Skip to comments.How can it be a state if the central government controls 86% of its land and all of its resources?
Posted on 04/22/2014 10:51:05 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Sounds like the very definition of elitism. The elites in Washington DC, most of whom have never set foot in Nevada (outside a casino), controlling what the local citizens can or cannot do on the land within their state boundaries? This is not the way America was intended to be governed. Ever heard of local control? Self-government? States rights?
To many of us out here in the West, pursuit of happiness means ranching, farming, logging, mining, drilling, hunting, fishing, or just living in and enjoying God's great outdoors. It's un-American and unconstitutional for unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington DC to lock us out of our own lands.
Uh, if they can elect and elect a rustler to be their Senator time after time?
The mob elects the mobster senator. They control him.
That’s the point. What business do the feds have owning so much land that isn’t needed to be protected like a national park? They should sell it off voluntarily or by Congressional legislation. IMO, Nevada has a right to its land without some compelling reason otherwise.
I prefer Kleptocacy.
...but the U.N.’s Agenda 21 which Obama has fully embraced speaks otherwise. Another battle front.
Time for the states to start taking it back.
You just know this land is being used as colateral for all the loans we have been getting from the chinese to support our current welfare state....
As long as the federal government keeps the land within her borders locked up and out of control by her own citizens, I don’t see how Nevada is even legally a state within the union. It’s been a century and a half since statehood. There’s no reason whatsoever to have the feds ruling over Nevada’s land. Or the land in any other of the western states. That’s not the way it was done in the other states.
With all due respect, sir, the nature of political rights, the economic and intrinsic value of humanity, morality, and our relationship with G-d are MAN-BASED, not DIRT-BASED.
So, while there are many good arguments against a government holding much dirt, the how a state’s dirt is owned is a small component of Statehood. Alaska versus Rhode Island being fine examples. Is an Alaskan more or less free than a Rhode Islander? More of Alaska is held by the Feds. But there are substantially more restrictions on the behavior of a “citizen” in Rhode Island.
So, I’ll argue that while we should have governments divest themselves of dirt because holding dirt is not their core function, merely holding dirt is not as inimical to freedom and citizenship as bureaucracy, laws limiting behavior, taxes, etc.
I love ya, Jim. And I concur on divestiture of land by governments. I choose to hold that issue lower than more direct assaults on our freedoms.
The unconstitutional Administrative State which, just like the multi-trillion dollar government, was latent until Obama. Only the American People with concerted effort and faith in a big God can take it down.
Economic warfare against republican states.
Lock up as much land as possible to kill jobs and business. Slows outflow from Democrat states.
Even shut down huge areas from recreational activity, to make it less attractive to move there.
The elites in Washington want control so that they have more things to tax, which of course generates greater revenues to feed the hungry beast of big government. Its all about self-serving interests and weilding political power.
They don’t want you to be independent. They want you to be dependent on them.
The vast majority of Ohio was owned by the federal government in 1787.
16 years later, it became a state and most of the land had transitioned to private hands.
By 1815, federal holdings in Ohio were minimal.
If Nevada had followed that rate of progress, 90% of NV land would have been in private hands by 1900.
East answer, there is _no_ state if it doesn’t have land. The _very_ definition of state within USA is the 50 land regions which are owned and controlled by soveriegn states.
But I see no constitutional justification for the feds holding on to that property. As far as I’m concerned Nevada has a greater constitutional right to that land than the feds.
Sorry JR, I had to edit that a bit:
The elites in Washington DC, most of whom have never set foot in Nevada (outside a casino or bordello)...
Pretty much ANY unconstitutional action by the feds is an assault on our freedom. And if we don't stop the seemingly less direct intrusions, we may not be able to stop the direct intrusions.
That’s RIGHT!! Go away feds. Stay out of the west.
You have posed an interesting question!
Here is another, related question:
“Should the LEGAL residents of the Sovereign State of Nevada be given an annual 86 % Personal Federal Income Tax exemption?”
Let me take it one step further.
The federal government is interfering with the rights of a state like Nevada in that it is preventing the state from growing new towns and cities.
The state cannot compete on an equal footing with other states, when the federal government is hoarding land that might otherwise be settled into a new town or city. That new town or city would change the demographics of the state, perhaps to the point of reapportioning representatives in Congress or even tilting the voting pattern from one party to another.
That new town or city might bring new industry to Nevada, and with it new revenues and taxes.
None of that is possible when the federal government is strangling a state like Nevada in a way that it does not in other states.
Nevada should go to the Supreme Court to force the federal government to release the land back to Nevada, so it can be on an equal protection footing with the other states in the union.
All states with significant lands being held by the federal government should demand those lands be returned to the state, so that the state can grow its population, its revenue base, and its representation in Congress. By hoarding these lands, the federal government is essentially choosing its representation in Congress, by limiting the ability of western states to control its own destiny.
Republican Ronald Reagan had argued for the turnover of the control of such lands to the state and local authorities back in 1980. Clearly, the surrender of all claims to any land for statehood was illegal under the Constitution. This is no different from Russia seizing Crimea. The Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in Pollards Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) when Alabama became a state in 1845. The question presented was concerning a clause where it was stated that all navigable waters within the said State shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said State, and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said State. The Supreme Court held that this clause was constitutional because it conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.
The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states:
The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.
So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.
The people within a state and their sovereign state governments should be allowed to control the land and resources within their state boundaries. Why should the western states not be allowed to commercially exploit their land and natural resources just as the eastern and mid-western states did and do? Timber, coal, oil, gas, minerals, water, fisheries, ranch land, fertile farmland, all locked up forever depriving the states and the people of commercial opportunity? This is not the American way. America was founded on the principles of God-given equality under the law, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Our constitution recognizes state sovereignty and guarantees each state self-rule and a republican form of government and states rights. The federals controlling land use on 86% of the land within a state’s boundaries is not sovereignty, not self-rule, not a republican form of government. It’s a dictatorship. And it’s unconstitutional.
This federal dictatorship not square with the founding principles, the Declaration or the Constitution.
er, This federal dictatorship DOES NOT square with the founding principles, the Declaration or the Constitution.
Jim, and this goes for all the Western States. I noted that a rep from California was conspicuously absent from the recent meeting in Salt Lake City to discuss how to go about getting these lands returned to their respective states, despite the fact that the Feds “own” nearly 50% out our state as well. Someone needs to make this a Constitutional issue since the rest of the states have only near zero to about 5% of their state’s lands under federal control. Good for you and FR to be raising this issue. It’s the crux of what Cliven Bundy is trying to accomplish.
Yet, these federal lands could be homesteaded up until 1976. Until Congress enacted FLPMA in 1976.
Why didn't Bundy homestead or buy more land. If he does that, he has to pay property tax. Instead, he had the grazing lease with grazing fees much lower than on private land. And historically, the feds didn't impose requirements.
It is only after FLPMA that management became multi-use and the science of conservation biology kicked in. No more overgrazing. If an endangered species is around, it also has to be managed.
So it is now multi-use. There are places to hunt, ride ATVs, they have built huge numbers of camping sites since 1976. Archeologists and biologists get to use the land. Miners use the land. They mine coal, they drill for oil and gas.
Back in 1976 there were no areas of environmental concern covering zero acres. In 2000 there over 800 such sites covering over 14 million acres. In 1976 there were 4350 BLM employee and around 10,000 in 2000
Things changed, but Congress enacted the legislation to make the changes.
The great white chiefs in Washington speak with forked tongues. “As long as the grass shall grow.”
Speaking of grass, the grazing type of grass, there are still over 70,000 grazing leases. There were 10.1 million acres being grazed in 1976, and 9.8 million acres in 2000.
“So it is now multi-use. There are places to hunt, ride ATVs, they have built huge numbers of camping sites since 1976. Archeologists and biologists get to use the land. Miners use the land. They mine coal, they drill for oil and gas.”
Oh it’s wonderful, the “benevolent Feds” are developing “our” land for us! Collectively, the State and Federal governments have ruined the outdoors for everyone except the so-called “environmentalists” (really elitists who think they should have this land “reserved” for their exclusive use to wander around while they contemplate their navels). So instead of free access to what “we actually own,” we have to pay “user fees,” which mainly go to finance the armed “rangers” who stand around to collect our money and tell us when and where we can $hit! Mine coal and drill for oil and gas, you are delusional if you think that they facilitate these ventures. Here in California ( where we recently found that the State Parks had rat holed $54 million) our facilities are falling apart. The money today simply gets spent to do two things: 1) Buy votes and 2) Make sure our worthless government employees continue to get bloated paychecks, free health care and a gold-plated retirement that we the taxpayers cannot afford.
Still, I think for governments at all levels, there is a light at the end of their tunnels and it’s the train coming. What they’ve created isn’t sustainable and right now they are seeing that that’s an undeniable fact!
Who in the hell gave the federal government any say at all in the matter? I don’t see any such enumeration in the constitution. The federal government is empowered to manage a certain amount of land necessary for federal offices, military bases, etc. But certainly not 86% of the land within a state. This land belongs to the state or the state is not a state. It’s a federal territory.
Because your guns are unused? Just an opinion, for what it's worth.
Yeah, and they would “allow” Bundy to graze a certain number of cows per acre for a fee. But the number was totally insufficient to sustain his ranch. And that was the entire purpose of the feds. To run him out of business and off the land just as they did all the other large ranchers in the territory. It’s tyranny.
Utah has HB 148 and the feds are supposed to turn these lands over by Dec 31. And if not, Utah can sue, and let the judge(s) decide
The court is owned by the feds.
We the people are the final arbiters in all things constitutional. Refer to the Declaration.
And, unless I’m misreading public sentiment, I do believe arbitration is coming due.
Excellent point!! The Feds should “own” if that is the right word at all, only the property that it needs to fulfill it’s constitutional responsibilities. Period.
But he, and those before him, had the large grazing lease that he could graze large numbers of cattle on. That's the way Congress set it up way back when.
But Congress changed it in 1976 with FLPMA, and the Sagebrush Rebellion coincides with FLPMA.
Then do what is due be done
Well, yeah. What’s your point? My point is congress is not empowered by the constitution to do this. Where is federal control over such a huge amount of so-called public land within a state’s sovereign boundaries enumerated and delegated by the constitution to the central government? Why is it not left to the states and the people as per the 10th amendment?
The process has begun.
Do the Feds pay property taxes like us pleebs? Never thought to ask that.
That might be a nice place to start, if not.
No. And along with the land, they’ve locked up all natural resources. Can you imagine if the federal government had locked up all the natural resources in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee or Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, etc? For one thing, the industrial revolution would never had happened. And another, America would never had been the land of plentiful or the richest most powerful country on earth.
Back east the feds made money selling these federal lands to settlers, because that was the wet zone and farming could be profitable on small acres. Even in the west where the feds built dams and irrigation systems people snapped up those small acre lands because they could grow a good crop with the irrigation water.
But out in the western deserts nobody wanted that land. Nevada has the most federal land because it has more desert than any other state.
If its free I'll take it, but only if you give me low cost grazing on this other 15,000 acres.
But when such territories (however acquired) enter into the union and become sovereign states, the land within the new state boundaries should no longer be owned or controlled by the federal government. Constitutionally, the federal government should divest itself at the earliest opportunity of all such lands, except those necessary for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.