Posted on 04/14/2014 1:54:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
ST. GEORGE – Gov. Brian Sandoval signed Assembly Bill 227 into Nevada law Tuesday, approving the creation of the Nevada Land Management Task Force. The signing of AB 227 makes Nevada the fifth state to look into the movement initiated by Utah lawmakers that urges the federal government to transfer management of public lands over to state control.
In a press release issued by the American Lands Council, Nevada Assemblyman John Ellison, the primary sponsor of AB 227, said, “Gov. Sandoval and our state legislature have taken the first step in fulfilling our responsibility to our children and for the future of our state in making congress honor the same promise to Nevada that it made and kept with Hawaii and all other states east of Colorado.”
The “promise” that Ellison refers to is what is referred to as a state’s “enabling act,” which is basically a statehood contract. When a state joins the country, part of its lands are held under federal jurisdiction – which land transfer proponents argue was only meant to be a temporary arrangement. While lands management was transferred to many states that lie east of Colorado, in the west this did not come about.
On March 23, 2012, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert signed into law House Bill 148, known as The Transfer of Public Lands Act. HB 148 was spearheaded by Rep. Ken Ivory and demands the federal government transfer control of the public lands to the state by the end of 2014.
Like the Utah bill, Nevada’s AB 227 does not include national parks and other lands that have a similarly protected status in the proposed transfer. Public lands currently cover an estimated 70 percent of Utah, and over 81 percent of Nevada.
(Excerpt) Read more at stgeorgeutah.com ...
Now here’s a question: What Constitutional authority authorizes the purchases of the Louisiana Territory, the Southwest land from Mexico, and Alaska?All of that was done via treaty. The Constitution authorizes the federal government to make treaties with other countries, with no comment on the content of those treaties, except that the treaty may not violate the Constitution. As long as the treaty is voted in by the Senate, such purchases and negotiations for land between us and foreign countries would be legitimate.
Very good. That's the one thin thread it on which it can be hung.
The Constitution authorizes the federal government to make treaties...
Not quite.
That's not the federal government, only part of it. It's not even all of Congress since the House of Representatives is excluded.
And
"Congress" includes both Houses of course. So the President with the connivance consent of the Senate could make a treaty, but if the treaty incurred a debt the House of Representatives would also have to agree...and they might not which would mean the treaty would fall apart. In other words, even though the Constitution doesn't say so, the President would need the consent of both Houses to make a treaty, a successful one anyway.
Unless of course the Founders intended to empower the President to make, with Senate consent, a treaty incurring a debt which the House of Representatives have no choice but to agree must be paid.
All this could be explained differently, but so far I see "done via treaty" as a thin thread to hang by.
One of the simple permanent solutions to the problem is a potential law that limits federal property within any state to ten percent or less (perhaps two percent even). That forces the federal gov’t to dispose of unnecessary property that they have no real use for.
As for the disposal process....I’d kindly suggest that each unit is broken up into 400-500 acres lots, and sold to individuals (not corporations or trusts), and that the individual must agree to reside on the property for five years before he can claim full ownership. This keeps the green crowd from playing any games.
When the northwest territory was surveyed, the Feds were able to sell off land and retire most of the debt built up by the revolutionary ear and immediately thereafter.
Funds should go toward paying down debt and tie a balanced budget amendment to the effort.
“Exactly what moral authority does Bundy have? He has been using public lands without compensation for his personal benefit. If he had been escrowing the grazing fees he could have at least claimed to be acting in good faith. Of course he didn’t do that because the courts have repeatedly told him that he is wrong.
Further, his arguments that since he is a member of the public he can do what he wants on public land is the same argument used by OWS when they occupied public parks. Medea Benjamin considers Congressional hearing rooms First Amendment zones, too.”
Lou, Lou, Lou. HOW, on God’s green earth can you compare what a bunch of squatting, defecating, fecal-throwing, garbage throwing, moral-lacking, sheeple did compared to a bunch of grass-eating range cows? Huh, Lou? How? lol.
Bundy and OWS both believe that they can do what they wish on public lands.
“Bundy and OWS both believe that they can do what they wish on public lands.”
Like I said, Lou...I disagree. It was a ruse that got those people there, and a distraction. Like so many other things.
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.