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.
I think you are confusing title with sovereignty or jurisdiction. Of course the state acquired jurisdiction over all land within its borders on statehood. However, AFAIK no state acquired title to public domain federally owned land on statehood.
In fact, I’m unaware of the question even being brought up. Just not an issue. The Federal Land Office continued to sell land in most states for decades after statehood.
The initial case was Ohio in 1804. Various others followed, following basically the same pattern. Including several under Madison, often called the Father of the Constitution.
Nobody, including Little Jimmy, seemed to see any difficulty with the federal government retaining title to public domain inside a state. If there was ever even any discussion of the point, I’m unaware of it and would be interested if you know of any.
IOW, if the Founders apparently saw no constitutional problem, I’m unclear why you do.
I agree much of what the US government does is unconstitutional by any reasonable standard.
But when the Constitution specifically gives Congress power over Territory or other Property belonging to the United States, to my mind that pretty well settles it.
BTW, I appreciate the polite disagreement. I’ve been called a paid tool of the government for disagreeing with others here. To which I can only reply that I’m not paid enough! Or at all.
I find it very odd that so many seem to be unable to get their minds around someone making a principled decision to disagree. The only possible reasons for dissent are dishonorable.
Go ahead and get a law thru Congress giving all the land in western states to them. I have no particular problem with that, though I suspect the consequences will not be what you think.