Posted on 04/22/2014 10:51:05 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Sounds like the very definition of elitism. The elites in Washington DC, most of whom have never set foot in Nevada (outside a casino), controlling what the local citizens can or cannot do on the land within their state boundaries? This is not the way America was intended to be governed. Ever heard of local control? Self-government? States rights?
To many of us out here in the West, pursuit of happiness means ranching, farming, logging, mining, drilling, hunting, fishing, or just living in and enjoying God's great outdoors. It's un-American and unconstitutional for unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington DC to lock us out of our own lands.
That’s RIGHT!! Go away feds. Stay out of the west.
You have posed an interesting question!
Here is another, related question:
“Should the LEGAL residents of the Sovereign State of Nevada be given an annual 86 % Personal Federal Income Tax exemption?”
Let me take it one step further.
The federal government is interfering with the rights of a state like Nevada in that it is preventing the state from growing new towns and cities.
The state cannot compete on an equal footing with other states, when the federal government is hoarding land that might otherwise be settled into a new town or city. That new town or city would change the demographics of the state, perhaps to the point of reapportioning representatives in Congress or even tilting the voting pattern from one party to another.
That new town or city might bring new industry to Nevada, and with it new revenues and taxes.
None of that is possible when the federal government is strangling a state like Nevada in a way that it does not in other states.
Nevada should go to the Supreme Court to force the federal government to release the land back to Nevada, so it can be on an equal protection footing with the other states in the union.
All states with significant lands being held by the federal government should demand those lands be returned to the state, so that the state can grow its population, its revenue base, and its representation in Congress. By hoarding these lands, the federal government is essentially choosing its representation in Congress, by limiting the ability of western states to control its own destiny.
-PJ
Republican Ronald Reagan had argued for the turnover of the control of such lands to the state and local authorities back in 1980. Clearly, the surrender of all claims to any land for statehood was illegal under the Constitution. This is no different from Russia seizing Crimea. The Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) when Alabama became a state in 1845. The question presented was concerning a clause where it was stated “that all navigable waters within the said State shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said State, and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said State.” The Supreme Court held that this clause was constitutional because it “conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.”The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states:
The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.
The people within a state and their sovereign state governments should be allowed to control the land and resources within their state boundaries. Why should the western states not be allowed to commercially exploit their land and natural resources just as the eastern and mid-western states did and do? Timber, coal, oil, gas, minerals, water, fisheries, ranch land, fertile farmland, all locked up forever depriving the states and the people of commercial opportunity? This is not the American way. America was founded on the principles of God-given equality under the law, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Our constitution recognizes state sovereignty and guarantees each state self-rule and a republican form of government and states rights. The federals controlling land use on 86% of the land within a state’s boundaries is not sovereignty, not self-rule, not a republican form of government. It’s a dictatorship. And it’s unconstitutional.
This federal dictatorship not square with the founding principles, the Declaration or the Constitution.
Absolutely.
Hear, Hear!
er, This federal dictatorship DOES NOT square with the founding principles, the Declaration or the Constitution.
Good point
Jim, and this goes for all the Western States. I noted that a rep from California was conspicuously absent from the recent meeting in Salt Lake City to discuss how to go about getting these lands returned to their respective states, despite the fact that the Feds “own” nearly 50% out our state as well. Someone needs to make this a Constitutional issue since the rest of the states have only near zero to about 5% of their state’s lands under federal control. Good for you and FR to be raising this issue. It’s the crux of what Cliven Bundy is trying to accomplish.
Yet, these federal lands could be homesteaded up until 1976. Until Congress enacted FLPMA in 1976.
Why didn't Bundy homestead or buy more land. If he does that, he has to pay property tax. Instead, he had the grazing lease with grazing fees much lower than on private land. And historically, the feds didn't impose requirements.
It is only after FLPMA that management became multi-use and the science of conservation biology kicked in. No more overgrazing. If an endangered species is around, it also has to be managed.
So it is now multi-use. There are places to hunt, ride ATVs, they have built huge numbers of camping sites since 1976. Archeologists and biologists get to use the land. Miners use the land. They mine coal, they drill for oil and gas.
Back in 1976 there were no areas of environmental concern covering zero acres. In 2000 there over 800 such sites covering over 14 million acres. In 1976 there were 4350 BLM employee and around 10,000 in 2000
Things changed, but Congress enacted the legislation to make the changes.
The great white chiefs in Washington speak with forked tongues. “As long as the grass shall grow.”
Speaking of grass, the grazing type of grass, there are still over 70,000 grazing leases. There were 10.1 million acres being grazed in 1976, and 9.8 million acres in 2000.
“So it is now multi-use. There are places to hunt, ride ATVs, they have built huge numbers of camping sites since 1976. Archeologists and biologists get to use the land. Miners use the land. They mine coal, they drill for oil and gas.”
Oh it’s wonderful, the “benevolent Feds” are developing “our” land for us! Collectively, the State and Federal governments have ruined the outdoors for everyone except the so-called “environmentalists” (really elitists who think they should have this land “reserved” for their exclusive use to wander around while they contemplate their navels). So instead of free access to what “we actually own,” we have to pay “user fees,” which mainly go to finance the armed “rangers” who stand around to collect our money and tell us when and where we can $hit! Mine coal and drill for oil and gas, you are delusional if you think that they facilitate these ventures. Here in California ( where we recently found that the State Parks had rat holed $54 million) our facilities are falling apart. The money today simply gets spent to do two things: 1) Buy votes and 2) Make sure our worthless government employees continue to get bloated paychecks, free health care and a gold-plated retirement that we the taxpayers cannot afford.
Still, I think for governments at all levels, there is a light at the end of their tunnels and it’s the train coming. What they’ve created isn’t sustainable and right now they are seeing that that’s an undeniable fact!
Who in the hell gave the federal government any say at all in the matter? I don’t see any such enumeration in the constitution. The federal government is empowered to manage a certain amount of land necessary for federal offices, military bases, etc. But certainly not 86% of the land within a state. This land belongs to the state or the state is not a state. It’s a federal territory.
Because your guns are unused? Just an opinion, for what it's worth.
FMCDH(BITS)
Yeah, and they would “allow” Bundy to graze a certain number of cows per acre for a fee. But the number was totally insufficient to sustain his ranch. And that was the entire purpose of the feds. To run him out of business and off the land just as they did all the other large ranchers in the territory. It’s tyranny.
Utah has HB 148 and the feds are supposed to turn these lands over by Dec 31. And if not, Utah can sue, and let the judge(s) decide
The court is owned by the feds.
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.