Replies

No, the land does not belong to Nevada. The US government retains the title they have held for over 160 years. Nevada was required by Congress IN 1864 to “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”. It was a condition for statehood that Nevada accepted.

Court cases going back at least as far as 1840 reject your belief that the federal government cannot own property, or that Congress, IAW the explicit direction of the Constitution, cannot make rules to manage that land.

Pretending otherwise is dishonest.

If Such an agreement were made as a precondition toward statehood it would be null & void upon obtaining statehood because All States must have an EQUAL footing.

Not having the same legal rights over your own domain as every other state has over it’s domain is most certainly NOT an equal footing.

Additionally the very idea that Washington has a legitimate right to own and retain title to land is itself a very much dubious.

Obviously, I disagree with you, Mr Rogers. I think the Constitution limits what the Fed can own in terms of land. I think that the Federal government stewards the boundaries of the USA on behalf of the States and People and that any addition of land was an addition to their stewardship and not to their ownership.

First, we find the limitations of what the nation is authorized to own:

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, 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"

Next, we run across this odd provision that, by your interpretation, would seem to say that the Congress could sell it's "property" in Nevada to Pennsylvania:

The 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;

So, if they own 80% of Nevada, then they can sell 80% of Nevada. By my way of thinking, they would not be able to do that because they are not property owners.

As always, you have been a principled, logical FRiend in our discussions, and I appreciate it. If we all agreed all the time on some partyline, then we might as well be liberals.

It was a condition for statehood that Nevada accepted.

what if Nevada (and Wyoming, Arizona, etc) decide to reclaim the "public" land within their state? it's not like the gum'ment is gonna evict a state. And I'd challenge that law anyway, seeing as it's not 'equal treatment' in relation to other states.