Thank you for you patience with this discussion Sherman Logan.
What dictionary defines “disposed of,” the term used in the Resolution of 1780, as being sold into private ownership as it relates to that resolution?
Webster’s Dictionary defines “disposed of” as transferring control to someone else or getting rid of something. So I don’t see where a sale of land to private ownership is an issue when states cede (give up) land to the feds, or the feds dispose of (transfer control) of land to a new state, the spoils of war to a state in the case of Nevada, to a new state.
Again, since I haven’t been shown evidence for either eminent domain or the Constitution’s Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I with respect to the “federal” land in question, I want to know the federal government’s constitutional basis for controlling land in Nevada. And if the land wasn’t disposed of when Nevada became a state in compliance with the Resolution of 1780, then why wasn’t it disposed of?
I think you’re missing the point. NV land was handled more or less as land in every other state was.
What is your rationale for NV being granted ownership of all public lands at statehood when no other state was?
AFAIK, nobody ever raised these constitutional claims till the last few years. Don’t you think the guys who actually wrote the Constitution and then later passed laws admitting new states and making provision to retain ownership of federal lands till sold had a better idea of what the Constitution meant than you or I do?
I don’t think there would be anything unconstitutional if Congress decided to transfer ownership of all federal lands to the state it’s in. It’s just never been done.