Posted on 04/04/2018 8:40:24 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
On Monday, the Department of Justice filed suit against the state of California, challenging a state law that purports to prevent the federal government from selling federal lands without the permission of a state agency.
Passed by the California legislature in October 2017, Senate Bill 50 declares that, with limited exceptions, “conveyances of federal public lands in California are void” unless the State Lands Commission is provided a “right of first refusal” or “the right to arrange for the transfer of the federal public land to another entity.” The statute also prohibits purchasers of federal land from recording the deed to the newly acquired property without an accompanying “certificate of compliance” from the state commission and provides for a $5,000 civil penalty for buyers who violate this provision.
In its complaint, filed in a federal district court in Sacramento, the DOJ alleged that SB 50 violates both the supremacy clause and the property clause of the United States Constitution. The supremacy clause declares that the federal Constitution and federal laws are “the supreme Law of the Land,” while the lesser-known property clause provides that “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.” The DOJ then cites nearly 30 federal statutes that authorize different federal agencies to dispose of federal property and regulate the circumstances under which such sales may take place.
Yet in passing SB 50, the state of California expressly declared the state’s policy is to “discourage conveyances that transfer ownership of federal public lands in California from the federal government.” This policy, and the specific provisions adopted in SB 50 in furtherance of this policy, interfere with the federal government’s constitutionally infused prerogative to determine the best use for federal property
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Retaliate by selling the land to only Citizens and give them allodial title.
This reminds me of five year old kids putting on a paper crowns and trying to boss everyone around.
Hmmm... As much as I hate to admit it, I am sort of on the side of CA here, as I think the FedGov has way too much land under federal ownership/control, especially in the west. However, several things mentioned in the article that CA specifies in their state law are way out of line, too....
This may end up an interesting Death Match.
I’m with California on this one.
If Trump is re-elected, look for CA to try to secede.
...I think the FedGov has way too much land under federal ownership/control, especially in the west...
When Kalifornia came into the union, they came in subject to an agreement to join and to be subject to all Constitutional provisions. Until those are amended or set aside, don’t give them an inch. Give them all the cooperation they deserve, which is nothing.
Is the term “federal lands” defined anywhere in the Constitution? I haven’t seen it.
If not, California would seem to be correct here.
On this one I side with California. There should be NO “Federal lands” outside of DC and military bases which, the bases, should be leased. The leases canbe renewable 100 year leases but they should be leases.+
This will not end well for Mexifornia.
Excellent idea, with no deed on file there is no way you can collect property taxes since according to the state of California there is no record that I am the property owner.
“...This will not end well for Mexifornia....”
And it should not. Cali needs to be taken to task, including the officials that have been subverting Constitutional authority of the Federal government, should be taken down and held accountable.
This is a very important system of laws that must have a precedent set to clean out this subversion.
The U.S. govt obtained Cali and most of Az and New Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago, 1848. So the govt owned all of Cali as it did most of the west the problem is that over time most of the land was to be turned over to the respective states and DC wants to retain control.Shocking!
I for the life of me can’t see how California’s law holds up in court.
We can argue on just how much land the Federal Government should have but we can't argue that they do have it and California cannot constitutionally tell the government how to dispose of it.
“Give them all the cooperation they deserve, which is nothing.”
Totally agree. They need to work within the system, with other states, to get this fixed, not unilaterally go off into the deep end.
“We can argue on just how much land the Federal Government should have but we can’t argue that they do have it and California cannot constitutionally tell the government how to dispose of it.”
Oh, I totally agree. This is where I disagree with what CA is trying to do. They need to work with the rest of the other states, and fix this Constitutionally and in the system, not just go off and do what they feel like... They are nuts.
There is a Constitutional solution. The states buy the land and the Federal Government sells it to them. It would only take an act of Congress, if that.
I don’t get your point. The land belongs to the feds and federal law and the constitution govern its disposition. I agree that the feds own far too
Much of the West, but that doesn’t change any of this. I don’t think we should fall into the left’s practice of acting unlawfully if we don’t like the law
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.