And there are just as many, if not more, that disagree with him. At the end of the day it's his opinion and his alone. That and a couple of bucks will get him a latte at any Starbucks.
But I don’t think that you were interested in hearing about possible constitutional problems with the land in question the first place.
In all of this, not once have I heard either of you reference Article IV, Section 3. Neither of you have bothered to read any of the enabling acts. And I'm still waiting for an explanation on how, if the government cannot own land outside of D.C. then how it was possible for it to create territories and states on land you say it could not own?
Regarding 4.3.2, please consider the following. Justice Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, which he published in 1833, is an excellent time capsule for learning about how the first few generations of educated Americans of that time interpreted the Constitution which went up to the 12th Amendment in 1833. And here is Justice Story’s analysis of 4.3.2.
Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2
As indicated by Story’s analysis of 4.3.2, that clause deals with Congress’s control of federal territory that the feds are holding in trust for the states imo, all bets off after the feds have disposed of such land to a new state in compliance with the Resolution of 1780.
I get the impression that you condone the idea that all land in the USA is ultimately owned by the federal government. But the Constitition’s Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I and the eminent domain clause of the 5th Amendment clearly indicate that the feds must buy any land that they want Congress to have exclusive legislative control over. In fact, both of those clauses not only limit what the feds can do with the purchased land, but Clause 17 also clarifies that Congress must have the approval of the state lawmakers that they want to buy the land from.