Who owns the west?

[JakeStarkey]

flacaltenn, that is a point you can discuss, yes. But the OP is "who owns the west?" All we are getting is "Nuh uh" from the naysayers and no evidence.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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

You made the assertion about perpituity

I made no such assertion. You intimated that such authority exists in perpetuity, where no such authorization exists. If you believe it does, show us where.

Yes, you did. And until your support your affirmation, all I have to do is point out that you have failed and laugh at you.

Alright, 5th grader. Stamping your little foot accomplishes nothing. Back to your comic books.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, you did. And until your support your affirmation, all I have to do is point out that you have failed and laugh at you.

Alright, 5th grader. Stamping your little foot accomplishes nothing. Back to your comic books.

I know that you like making assertions and not supporting them, yes.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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...

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?

 

[flacaltenn]

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...

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..

 

[OKTexas]

That's a lie, we the people are represented IN the federal government and only represented by the federal government in the very specific enumerated powers granted that government by the States. Such as interstate and international trade, and foreign affairs.

Quit deflecting.

We the People are represented by the Federal Government in managing our federal land. The states do not own the land that they, as territories, transfered for the people to the Federal Government as part of state hood.

I think you mean extorted as a condition of Statehood. Tell me, what if they had said no?

 

[rightwinger]

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..

More "free stuff"

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

 

[OKTexas]

Americans have paid for public lands with blood and treasure. Americans have financed and invested in the upkeep and protection of those lands year after year since they became territories and later as public lands within states. Whenever the topic of transferring those lands to new owners it is nothing more than schemes to allow private interest to exploit the wealth and investments of the American people.

Show me in the Constitution were the federal government are authorized to make investments for the American people outside the enumerated powers.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Americans have paid for public lands with blood and treasure. Americans have financed and invested in the upkeep and protection of those lands year after year since they became territories and later as public lands within states. Whenever the topic of transferring those lands to new owners it is nothing more than schemes to allow private interest to exploit the wealth and investments of the American people.

Show me in the Constitution were the federal government are authorized to make investments for the American people outside the enumerated powers.

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."

 

[Camp]

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.

Perhaps you can show where even one acre of the land designated as National Monuments was a state-owned acre before it was made into a National Monument. Also, how could the land be state land since before it was a state? The land belonged to the territory before statehood. That means it was federal property before statehood. At what point to you claim any of the federal lands became state land?

 

[OKTexas]

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...

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."

So you're saying this does prejudice a claim of State to property within the boundary of the State? Hummmmm

 

[OKTexas]

TO ALL YOU STATES RIGHTS FOLKS SUFFERING FROM KNOWLEDGE DEPRIVATION:

If you go to a car dealer and buy a car with cash & obtain the title, who owns the bloody car? You, the car dealer, or the damn State you live in?

Here is a similar example relating to the thread's topic;
In 1803, the US bought from France what is known as the Louisiana Purchase for $15 Million. Who owned that 827 square mile track of land and took title to it? Was it the United States in the name of the People of the United States, was it France, or was it the non-existent States that would eventually be formed within that vast Territory? Time for some of you partisans to do some basic logical thinking!!!!

How much land did the feds retain in that area after granting State hood?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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...

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."

So you're saying this does prejudice a claim of State to property within the boundary of the State? Hummmmm

If you wish to interpret it that way then go ahead and be stupid!

 

[OKTexas]

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

Any state admitted into the Union enjoys the same constitutional rights as any other state, and the federal government is subject to the same constitutional limitations applicable to any other state.

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

Of course you can show us the receipts, RIGHT?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

TO ALL YOU STATES RIGHTS FOLKS SUFFERING FROM KNOWLEDGE DEPRIVATION:

If you go to a car dealer and buy a car with cash & obtain the title, who owns the bloody car? You, the car dealer, or the damn State you live in?

Here is a similar example relating to the thread's topic;
In 1803, the US bought from France what is known as the Louisiana Purchase for $15 Million. Who owned that 827 square mile track of land and took title to it? Was it the United States in the name of the People of the United States, was it France, or was it the non-existent States that would eventually be formed within that vast Territory? Time for some of you partisans to do some basic logical thinking!!!!

How much land did the feds retain in that area after granting State hood?

Well you take that 827,000 square miles of the Purchase from the French, subtract all the land to which other parties held title and you'll have the answer.

 

[Camp]

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...

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."

So you're saying this does prejudice a claim of State to property within the boundary of the State? Hummmmm

The states gave up any claims to the property in their constitutions before congress would make them states. That was a requirement for becoming a state. The states were sparsely populated and the federal government would not give up vast tracks of property and wealth that were already public property by being territories. If the territories did not promise to agree to federal ownership of the public lands they simply would not be allowed into the union as states. They could and would remain totally controlled federal territories if they insisted on claims once they became states.

 

[OKTexas]

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

Any state admitted into the Union enjoys the same constitutional rights as any other state, and the federal government is subject to the same constitutional limitations applicable to any other state.

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;--

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Under any explanation or understanding Trump is correct in giving the states the land within those states?

 

[Camp]

Those lands never belonged to the states

Any state admitted into the Union enjoys the same constitutional rights as any other state, and the federal government is subject to the same constitutional limitations applicable to any other state.

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