[marsh2]

(1)The Constitution did apply in the eastern territories. Art. IV, Section 3(2) "The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

(2) No, I am using the fact that land law in the West is not based on English common law as it is in the East to show that the Western territories were assumed under the International law I mentioned. The law in existence under Spain was the Roman civil law and that is still the basis for Western land law. This has caused some misapplication of case law concerning public lands that was applicable to the eastern territories to the western lands.

(3) In my opinion, if the public land was not specifically reserved to the federal government when the state was created, then it should have transferred to the state as its sovereign lands - just like the original 13 states. Otherwise, there is no equality of footing between the states.

The public land in the eastern states was disposed of to private parties. All parks, etc. there today were purchased or given to the federal government. The Federal government was trustee of the public lands for the people of the future states, but it held onto the lands after statehood and then declared themselves to be the permanent owner.

[B4Ranch]

In my opinion, if the public land was not specifically reserved to the federal government when the state was created, then it should have transferred to the state as its sovereign lands - just like the original 13 states. Otherwise, there is no equality of footing between the states.

This didn't specifically hurt Nevada until Yucca.