Replies

Supreme Court rulings on agreements as opposed to treaties will be found by clicking here. (Run a search for agreement. There will be many hits.)

There is an issue of unconstitutionality by Congress and/or the President at issue here.

Uh?? The constitution!?? Probably 999 of 1000 folks have no idea what was written in this article...the giving away of the USA without firing a cannon. With our first female president doing the honors... .

Forest - your thesis has some holes.

When the Constitution was approved, there were a handful of States. One of the sticking points in the agreement to evolve from a Confederation to a federal nation, was the mutual debt for the war. Some States had western wasteland claims east of the Mississippi that they could sell to pay their debt, some did not. Also there were conflicting claims to these "Western Wastelands." Agreements were reached where some of the States ceded the deed to these wastelands to the national federal government to dispose to pay the war debt. Some actually ceded the jurisdiction as well. Authority over these lands is covered in Article IV, Section 3(2)

The Constitution did not apply to lands West of the Mississippi. These belonged to other countries. West of the Mississippi, lands were acquired in various ways. One of the most common was the acquisition by treaty. If the land had been held by another country previously, then under International law, the laws continued unless repugnant to the Constitution and until replaced. This is why Roman Civil Law and not English common law continues in Louisiana and why Spanish (Roman law) continues as the underlying tenet of land ownership in the West (west of the Mississippi.) (This is why the east has English riparian rights and the West has Roman appropriative rights of acqusition - "first in time, first in right".)

Territorial governments similar to the colonial governments were established with Congress appointing Governors, judges, etc. This was not like government of the original States.

When Alaska was made a state, areas were actually retained by the federal government in ownership as enclaves. In the rest of the Western states, they were supposed to be on an "equal footing" with the original states, but the courts ruled that this did not apply to their own wastelands. The courts ruled that the federal government retained right of disposal. In Kleppe vs. New Mexico (which I consider a very bad decision,) SCOTUS recognized an almost separate federal police power - at least as regards lands and resources - in the federal government over federally managed lands.

In 1972 (I believe) FLPMA stated that henceforth it would be policy to retain all public lands in the ownership of the federal national government. "Public lands" are lands surveyed and available for public disposal, so now we have "federal lands" with not quite exclusive legislative jurisdiction, but with quasi police powers in excess of an ordinary property owner.

This is an extremely complex subject and not as simple as jurisdiction limited to "forts and arsenals" would appear. That refers to exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction over enclaves. There are other layers of pre-emptive legislative power over Interstate Commerce and the treaty powers that have leveraged additional control. Also, there is the practice of the federal government, in effect, purchasing jurisdiction through conditions upon states for recipt of federal money for welfare and other programs.

You need to go a bit deeper in your research, but beware, it can get pretty foggy in there and you may see medusa. I found her hiding in the Interstate Commerce Act under interstate navigation. It is like visually trying to trace the path of a piece of string through a ball of twine.