Nonsense. In just about every enabling act creating states in the west it is clearly stated what land was being transferred to the new state. All other land remained the property of the U.S.
As Such since it is a Sovereign State NOW Section 8 Paragraph 17 controls. Not what was from before it became a State per the US Constitution.
Nothing in that negates the Property Clause in Article IV, Section 3.
Acts inconsistent with the language of the Constitution are VOID. What you claim are acts not Constitutional limits which nullify such overreaches of the federal government no matter who passes them. Acts are inferior to the Supreme Law of the land and Acts inconsistent with it are void. Its that simple.
By your logic, an Act of congress can legally create slavery or ban guns, etc. regardless of what the Constitution says.
"Nothing in that negates the Property Clause in Article IV, Section 3" - which states in relevant part:
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; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Bootstrapping (They own it because they own it) and Circular (calling a State a Territory) logical fallacies are not honest debate.