Posted on 12/06/2014 7:23:46 AM PST by HomerBohn
The federal government has 31.2 million acres of Utah's land, and Utah wants it back.
According to the Washington Times on Wednesday, in three weeks, Utah plans to seize control of its own land now under the control of the federal government. Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, in an unprecedented challenge to federal dominance of Western state lands, in 2012 signed the “Transfer of Public Lands Act,” which demands that Washington relinquish its hold on the land. The land being held represents more than half of the state’s 54.3 million acres, by Dec. 31.
State Rep. Ken Ivory, who sponsored the legislation, isn't deterred even though the federal government hasn't given any indication that it plans to cooperate. “That’s what you do any time you’re negotiating with a partner. You set a date,” said Ivory. “Unfortunately, our federal partner has decided they don’t want to negotiate in good faith. So we’ll move forward with the four-step plan that the governor laid out.” That plan involves a program of education, negotiation, legislation and litigation. “We’re going to move forward and use all the resources at our disposal,” stated Ivory, who also heads the American Lands Council, which advocates the relinquishing of federal lands to the control of the states.
One might ask why Utah wants it's land back now. Well, it seems there’s hydrocarbons in those hills. The Salt Lake Tribune reported on Tuesday that an analysis from three state universities states that Utah can afford to take over more than half the state from the federal government, and may even be able to make more money on it than the feds have. It should be noted that the transfer would require either an act of Congress or a successful lawsuit.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Have they put a stop to sodomite marriage yet?
The land was federal territory before it was federal land. It was never state land.
****************
Yep that land was owned/controlled by Mexico until 1848 when it was won by the
United States in the Mexican War. In the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexico
had to give what is now the American West (including Utah) to the United States. It
took until 1896 for Utah to become a state.
Sounds right, but I wasn’t going to attempt the spelling.
The endangered species act should to axed…along with the EPA….they limit what private land owners can do and they are not given any dollars..
What land in private or state ownership is the government “grabbing?”
Be specific.
Utah might wake up to discover Obola has sold it to Iran...
When Utah became a State....how much land did Uncle Sam have title to....
That’s a question, not a challenge because I don’t know...
But, the federal govt became owner of the remainder either by war, out right purchase, or treaty. The only exception would be Texas which was created by a revolution against Mexico, and then later joined the union.
If the govt had not acquired these lands, none of these states would have come into existence.
This will eventually come down to the considerations (or whims) of one SJC judge.
I don’t think that’s the way the Founders expected their system to work. At least, I think they would think that issues which wound up in the SJC would be rarer, and determined by larger majorities. Now, almost anything that involves a counter to the Executive Branch is both a big deal in the sense of being unusual, and also commonplace, in the sense of being necessary.
I agree, this should have happened long ago.
Btw, welcome Freeper.
Utah is still reeling from the politically motivated creation of a 1.9 million acre monument in the Escalante Grand Staircase by President Clinton in 1996. And Obama is getting ready to grab another 10 million acres for some BS monument before he leaves office.
Try to keep up Sherm. :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo
Take a look at the above which gives info on the development of the West.
“What part of “forever” does the state legislature not understand?”
Well, Obola is rewriting the law, so why can’t Utah? BTW, “forever” can be litigated.
Clinton did not “grab” that land. It was already owned by the United States, as it had been since 1848.
The issue is one of how that land will be used, not of ownership.
I am, BTW, very familiar with the land in southern Utah. I’ve spent, over the years, months backpacking through it.
IOW, the land belongs the United States, and the United States has the right to control it. The decisions it makes may not be wise ones, but they’re not a “grab.”
All of it. With possible exception of land grants made by the Spanish or Mexicans. But I believe there were few if any of those in what is now Utah, as it was VERY loosely controlled by either government.
The land was also considered to have a kind of title vested in the Indian inhabitants. But that was also more or less at the disposal of Congress, and any treaties transferred that quasi-title to the United States, not to a State or territory.
Congress has a perfect right to turn over ownership to the State if it chooses. But I don’t think any lawsuit has a legal or constitutional leg to stand on.
Again, I’m not inherently opposed to such transfer, merely to false rhetoric that the State or its inhabitants have a legal or constitutional right to ownership.
Republican Congress passes an act for those lands excepting those needed for national defense, government installations and national parks revert back to the states = step one.
Step two: Send it to Obama for his veto. Send it back to Congress to override his veto. Any western state democrat that does not vote to override the veto just became a loser in the next election.
Step three: If the veto is not overridden do it again in two years with a Republican President to sign it. Any Rinos that do not vote for it should be primaried.
If that's the case we have already surrendered to Mexico and they own us.
Using words like grab, seized, stole make good copy but of course no land was grabbed, seized, or stolen.
They are complaining because they don't like the way the federal govt is managing the lands that the federal govt owns. For example: the land in Utah was re-designated with a higher level of protection, and it could no longer be mined for coal. If land gets designated as wilderness, monument, park, etc that land receives more protection.
This misconcept flows from the notion that when govt imposes land use restrictions on private land, it is considered to be a "partial taking". The second part of the misconception is the confusion between land rights and property rights. If the govt re-designates land and won't let me mine the coal, they haven't violated my property rights because I didn't own the land, but they have infringed on my rental rights. Of course all landlords impose use restrictions on the renters.
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.