Posted on 05/19/2014 6:10:41 AM PDT by rktman
It’s important to remember that the Feds own most of the weapons, including weapons of mass destruction.
Aye, Caruba!
Search “National park service land resources division listing by acreage” for a link to a pdf of the total (Not including BLM lands). I would post a link but can’t for some reason.
Just national park service lands total over 84 million acres.
LOL! Ya know, I almost used that but decided not to figuring someone would.
Can hardly wait for the lyin’king to declare another resource rich chunk of land somewhere a new and improved national monument. I’m surprised they haven’t stopped all the drilling in the Dakotas for fear of cracking the faces on Mt. Rushmore. A little fearmongering goes a long way.
Who gave the federal government the right to treat the states of the west as colonies, stripping them of their resources at the point of BLM guns? That doesn’t sound like freedom.
There’s no “back” here. It was federally owned land before statehood and it was federally owned land after statehood. Statehood didn’t transfer ownership title. And the fact is that all of that land was available to homesteaders well into the 20th Century. No one wanted it.
Well, if I recall correctly, for Nevada it was part of the agreement/requirement for NV to become a state, for the feds to hold as much NV land as it does.
Yes this important. It is even more important that the states take back their tax money from DC. There is _no_ legal individual income tax. This is tax money stolen from the states and used to bribe and control them (the states). States can directly tax income, DC can’t.
Thanks. I’ve posted the same many times, but nobody seems interested in the actual facts.
The vast majority of this land, particularly that managed by the BLM, is worthless. Nobody would buy it, which is exactly why it remains in federal ownership.
One can argue about whether this land should still be available for sale, as it was for more than a century, but not that it “belonged” to the states, and was then taken away from them.
Almost all this land is in the Rockies and west. Does anybody have documentation of title to federally-owned land being transferred to states farther east at statehood?
I’ve seen several claims to this effect, to support the opinion that western states were treated differently and unfairly. I just haven’t seen any evidence of such a transfer. My possibly inaccurate understanding is that the US government retained title to ownership of land, even in new states, until it was sold to private owners.
The same procedure as in western states, except nobody wanted to buy most of the western land.
Quite right. Up to 1913, when the 16th Amendment authorizing Congress to do exactly that was duly passed and ratified.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
You may think this amendment was a bad idea, and should not have been added to the Constitution. If so, get busy on an amendment to repeal it.
Not quite. The 16th amendment legalized the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909, which the SCOTUS had disallowed as a simple legislative act.
The fed gov can own only land which it has purchased with the consent of the State legislature. That includes land which was part of states prior to statehood. The ownership should have been transferred to the States when they were admitted to the Union. THe fed gov can then buy the land from the State or a private citizen with consent of the State legislature.
There is also nothing in the Constitution which states that the fed gov needs to sell land to private citizens.
It’s clearly stated here:
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; ‘
Put it up for sale today and let the marketplace decide. Might be "surprising".
Of course, that runs the risk of Bloomberg-type tree huggers buying up the land and "donating" it back to the Feds.
At any rate, give it back to the states and let them make the decision if it is worthless.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Then you shouldn't have any trouble at all finding evidence that this was the routine practice for the eastern and midwestern states.
I haven't seen any.
I fail to see how you can claim a practice that has been apparently been ongoing since the Founding is now suddenly a violation of the Constitution.
Some background from a book The Fabric of America. After the constitution was enacted and the government began, there was a big debt from the revolution. Also, many people had already located west of the Applachians including the Northwest Territory and Kentucky and Tennessee.
Some of the colonies had competing claims for territories well into the west.
The congress decided and the president signed (don’t have a cite) to survey the northwest territory, settle the boundary disputes of the original colonies and sell off parcels of lands.
The land sales were very successful (many people already had settled there) and the federal debt was retired. This became the model for the other territories throughout the 1800s and I believe headed off a permanent income tax for awhile.
I propose they sell what they can now and pay down the debt as much as possible, combining that with a balanced budget amendment. Maybe raise a couple of trillion or more.
For what it’s worth.
I agree to disagree with you on the legalities of Federal Income Tax.
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.