LOL! Appreciated, but it wasn't you, it was me. I was (justifiably) rebuked yesterday for using my big bad brush, and I was trying not to repeat the error.
----
I meant that to regard a State in control of virtually 100% of its land as on "equal footing" with a State with control of less than 10% is Orwellian.
Agreed.
-----
I see no Federal power to manage land within the States. Territories yes, States, no.
Good, then we are in agreement as to original intent. I respect your opinion, too, so now I'm REALLY glad I asked. :-)
------
As far as the 14th Amendment goes, they can pretend it was some kind of legalistic game changer, but that doesn't make it so.
First, because the purpose of an Amendment to a contract is to refine the previous meanings, not REdefine them. Secondly, because the pertinent restrictive clauses are still in place.
LOL You didn't think I was concerned, did you? I know you better than that, so I knew that the disagreement had to be confusion about context or some such. Current implementation of the equal footing doctrine has become a mockery of the Constitution, particularly for Alaska.
The big problem in the Constitution with respect to its enumerated powers that caused the Feds to retain land illegally was funding an adequate national defense. In fact, I think the failing of the Articles of Confederation was due to an atmosphere in which possible reconquest by a European power was imminent. Tariffs became a huge injustice to the southern States and the principal grounds for the Civil War. As technology changed, the demand for permanent infrastructure (such as a navy) outstripped the ability of the government to fund it. That problem also played into the financial crisis that spawned the Federal reserve, the income tax, etc. Nor do I see a system of 50 militias working together effectively as a national defense.
Unfortunately, once the Feds got that income tax revenue stream to fund said navy, it was Katie bar the door. It's a tough problem.