Who owns the west?

[ThoughtCrimes]

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?

What about it, specifically, with regards to Public Lands held by the Federal? Don't be shy...spit it out!

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

You clearly have no understanding of the law. You need to make an argument with evidence, and you have not.

 

[OKTexas]

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!

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

 

[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!

And the admission clause?

You clearly have no understanding of the law. You need to make an argument with evidence, and you have not.

And you clearly have no understanding of a constitutional purpose.

 

[g5000]

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.

Apparently you are ignorant of the fact these "land grabs" have been occurring for the past 16 Presidents.

Don't be such an ignorant partisan hack.

 

[Rustic]

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.

The country and federal government are not one in the same… The federal government is the enemy

 

[JakeStarkey]

The regressive far right, like Rustic, is the enemy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Tell us, and why they were retained or not retained. This is up to you to explain to us. If you can't, then you are wasting everyone's time, including your own, if you are not willing to learn.[/QUOTE]

Mod Edit -- Fixed Blown Quote link.. -- FCT

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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?

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!

 

[JakeStarkey]

OKTexas and sakanago are throwing stuff out.

They don't know what any of it means.

 

[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?

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.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.

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!!!!

 

[sakinago]

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?

You clearly have no understanding of the law. You need to make an argument with evidence, and you have not.

The argument you guys are making is that any state after Alabama is less of a state than any other in the original union. So if these states have been formed with congressional (and any state(s) that have had previous claim of the territory in question) approval...what makes them lesser states?

 

[sakinago]

OKTexas and sakanago are throwing stuff out.

They don't know what any of it means.

It's because you're conveniently glossing over the whole 10sq miles part of the enumerated powers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your opinions, guys, are being substituted by you for the facts, logic, and evidence that We the People own the public lands and they are managed by the federal government.

I don't care if you don't like it.

 

[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.

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

^^^ Sure.

 

[OKTexas]

OKTexas and sakanago are throwing stuff out.

They don't know what any of it means.

It's because you're conveniently glossing over the whole 10sq miles part of the enumerated powers.

Once again, there is nothing about 10sq miles. It limits DC, the seat of federal government, to 10 miles square, which is 100sq miles.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.

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!

 

[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.

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