I think we're down to the core issue of our disagreement. Where does the Constitution or any SCOTUS decision state, imply, or suggest that all land acquired by the federal government be used only for the purposes listed?
The Constitution grants specific powers to the federal government and it prohibits specific powers to the states. Everything else is reserved for the states.
Nevada disclaimed all right to the land (and authority over it) when it became a state. It gave authority over that land to the federal government and, to my knowledge, it has not since claimed any authority over the land. Are you suggesting that Nevada did/does not have that right? (Not argumentative. Sincere question.)
The powers of the fed gov are enumerated. The list of what the fed gov can own, as per land, and its uses, are clearly lined out.
It is my opinion that the disclaim by Nevada means nothing. There is no Constitutionally legal use to which the fed gov can own that land, unless that land is used as specified within the restrictions upon the fed gov.
Simply getting away with an illegal act does not make it legit. And, just because it’s been a long time since the act was committed, doesn’t mean it can’t, or even shouldn’t, be remedied.
Yes, I am claiming that the deal made between Nevada and the fed gov was shenanigans.
This is where I am also.... And where I was asking a very similar question just previously.. (btw, thanks for this discussion, it is very useful.)
“Nevada disclaimed all right to the land (and authority over it) when it became a state. It gave authority over that land to the federal government and, to my knowledge, it has not since claimed any authority over the land. Are you suggesting that Nevada did/does not have that right? (Not argumentative. Sincere question.) “