Posted on 04/22/2014 10:51:05 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
We the people are the final arbiters in all things constitutional. Refer to the Declaration.
And, unless I’m misreading public sentiment, I do believe arbitration is coming due.
Excellent point!! The Feds should “own” if that is the right word at all, only the property that it needs to fulfill it’s constitutional responsibilities. Period.
But he, and those before him, had the large grazing lease that he could graze large numbers of cattle on. That's the way Congress set it up way back when.
But Congress changed it in 1976 with FLPMA, and the Sagebrush Rebellion coincides with FLPMA.
Then do what is due be done
Well, yeah. What’s your point? My point is congress is not empowered by the constitution to do this. Where is federal control over such a huge amount of so-called public land within a state’s sovereign boundaries enumerated and delegated by the constitution to the central government? Why is it not left to the states and the people as per the 10th amendment?
The process has begun.
Do the Feds pay property taxes like us pleebs? Never thought to ask that.
That might be a nice place to start, if not.
No. And along with the land, they’ve locked up all natural resources. Can you imagine if the federal government had locked up all the natural resources in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee or Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, etc? For one thing, the industrial revolution would never had happened. And another, America would never had been the land of plentiful or the richest most powerful country on earth.
Back east the feds made money selling these federal lands to settlers, because that was the wet zone and farming could be profitable on small acres. Even in the west where the feds built dams and irrigation systems people snapped up those small acre lands because they could grow a good crop with the irrigation water.
But out in the western deserts nobody wanted that land. Nevada has the most federal land because it has more desert than any other state.
If its free I'll take it, but only if you give me low cost grazing on this other 15,000 acres.
But when such territories (however acquired) enter into the union and become sovereign states, the land within the new state boundaries should no longer be owned or controlled by the federal government. Constitutionally, the federal government should divest itself at the earliest opportunity of all such lands, except those necessary for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.
Let’s take just your state, Jim. Why should the Fed control 45% of California?
It’s long been the most populous state. You know that the large portion of those acres would have been put to good use by industrious people.
What difference has that made over the years in the income of your state alone?
For Nevada, it has left Nevada just about totally unoccupied, a bit unusual, since prior to the Fed, the Paiute and Shoshoni tribes had the state pretty well divided up north, south, and central.
Ditto Alaska. And the swamp in my backyard. :(
Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 27. The Federal Government cannot own more than 10 square miles of the land in any given state.
The feds should not control 45% of California, Or a large percentage of any sovereign state. The feds gave up control of public lands in all other states early on per the constitution except for those here in the west. All so-called federal public lands within sovereign state boundaries should be sold, homesteaded, or turned over to the states except for that land specifically enumerated by the constitution for the feds as necessary for forts, buildings, dock yards, etc.
No.
Just looking at that red map that some freeper posts every now and then is a visual lesson that something went terribly wrong when the Fed got out to the west.
When the nation was operating as intended in the early years, it did not hold onto very much in any state. And the truth is that it also had control of public lands in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, etc., etc. It disposed of it in accordance with the intent of the Constitution.
I don't think you're correct in that. Article IV, Section 3 says "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..." without placing any restrictions on the size or location.
They divested it to try to sell it and make money to run the govt, but they also had to give some of it away to settle the land. Once again, these lands were available up until 1976, but not after that.
Some people say the feds should have done what Spain and Mexico did. Give away huge tracts of land like the de Vaca land grant that was 400,000 acres. Or like the land grants to the railroads. But Congress didn't want to give away large tracts to individuals.
The feral grubment is there to help. /s. They’ll take 99.9 % of your tax dollars to cause more problems, spend it on other things, and borrow money in your name. Such a deal, not.
Well, I believe the states (or most of them) and certainly the people now want their land and natural resources. The 1976 act is unconstitutional. Period.
Why are you defending BIG government tyranny on FR? I think that would better be done on moveon.org.
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.