution is the law. Period. And it covers all states.

And Art 4 Sec 3 makes it quite clear that the federal government for We the People governs national lands. Not you. Not the locals. Not the states.

And this says for what purposes the feds may have legislative authority over lands within a State:

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;--

That Article does not refer to public lands. It refers to lands in a state that have been purchased by the federal government

So where did they get the Authority to buy the Sam Houston National Forest from TX in the 1930s? Come on dude, let's see how consistent you are.

SAM HOUSTON NATIONAL FOREST. The Sam Houston National Forest is off Interstate Highway 45 and U.S. Highway 59 about forty miles north of Houston. It comprises some 161,508 acres, with 47,609 acres in Montgomery County, 59,746 acres in San Jacinto County, and 54,153 acres in Walker County. The preserve is administered by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service local headquarters in Lufkin. The national forests in Texas were established by an act of the Texas legislature in 1933 that authorized the purchase of lands for the national forest system. President Franklin D. Roosevelt proclaimed these purchases on October 15, 1936.

SAM HOUSTON NATIONAL FOREST | The Handbook of Texas Online| Texas State Historical Association (TSHA)

My goodness, OKTexas, you are looking pretty Goddamned stupid right now. Established by an act of the Texas legislature.

I already brought that up as an example of an unconstitutional act, how do you square that with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17? Where does it authorize that purchase?

 

[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.

Uh nooo, the FED is not supposed to own STATE land like that. It's suppose to go to the states, who do a much better job at representing the people who live in those states than the FED. The federal government was told twice by SCOTUS to give the land back to the states. If the fed owns that land, then we as citizens cannot own that land.

You dumb fuck, it is we citizens that own that land. Any and all of us can use that land within the legal uses established for it. Hunting, fishing, hiking, rock hunting, or any of the other many recreational purposes that the land has. Local ranchers can get permits to graze their cows on it at less than $1.38 per unit, as opposed the $20 per unit per month on private land. So the Feds are also subsidizing our beef.

 

[Old Rocks]

Do lefties really think portions of the U.S. are "owned" rather than governed? Maybe that's the reason the democrat party lost most of the governorships in the last decade. Why do lefties think "we the people" isn't the same as the federal government?

What a fucked up idiot you are. On the BLM and Forest Service land I can hunt, fish, look for rocks, or just hike and enjoy the land. Huge portions of the private land now have hunting and fishing rights sold to private sports clubs. A very big area in Eastern Oregon had the ranches there sell their hunting access to a sports club. I looked up the club, to find out what it took to be a member. It was totally owned by Saudi's. This is what you are advocating for by advocating the privatization of the BLM and Forest Service land.

If you're caught taking rocks you can be prosecuted.

There are many areas that are known for collecting rocks here in Oregon on Forest Service land, and BLM land. The only people I know that have been prosecuted for taking rocks off of public land was a damned fool that was hauling out building rock by the dump truck load. Stupid, as had he gotten a permit from the Forest Service, he could have had that rock for a small fraction of it's value.

 

[OKTexas]

Do lefties really think portions of the U.S. are "owned" rather than governed? Maybe that's the reason the democrat party lost most of the governorships in the last decade. Why do lefties think "we the people" isn't the same as the federal government?

What a fucked up idiot you are. On the BLM and Forest Service land I can hunt, fish, look for rocks, or just hike and enjoy the land. Huge portions of the private land now have hunting and fishing rights sold to private sports clubs. A very big area in Eastern Oregon had the ranches there sell their hunting access to a sports club. I looked up the club, to find out what it took to be a member. It was totally owned by Saudi's. This is what you are advocating for by advocating the privatization of the BLM and Forest Service land.

If you're caught taking rocks you can be prosecuted.

There are many areas that are known for collecting rocks here in Oregon on Forest Service land, and BLM land. The only people I know that have been prosecuted for taking rocks off of public land was a damned fool that was hauling out building rock by the dump truck load. Stupid, as had he gotten a permit from the Forest Service, he could have had that rock for a small fraction of it's value.

And that alters the fact that it's against the law, HOW? Oregon has some great labradorite mines, I have some nice examples. It's unique among other labradorite because it contains copper.

 

[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 Right would love to see all those landmarks filled with skyscrapers and trailer parks.

But this is really about far more than that. You see, lands like Southeastern Oregon have tremendous energy potential. Both wind and solar, with a lot of land with geothermal potential. Now, if an asshole like the orange clown can get something that gives him and the other assholes the right to buy that land, then they have a real profit creator. And then they can also grant the hunting and fishing rights to clubs, clubs often owned and operated by foreigners. And recreation on those lands will be limited to club members. In the mean time, local rancher will have to pay the market price for grazing, and the smaller land holders will be bankrupt in a year, and the owners of the land will also buy up that land at fire sale prices.

All these assholes on this board that are advocating for the privatization of the BLM and Forest Service cannot see beyond the end of their nose. Of course, most of these assholes think that recreation is another night at the bars.

 

[Old Rocks]

Do lefties really think portions of the U.S. are "owned" rather than governed? Maybe that's the reason the democrat party lost most of the governorships in the last decade. Why do lefties think "we the people" isn't the same as the federal government?

What a fucked up idiot you are. On the BLM and Forest Service land I can hunt, fish, look for rocks, or just hike and enjoy the land. Huge portions of the private land now have hunting and fishing rights sold to private sports clubs. A very big area in Eastern Oregon had the ranches there sell their hunting access to a sports club. I looked up the club, to find out what it took to be a member. It was totally owned by Saudi's. This is what you are advocating for by advocating the privatization of the BLM and Forest Service land.

If you're caught taking rocks you can be prosecuted.

There are many areas that are known for collecting rocks here in Oregon on Forest Service land, and BLM land. The only people I know that have been prosecuted for taking rocks off of public land was a damned fool that was hauling out building rock by the dump truck load. Stupid, as had he gotten a permit from the Forest Service, he could have had that rock for a small fraction of it's value.

And that alters the fact that it's against the law, HOW? Oregon has some great labradorite mines, I have some nice examples. It's unique among other labradorite because it contains copper.

No, it is not against the law. And the Sun Stone mines you refer to are privately owned, and there is an area that the BLM has established as strictly for amateurs, no commercial collecting allowed. Been there, done that, same for most of the areas in Oregon with collectable mineral.

 

[Old Rocks]

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2
"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."

The federal government assumed authority over the West, they didn't buy it, with the exception of Alaska. Even Alaska was treated differently, than say, the land bought under the LA purchase.

Sure Tex, if you wish to totally ignore the Texas Annexation of 1845 netting 389,000 sq. miles, or the Oregon Treaty of 1846 with those 286,000 sq. miles, or the Mexican Cession of 1848 adding another 525,000 sq. miles or the Gadsden Purchase of 1854 with another 29,670 sq. miles. Of that 1.23 Million sq. miles, some was purchased, some was split by treaty and some was obtained as spoils of war.

But the manner in which it was obtained does not change the fact that ALL of the land, save that within those territories which may have been held by parties with proper title, became the property of the United States held in trust for the People of the United States. Ignore the totality of the Constitution at your own peril!

There were no States of the United States within these territories when the US took possession of them was there. Therefore, NO STATE had a prior claim to be negatively impacted. Be sure to follow OSHA regs with that hole you're digging!

In the Constitution, what power is given to the United States over the subject we are now discussing? In a territory they are sovereign, but when a state is erected a change occurs. A new sovereign comes in. Where the power of taxation occurs, it is because it has been yielded by compact.

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

.

If you want to make an argument on the Equality of States Doctrine, and how it pertains to PUBLIC LANDS, make it! But be warned, Tex, Pollard v. Hagan is the wrong vehicle to travel upon given the topic of this thread!

Usufructuary rights are relevant only if they were held prior to becoming a State which could not possibly happen given the State never existed to obtain any rights before Statehood!

So tell me, how many people had homesteaded the lands the feds retained?

Homesteading by the Numbers
Compiled by Homestead National Monument of America Historian Todd Arrington, April 24, 2007

1: Number of National Park Service sites dedicated to the commemoration and interpretation of the Homestead Act of 1862 and the many changes it initiated in the United States and the world.

10: Percentage of U.S. land given away under the Homestead Act.

24: Presidential administrations during which the Homestead Act was in effect (Lincoln to Reagan).

30: Number of states in which homestead lands were located.

40: Percentage of homesteaders that "proved up" on their claims and earned the deed from the federal government.

45: Percentage of Nebraska's acres distributed under the Homestead Act [Largest percentage of any state].

123: Years the Homestead Act was in effect (1863-1986).

160: Number of acres in a typical homestead claim.

4,000,000: Approximate number of claims made under the Homestead Act.

11,000,000: Acres claimed in 1913, the peak year of homestead claims.

93,000,000: Estimated number of homesteader descendants alive today.

270,000,000: Total number of acres distributed by the Homestead Act.

Homesteading by the Numbers - Homestead National Monument of America (U.S. National Park Service)

270,000,000 acres transferred from Federal land to Private individuals. And half a continent settled.

 

[OKTexas]

Do lefties really think portions of the U.S. are "owned" rather than governed? Maybe that's the reason the democrat party lost most of the governorships in the last decade. Why do lefties think "we the people" isn't the same as the federal government?

What a fucked up idiot you are. On the BLM and Forest Service land I can hunt, fish, look for rocks, or just hike and enjoy the land. Huge portions of the private land now have hunting and fishing rights sold to private sports clubs. A very big area in Eastern Oregon had the ranches there sell their hunting access to a sports club. I looked up the club, to find out what it took to be a member. It was totally owned by Saudi's. This is what you are advocating for by advocating the privatization of the BLM and Forest Service land.

If you're caught taking rocks you can be prosecuted.

There are many areas that are known for collecting rocks here in Oregon on Forest Service land, and BLM land. The only people I know that have been prosecuted for taking rocks off of public land was a damned fool that was hauling out building rock by the dump truck load. Stupid, as had he gotten a permit from the Forest Service, he could have had that rock for a small fraction of it's value.

And that alters the fact that it's against the law, HOW? Oregon has some great labradorite mines, I have some nice examples. It's unique among other labradorite because it contains copper.

No, it is not against the law. And the Sun Stone mines you refer to are privately owned, and there is an area that the BLM has established as strictly for amateurs, no commercial collecting allowed. Been there, done that, same for most of the areas in Oregon with collectable mineral.

The mines are privately owned but are on BLM land. I'll have to check out what areas are open to amateurs, might be able to find me some gems.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sure Tex, if you wish to totally ignore the Texas Annexation of 1845 netting 389,000 sq. miles, or the Oregon Treaty of 1846 with those 286,000 sq. miles, or the Mexican Cession of 1848 adding another 525,000 sq. miles or the Gadsden Purchase of 1854 with another 29,670 sq. miles. Of that 1.23 Million sq. miles, some was purchased, some was split by treaty and some was obtained as spoils of war.

But the manner in which it was obtained does not change the fact that ALL of the land, save that within those territories which may have been held by parties with proper title, became the property of the United States held in trust for the People of the United States. Ignore the totality of the Constitution at your own peril!

There were no States of the United States within these territories when the US took possession of them was there. Therefore, NO STATE had a prior claim to be negatively impacted. Be sure to follow OSHA regs with that hole you're digging!

In the Constitution, what power is given to the United States over the subject we are now discussing? In a territory they are sovereign, but when a state is erected a change occurs. A new sovereign comes in. Where the power of taxation occurs, it is because it has been yielded by compact.

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

.

If you want to make an argument on the Equality of States Doctrine, and how it pertains to PUBLIC LANDS, make it! But be warned, Tex, Pollard v. Hagan is the wrong vehicle to travel upon given the topic of this thread!

Usufructuary rights are relevant only if they were held prior to becoming a State which could not possibly happen given the State never existed to obtain any rights before Statehood!

So tell me, how many people had homesteaded the lands the feds retained?

So tell me, how many people had homesteaded the lands the feds retained?

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!

But the manner in which it was obtained does not change the fact that ALL of the land, save that within those territories which may have been held by parties with proper title, became the property of the United States held in trust for the People of the United States. Ignore the totality of the Constitution at your own peril!

It all has to do with constitutional purpose dummy.

No, it has to do with your idiot ideology. You are trying to give away to the large corporations the land that we Americans have had access to and owned jointly for generations.

 

[Old Rocks]

What a fucked up idiot you are. On the BLM and Forest Service land I can hunt, fish, look for rocks, or just hike and enjoy the land. Huge portions of the private land now have hunting and fishing rights sold to private sports clubs. A very big area in Eastern Oregon had the ranches there sell their hunting access to a sports club. I looked up the club, to find out what it took to be a member. It was totally owned by Saudi's. This is what you are advocating for by advocating the privatization of the BLM and Forest Service land.

If you're caught taking rocks you can be prosecuted.

There are many areas that are known for collecting rocks here in Oregon on Forest Service land, and BLM land. The only people I know that have been prosecuted for taking rocks off of public land was a damned fool that was hauling out building rock by the dump truck load. Stupid, as had he gotten a permit from the Forest Service, he could have had that rock for a small fraction of it's value.

And that alters the fact that it's against the law, HOW? Oregon has some great labradorite mines, I have some nice examples. It's unique among other labradorite because it contains copper.

No, it is not against the law. And the Sun Stone mines you refer to are privately owned, and there is an area that the BLM has established as strictly for amateurs, no commercial collecting allowed. Been there, done that, same for most of the areas in Oregon with collectable mineral.

The mines are privately owned but are on BLM land. I'll have to check out what areas are open to amateurs, might be able to find me some gems.

https://www.blm.gov/or/resources/recreation/files/brochures/sunstone_rec_brochure.pdf

If you go, make sure you have water and both warm and cold weather clothes. And a wind breaker. It can be either 100 or 40 on a July day, and the wind is usually blowing. Nights are cold, high desert cold, often frosting even in the summer. Plush is just a small store, with limited supplies. Nearest town for food and housing is Lakeview.

 

[OKTexas]

The federal government assumed authority over the West, they didn't buy it, with the exception of Alaska. Even Alaska was treated differently, than say, the land bought under the LA purchase.

Sure Tex, if you wish to totally ignore the Texas Annexation of 1845 netting 389,000 sq. miles, or the Oregon Treaty of 1846 with those 286,000 sq. miles, or the Mexican Cession of 1848 adding another 525,000 sq. miles or the Gadsden Purchase of 1854 with another 29,670 sq. miles. Of that 1.23 Million sq. miles, some was purchased, some was split by treaty and some was obtained as spoils of war.

But the manner in which it was obtained does not change the fact that ALL of the land, save that within those territories which may have been held by parties with proper title, became the property of the United States held in trust for the People of the United States. Ignore the totality of the Constitution at your own peril!

There were no States of the United States within these territories when the US took possession of them was there. Therefore, NO STATE had a prior claim to be negatively impacted. Be sure to follow OSHA regs with that hole you're digging!

In the Constitution, what power is given to the United States over the subject we are now discussing? In a territory they are sovereign, but when a state is erected a change occurs. A new sovereign comes in. Where the power of taxation occurs, it is because it has been yielded by compact.

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

.

If you want to make an argument on the Equality of States Doctrine, and how it pertains to PUBLIC LANDS, make it! But be warned, Tex, Pollard v. Hagan is the wrong vehicle to travel upon given the topic of this thread!

Usufructuary rights are relevant only if they were held prior to becoming a State which could not possibly happen given the State never existed to obtain any rights before Statehood!

So tell me, how many people had homesteaded the lands the feds retained?

Homesteading by the Numbers
Compiled by Homestead National Monument of America Historian Todd Arrington, April 24, 2007

1: Number of National Park Service sites dedicated to the commemoration and interpretation of the Homestead Act of 1862 and the many changes it initiated in the United States and the world.

10: Percentage of U.S. land given away under the Homestead Act.

24: Presidential administrations during which the Homestead Act was in effect (Lincoln to Reagan).

30: Number of states in which homestead lands were located.

40: Percentage of homesteaders that "proved up" on their claims and earned the deed from the federal government.

45: Percentage of Nebraska's acres distributed under the Homestead Act [Largest percentage of any state].

123: Years the Homestead Act was in effect (1863-1986).

160: Number of acres in a typical homestead claim.

4,000,000: Approximate number of claims made under the Homestead Act.

11,000,000: Acres claimed in 1913, the peak year of homestead claims.

93,000,000: Estimated number of homesteader descendants alive today.

270,000,000: Total number of acres distributed by the Homestead Act.

Homesteading by the Numbers - Homestead National Monument of America (U.S. National Park Service)

270,000,000 acres transferred from Federal land to Private individuals. And half a continent settled.

What it doesn't say is how many of those homesteads were reabsorbed by the feds when they were granted Statehood.

 

[OKTexas]

In the Constitution, what power is given to the United States over the subject we are now discussing? In a territory they are sovereign, but when a state is erected a change occurs. A new sovereign comes in. Where the power of taxation occurs, it is because it has been yielded by compact.

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

.

If you want to make an argument on the Equality of States Doctrine, and how it pertains to PUBLIC LANDS, make it! But be warned, Tex, Pollard v. Hagan is the wrong vehicle to travel upon given the topic of this thread!

Usufructuary rights are relevant only if they were held prior to becoming a State which could not possibly happen given the State never existed to obtain any rights before Statehood!

So tell me, how many people had homesteaded the lands the feds retained?

So tell me, how many people had homesteaded the lands the feds retained?

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!

But the manner in which it was obtained does not change the fact that ALL of the land, save that within those territories which may have been held by parties with proper title, became the property of the United States held in trust for the People of the United States. Ignore the totality of the Constitution at your own peril!

It all has to do with constitutional purpose dummy.

No, it has to do with your idiot ideology. You are trying to give away to the large corporations the land that we Americans have had access to and owned jointly for generations.

I have the Constitution as a backup, all you have is your opinion.

 

[Camp]

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.

Yeah he did, except it doesn't apply to land within a State, it applies to US Territories. As the SCOTUS case that was posted says, once a State is erected a new sovereign is involved.

I'll bet, or at least assume, that you have not bothered to examine even one single state constitution for the eight western states that that have those huge amounts of federal lands within their borders. If you did, you would discover and be able to confirm what you have already been told. The states agreed to cede and relinquish claims to public lands in the territory as prerequisites to becoming states. That happened because the American public was well aware of the cost of making those lands safe and secure through the use of federal troops and US Marshalls and the public was not inclined to hand over lands obtained by federal blood and treasure to land barons and private industry. There was no valid reason for relinquishing control of public lands within a territory just because the residents of a territory wanted the benefits of becoming a state. The public lands were the property of the US government when they were territories. Statehood would not be allowed to strip that ownership and control of public lands. That is why the territories were required to stipulated the ceding of any claims to public lands before obtaining statehood.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sure Tex, if you wish to totally ignore the Texas Annexation of 1845 netting 389,000 sq. miles, or the Oregon Treaty of 1846 with those 286,000 sq. miles, or the Mexican Cession of 1848 adding another 525,000 sq. miles or the Gadsden Purchase of 1854 with another 29,670 sq. miles. Of that 1.23 Million sq. miles, some was purchased, some was split by treaty and some was obtained as spoils of war.

But the manner in which it was obtained does not change the fact that ALL of the land, save that within those territories which may have been held by parties with proper title, became the property of the United States held in trust for the People of the United States. Ignore the totality of the Constitution at your own peril!

There were no States of the United States within these territories when the US took possession of them was there. Therefore, NO STATE had a prior claim to be negatively impacted. Be sure to follow OSHA regs with that hole you're digging!

In the Constitution, what power is given to the United States over the subject we are now discussing? In a territory they are sovereign, but when a state is erected a change occurs. A new sovereign comes in. Where the power of taxation occurs, it is because it has been yielded by compact.

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

.

If you want to make an argument on the Equality of States Doctrine, and how it pertains to PUBLIC LANDS, make it! But be warned, Tex, Pollard v. Hagan is the wrong vehicle to travel upon given the topic of this thread!

Usufructuary rights are relevant only if they were held prior to becoming a State which could not possibly happen given the State never existed to obtain any rights before Statehood!

So tell me, how many people had homesteaded the lands the feds retained?

Homesteading by the Numbers
Compiled by Homestead National Monument of America Historian Todd Arrington, April 24, 2007

1: Number of National Park Service sites dedicated to the commemoration and interpretation of the Homestead Act of 1862 and the many changes it initiated in the United States and the world.

10: Percentage of U.S. land given away under the Homestead Act.

24: Presidential administrations during which the Homestead Act was in effect (Lincoln to Reagan).

30: Number of states in which homestead lands were located.

40: Percentage of homesteaders that "proved up" on their claims and earned the deed from the federal government.

45: Percentage of Nebraska's acres distributed under the Homestead Act [Largest percentage of any state].

123: Years the Homestead Act was in effect (1863-1986).

160: Number of acres in a typical homestead claim.

4,000,000: Approximate number of claims made under the Homestead Act.

11,000,000: Acres claimed in 1913, the peak year of homestead claims.

93,000,000: Estimated number of homesteader descendants alive today.

270,000,000: Total number of acres distributed by the Homestead Act.

Homesteading by the Numbers - Homestead National Monument of America (U.S. National Park Service)

270,000,000 acres transferred from Federal land to Private individuals. And half a continent settled.

What it doesn't say is how many of those homesteads were reabsorbed by the feds when they were granted Statehood.

Only the failed ones. The ones that were proven up were granted full title to the land.

 

[Camp]

If you want to make an argument on the Equality of States Doctrine, and how it pertains to PUBLIC LANDS, make it! But be warned, Tex, Pollard v. Hagan is the wrong vehicle to travel upon given the topic of this thread!

Usufructuary rights are relevant only if they were held prior to becoming a State which could not possibly happen given the State never existed to obtain any rights before Statehood!

So tell me, how many people had homesteaded the lands the feds retained?

So tell me, how many people had homesteaded the lands the feds retained?

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!

But the manner in which it was obtained does not change the fact that ALL of the land, save that within those territories which may have been held by parties with proper title, became the property of the United States held in trust for the People of the United States. Ignore the totality of the Constitution at your own peril!

It all has to do with constitutional purpose dummy.

No, it has to do with your idiot ideology. You are trying to give away to the large corporations the land that we Americans have had access to and owned jointly for generations.

I have the Constitution as a backup, all you have is your opinion.

No, you do not. Throughout this thread, you have shown a complete lack of understanding of the sections of the constitution you have quoted and a refusal to recognize sections that deal directly with the topic being discussed.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Yeah he did, except it doesn't apply to land within a State, it applies to US Territories. As the SCOTUS case that was posted says, once a State is erected a new sovereign is involved.

I'll bet, or at least assume, that you have not bothered to examine even one single state constitution for the eight western states that that have those huge amounts of federal lands within their borders. If you did, you would discover and be able to confirm what you have already been told. The states agreed to cede and relinquish claims to public lands in the territory as prerequisites to becoming states. That happened because the American public was well aware of the cost of making those lands safe and secure through the use of federal troops and US Marshalls and the public was not inclined to hand over lands obtained by federal blood and treasure to land barons and private industry. There was no valid reason for relinquishing control of public lands within a territory just because the residents of a territory wanted the benefits of becoming a state. The public lands were the property of the US government when they were territories. Statehood would not be allowed to strip that ownership and control of public lands. That is why the territories were required to stipulated the ceding of any claims to public lands before obtaining statehood.

Fine, just show me the constitutional justification for that kind of extortion or where it authorizes parks and national forest ect. and I'll be quiet.

 

[OKTexas]

So tell me, how many people had homesteaded the lands the feds retained?

So tell me, how many people had homesteaded the lands the feds retained?

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!

But the manner in which it was obtained does not change the fact that ALL of the land, save that within those territories which may have been held by parties with proper title, became the property of the United States held in trust for the People of the United States. Ignore the totality of the Constitution at your own peril!

It all has to do with constitutional purpose dummy.

No, it has to do with your idiot ideology. You are trying to give away to the large corporations the land that we Americans have had access to and owned jointly for generations.

I have the Constitution as a backup, all you have is your opinion.

No, you do not. Throughout this thread, you have shown a complete lack of understanding of the sections of the constitution you have quoted and a refusal to recognize sections that deal directly with the topic being discussed.

Actually I do, you're just too stupid to understand.