Posted on 12/06/2014 7:23:46 AM PST by HomerBohn
Thanks for wording my point better than I could.
I assume you’ll agree that the question of whether the decisions the government makes about managing its land are wise is an entirely separate one.
Go, Utah!!
I wonder what would happen if a state (better yet, a large number of states) simply activated the state guard to politely go in and take control of national forest - BLM land - national wildlife refuge - etc. land, escorting federal forest rangers, BLM employees and suchlike off the property and wishing them a nice day.
It would also be great to see Texas, Utah, Arizona and other like-minded states send in the guard or state police to take over the operation of national parks the next time a president (invariably a dem) shuts them down. What would the federales do, one wonders?
That’s shocking.
The word you're looking for is "transfer," not "revert."
Using revert is every bit as false as Muslims using the same word to refer to converts.
Pretty much...
Some land, especially in the East and Midwest, was purchased from private owners by the US.
if the house and senate republicans do anything this year they must support this move.
Without the federal lands in the west Washington loses much of her imperal control over the people there.
Private ownership with government control is the very definition of fascism.
US Constitution Article 1, section 8
“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.”
What part of Supremacy clause is not understood here?
Good.
I hope it’s phenomenally successful.
The process of achieving statehood moved gradually and historically from east to west. I submit that something legal happened in Washington that changed the way the new territories became states. You can see by the line of demarcation that something happened. Is there anyone at FR, a history major, who might fill us in on the legislation that brought this about?
the epa uses the legal title to the land as a means to impose thier rules upon the people of the area.
that is why we want washington out.
Big election majorities in the state legislatures won this past election by the Republicans is just the chance to accomplish lots of conservative goals.
Unless I’m confused, nothing drastic changed.
In all the states after the original 13 (and TX, VT, ME, HI which were all unique), the federal government acquired title to all land not already privately owned when it acquired the territory.
In the eastern states, most though not all of this land was pretty quickly sold or homesteaded. In western states the vast majority of the land was not economically attractive enough for private owners to appear, so it just stayed in federal ownership. Title wasn’t transferred because there were no buyers.
Starting in the 1890s or thereabouts, the government withdrew increasing amounts of land from the “for sale” group. Reasons usually involved conservation. The process was approximately complete by the mid-20th.
The major thing that “happened,” leading to the difference in the map, is rainfall. Land in much of the West is essentially worthless without water rights, so nobody bought it.
This tendency was aggravated by locals who would buy land at the entrance to a drainage, for instance, into private ownership, and therefore control in practice access to an immensely larger block of land without having to invest capital in buying it. Sometimes they start to think of it as “their land.”
Since the mid-20th the feds have increasingly made land management decisions some of the locals don’t like. But one doesn’t acquire title to land simply because you or your grandparents live next to it.
Utah and everyone else should remember Murphy’s Law:
“A Smith and Wesson beats 4 Aces”
Putting the lands back under state jurisdiction is a good thing, so long as we remember how the other side plays cards.
Just my $0.02
Good for Utah.
Good luck with that..
I understand wanting the feds out.
Though I am a little confused why rural inhabitants of Nevada assume state officials will necessarily be more sympathetic to the land use policies they might prefer.
Nevada is, somewhat counter-intuitively, the 3rd most urbanized state, at 94% of the population.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.