Replies

I think you are confusing title with sovereignty or jurisdiction. Of course the state acquired jurisdiction over all land within its borders on statehood. However, AFAIK no state acquired title to public domain federally owned land on statehood.

In fact, I’m unaware of the question even being brought up. Just not an issue. The Federal Land Office continued to sell land in most states for decades after statehood.

The initial case was Ohio in 1804. Various others followed, following basically the same pattern. Including several under Madison, often called the Father of the Constitution.

Nobody, including Little Jimmy, seemed to see any difficulty with the federal government retaining title to public domain inside a state. If there was ever even any discussion of the point, I’m unaware of it and would be interested if you know of any.

IOW, if the Founders apparently saw no constitutional problem, I’m unclear why you do.

I agree much of what the US government does is unconstitutional by any reasonable standard.

But when the Constitution specifically gives Congress power over Territory or other Property belonging to the United States, to my mind that pretty well settles it.

BTW, I appreciate the polite disagreement. I’ve been called a paid tool of the government for disagreeing with others here. To which I can only reply that I’m not paid enough! Or at all.

I find it very odd that so many seem to be unable to get their minds around someone making a principled decision to disagree. The only possible reasons for dissent are dishonorable.

Go ahead and get a law thru Congress giving all the land in western states to them. I have no particular problem with that, though I suspect the consequences will not be what you think.

Thanks for your insight...realizing that posting it here, as you pointed out, exposes you to some risk of being labeled as a tool of the feds.

I've always been amused at people who label these changes in land classification as a "federal land grab." The feds own this acreage, and have always owned it in the West, and it's not really possible to "grab" something (in the theft sense) that you already own.

When the western states were admitted to the Union at various times, one of the conditions for admission to the union was that the state cede ownership of its unpatented public lands to the federal government, except for Sections 2 and 36 in each township, which were reserved to the state seeking admission. In the case of Nevada, most of the state was unpatented public rangeland, and some pretty bad acreage at that. It was completely unsuited for farming without costly irrigation systems and wasn't particularly useful for grazing cattle, either. So, when Nevada was admitted to the Union, 87% of the land area of the state came under federal ownership, and it has remained that way ever since.

The notable exception was Texas, which is the only state permitted to retain sovereignty over its unpatented public lands. The Republic of Texas ceded the eastern 2/3rds of what is now New Mexico (that portion situated east of the Rio Grande) to the feds in exchange for the latter's assumption of its debts arising from the Texas Revolution of 1836. At that time in 1845, every unpatented area north of the 32nd parallel and west of the 103rd meridian formerly owned by the Republic of Texas (except for each Section 2 and 36 noted above) became the property of the U. S. Government.

Also worthy of note is the fact that since 1976, the Department of the Interior has made payments in lieu of taxes to the local governments in states where much of the acreage is off the local tax rolls because of federal ownership. This measure was enacted in recognition of the need to provide funding for necessary services in these localities where the feds own most of the land in the area. So, in a manner of speaking, if you live in Lincoln County, NM or Klamath County, OR, the federal government is one of your fellow local taxpayers (in a manner of speaking.)

Well, I think there’s a fundamental disagreement here.

You seem to think the if the Constitution doesn’t forbid federal action, then the feds are in the clear. But that is not the presumption of the Constitution as confirmed by the Tenth Amendment. The Constitution formed the federal government and is the only source of power for the federal government.

The Declaration of Independence which has persuasive authority, states the presumptions of the Constitution, that we are born with God-given rights, so that in order to establish a central government, some of those rights had to be clearly and specifically delegated away to the feds. Again, if the Constitution doesn’t delegate the specific enumerated power, it belongs to the states and the people just as the Tenth Amendment confirms.

This is the difference between living under the rule of law, which is America’s heritage with the Constitution, or living under the tyrannical rule of man, which is what you get if you slough off the Constitution.

If we disagree there, we can’t go much further IMO, becasue that’s the issue.

You also seem to think I’m for states’ rights here because it will bring a better outcome. I have no clue what the outcome would be, other that the fact there would be one less unconstitutional activity the feds would be involved in.

Lastly, if you actually do believe the feds are bound by the Constitution and you think Art IV Sec 3 gives the feds power to hold onto state lands, then we have a genuine disagreement of Constitutional interpretation that would take some digging to find contrary the original intent, but textually, the power isn’t there. Again, your interpretation of “territory” in Art IV Sec 3 is not the common, historical usage which is U.S. land that is not within a state. That clause simply gives the feds the power to allow a territory to become a state. It doesn’t address further federal power after the land is state land.

However, Art I Sec 8 Cl 17 does address federal interference with state land. It allows federal authority on state lands, but only only for legitimate defensive or “necessary” purposes after the consent of the state legislature.