"In obedience to the requirements of an act of the Congress of the United States, approved March twenty-first, A.D. eighteen hundred and sixty-four, to enable the people of Nevada to form a constitution and state government, this convention, elected and convened in obedience to said enabling act, do ordain as follows, and this ordinance shall be irrevocable, without the consent of the United States and the people of the State of Nevada:
. . .
Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.
I've conducted a minimal search and have found no statehood document requiring the feds to give more of the land to the state.
Can we find a Presidential candidate with the guts to run on that platform?
Actually, in 1993 - notice the time frame - the Nevada Legislature passed an amendment eliminating the phrase: “[they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that]”
How valid it is to amend the document you entered the Union under, in which you DID “forever disclaim all right and title”, is open to question. Generally speaking, a contract between two parties cannot be changed without the consent of both parties.