I have no problem revisiting the issue.
But there simply is nothing in the Constitution that can be interpreted to mean that title to land owned by the United States passes to the individual state within a given time if not sold to individuals.
The land was acquired by the money and/or blood of “the people of the United States,” not the people of Nevada or Washington state.
I see this POV fairly frequently on FR. If there is some policy we dislike, it must be “unconstitutional.” To my mind that’s a leftist viewpoint. Not all bad things are unconstitutional. Any attempt to make it be so requires some body, usually a court, to “interpret” the Constitution out of its plain meaning.
As a side issue, a lot of the rural inhabitants of these states assume, without any real evidence I can see, that state ownership would be vastly better for them than federal ownership.
Might be the case in most of the Rocky Mountain states. Really doubt it would be in the Pacific states, in which the state governments are even more liberal and enviro than the feds.
But there simply is nothing in the Constitution that can be interpreted to mean that title to land owned by the United States passes to the individual state within a given time if not sold to individuals.
The real question is, What in the Constitution gives the feds the power to retain title to lands within a state unless for specific constitutional purposes like the common defense?
Again, you have to start with the basic assumption of the Constitution that is confirmed in the Tenth Amendment: "Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Once a Territory becomes a State, things change. Whereas the feds have constitutional authority over a territory, it has limited and delegated powers over a state. A state and individuals, however, are free to do what they want if not prohibited by the Constitution. This would include the status of land with a state.
The constitutional presumption is if it is not specified as within the power of the feds, then it belongs to the states or the people. The Constitution didn't specify that the land within a state still belonged to the feds (seems contradictory to me anyway). Therefore, without constitutional permission for the feds to retain the land within the state, the land belongs to the state or the individuals within the state, depending on the initial setup of the transfer of land to establish of the state.
On your other point about Left or Right equivocation, although I don't call everything I don't like "unconstitutional", there are MANY things the feds are doing which are unconstitutional. They basically ignore the Constitution whenever they can. Again, if the federal act or power is not delegated and enumerated in the Constitution, then it is an invalid federal act or power. If it IS an enumerated constitutional power, then even if I don't like it, I support it becasue I believe in the Rule of Law, which in our case is the Constitution, our only legal bulwark of freedom against tyranny. The Leftist POV you speak of are those on the Right (including quite a few FReepers) who decry unconstitutional Leftist acts but equivocate unconstitutional acts the Right favors. THAT is the Rule of Man, which is tyranny. Sounds like you hate that. So do I.