Who owns the west?

[JakeStarkey]

Show us the law (not just your hope) that the federal government cannot buy and sell land, guys.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Texas was not a territory when Texas became a state. All public lands in Texas were owned by the Texas government or county governments at the time Texas became a state.

Wasn't the question, what constitutional authority gave the feds the right to purchase land for a National Forest? It doesn't exist in Article 1 or 4.

Your wishes does not substitute for how the Constitution works. Nothing prohibits the government from buying state lands. The government could sell federal lands, or gift them, for that matter, to the states or private individuals.

So they have no authority, they just do it?

 

[RodISHI]

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.

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.

And statues to Trump!

You two goofballs really need a reality check and some vacation time to walk a few thousand miles of those areas you think will be full of skyscrapers and monuments

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Texas was not a territory when Texas became a state. All public lands in Texas were owned by the Texas government or county governments at the time Texas became a state.

Wasn't the question, what constitutional authority gave the feds the right to purchase land for a National Forest? It doesn't exist in Article 1 or 4.

Your wishes does not substitute for how the Constitution works. Nothing prohibits the government from buying state lands. The government could sell federal lands, or gift them, for that matter, to the states or private individuals.

So they have no authority, they just do it?

Only a goof would think that. It's been your affirmation. Show us the government can't.

 

[sakinago]

sakinago does not understand the ordering of the Constitution.

Art I deals with the legislature and its powers.

Art 3 deals with scotus and its powers. SCOTUS made no such rulings as you suggest, sakinago.

Art IV Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

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.

Yes you're right, article 1 section 8 does grant congress its AUTHORITY, and its stated plainly in that. 10sq miles

And I loved how you just conveniently skipped over the admissions clause in article 4 section 3. Do I need to look it up for you?

Your understanding of the clause is a substitution for how it actually works in American history.

All of your wishing that it was different does not change that you are wrong.

And pollard vs Hagan says what?

Not what you think. Want to show us?

Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan 44 U.S. 212 (1845)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Is that the one on the Alabama high water mark case?

Show how it applies to dry land cases, where there is no shifting boundary.

It does not.

 

[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.

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.

.

 

[Manonthestreet]

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

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

Any state under 50% local control should be abolished....or lose electoral votes

 

[OKTexas]

Show us the law (not just your hope) that the federal government cannot buy and sell land, guys.

That's not the question dumbass, the question is the purposes for which land may be purchased. The Constitution limits the purposes to lands necessary to carry out the enumerated powers, nothing else.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Texas was not a territory when Texas became a state. All public lands in Texas were owned by the Texas government or county governments at the time Texas became a state.

Wasn't the question, what constitutional authority gave the feds the right to purchase land for a National Forest? It doesn't exist in Article 1 or 4.

Your wishes does not substitute for how the Constitution works. Nothing prohibits the government from buying state lands. The government could sell federal lands, or gift them, for that matter, to the states or private individuals.

So they have no authority, they just do it?

Only a goof would think that. It's been your affirmation. Show us the government can't.

I've posted it twice in this thread, I'm not doing it again.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Texas was not a territory when Texas became a state. All public lands in Texas were owned by the Texas government or county governments at the time Texas became a state.

Wasn't the question, what constitutional authority gave the feds the right to purchase land for a National Forest? It doesn't exist in Article 1 or 4.

Your wishes does not substitute for how the Constitution works. Nothing prohibits the government from buying state lands. The government could sell federal lands, or gift them, for that matter, to the states or private individuals.

So they have no authority, they just do it?

Only a goof would think that. It's been your affirmation. Show us the government can't.

I've posted it twice in this thread, I'm not doing it again.

Wouldn't matter in any case. Jake can't both read and comprehend at the same time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Show us the law (not just your hope) that the federal government cannot buy and sell land, guys.

That's not the question dumbass, the question is the purposes for which land may be purchased. The Constitution limits the purposes to lands necessary to carry out the enumerated powers, nothing else.

Thank you for admitting you don't know.

 

[flacaltenn]

sakinago does not understand the ordering of the Constitution.

Art I deals with the legislature and its powers.

Art 3 deals with scotus and its powers. SCOTUS made no such rulings as you suggest, sakinago.

Art IV Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

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.

Yes you're right, article 1 section 8 does grant congress its AUTHORITY, and its stated plainly in that. 10sq miles

And I loved how you just conveniently skipped over the admissions clause in article 4 section 3. Do I need to look it up for you?

You're confusing the 10 miles square, which is actually 100 square miles for DC, with other purchases.

It's kinda obvious from the way the country expanded that there's no restriction on the Feds ACQUIRING property. The issue is having that property reside under FEDERAL control for so long. "We the people" (as Jakey puts it) shouldn't have SOLE SOVEREIGN DOMAIN over 70 or 80% of the West. Not for much longer at least. And frankly we need the cash.. And it would be better managed otherwise..

Apologies to my career BLM and Forestry buds. But forests shouldn't be managed from 2000 miles away. And land use IS a State issue..

 

[sakinago]

Is that the one on the Alabama high water mark case?

Show how it applies to dry land cases, where there is no shifting boundary.

It does not.

Read the justices rulings and opinions.

 

[sakinago]

Is that the one on the Alabama high water mark case?

Show how it applies to dry land cases, where there is no shifting boundary.

It does not.

And I assume you're all for the kilo ruling?

 

[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."

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!

 

[sakinago]

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."

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!

And the admission clause?

 

[OKTexas]

Show us the law (not just your hope) that the federal government cannot buy and sell land, guys.

That's not the question dumbass, the question is the purposes for which land may be purchased. The Constitution limits the purposes to lands necessary to carry out the enumerated powers, nothing else.

Thank you for admitting you don't know.

Once again Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.

 

[OKTexas]

sakinago does not understand the ordering of the Constitution.

Art I deals with the legislature and its powers.

Art 3 deals with scotus and its powers. SCOTUS made no such rulings as you suggest, sakinago.

Art IV Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

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.

Yes you're right, article 1 section 8 does grant congress its AUTHORITY, and its stated plainly in that. 10sq miles

And I loved how you just conveniently skipped over the admissions clause in article 4 section 3. Do I need to look it up for you?

You're confusing the 10 miles square, which is actually 100 square miles for DC, with other purchases.

It's kinda obvious from the way the country expanded that there's no restriction on the Feds ACQUIRING property. The issue is having that property reside under FEDERAL control for so long. "We the people" (as Jakey puts it) shouldn't have SOLE SOVEREIGN DOMAIN over 70 or 80% of the West. Not for much longer at least. And frankly we need the cash.. And it would be better managed otherwise..

Apologies to my career BLM and Forestry buds. But forests shouldn't be managed from 2000 miles away. And land use IS a State issue..

See post #147.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Is that the one on the Alabama high water mark case?

Show how it applies to dry land cases, where there is no shifting boundary.

It does not.

Read the justices rulings and opinions.

I have. Their conclusion does not apply to our western lands. Tough but t here it is. Go and educate yourself by reading it.