Hunters, hikers, and fishermen

[Old Rocks]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/opinion/our-land-up-for-grabs.html?_r=0

It’s difficult to understand why, given decades of consistent, strong support from voters of both parties for protecting land, water and the thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic benefits these resources make possible.

Last week, the United States Senate voted 51 to 49 to support an amendment to a nonbinding budget resolution to sell or give away all federal lands other than the national parks and monuments.

If the measure is ever implemented, hundreds of millions of acres of national forests, rangelands, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas and historic sites will revert to the states or local governments or be auctioned off. These lands constitute much of what’s left of the nation’s natural and historical heritage.

All those that voted for this were Republicans. No Democrats voted for this bill. Are these the people you want taking care of your interests?

 

[initforme]

I don't believe this is true. Sportsmen represent a large voting block and both parties know this. Political suicide. These lands should be kept open for the public to use.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

For a political party that believes that the wealth of a nation should belong to the people ( aka democrats) they sure do want to prevent THE PEOPLE the opportunity to have some of it. Maybe we should just give up on the silly notion that anyone can own anything within the United States.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There are three Constitutional instances where the federal government may claim state lands in perpetuity.

Only three. Have a look.

 

[Old Rocks]

For a political party that believes that the wealth of a nation should belong to the people ( aka democrats) they sure do want to prevent THE PEOPLE the opportunity to have some of it. Maybe we should just give up on the silly notion that anyone can own anything within the United States.

So, you are for selling off our National Forests and BLM lands. Well, I am sure that you will appreciate how much of that land would be owned by Saudi's, Japanese, and Chinese. And no American Citizens allowed on their private property.

 

[Old Rocks]

I don't believe this is true. Sportsmen represent a large voting block and both parties know this. Political suicide. These lands should be kept open for the public to use.

Then check it out.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The states will keep some land as is. Sell some off.
If Ted Turner wants to buy a bunch and turn it into parkland, good for him.
The Feds do a sucky job of taking care of much of this land.
Let the states do it.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

THis website really does suck. I don't know who manages it but it is taking 50 minutes just log in and say anything. The issue about foreigners owning any kind of property is mute because non US citizen's are allowed to own property now and it is not an issue if they do. I can't think of any law that forbids any foreigner from owning any kind of property within the United States. Can you imagine if we did? How would Obama be able to have a home or anything of his own?

 

[Rustic]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/opinion/our-land-up-for-grabs.html?_r=0

It’s difficult to understand why, given decades of consistent, strong support from voters of both parties for protecting land, water and the thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic benefits these resources make possible.

Last week, the United States Senate voted 51 to 49 to support an amendment to a nonbinding budget resolution to sell or give away all federal lands other than the national parks and monuments.

If the measure is ever implemented, hundreds of millions of acres of national forests, rangelands, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas and historic sites will revert to the states or local governments or be auctioned off. These lands constitute much of what’s left of the nation’s natural and historical heritage.

All those that voted for this were Republicans. No Democrats voted for this bill. Are these the people you want taking care of your interests?

All for it, the federal government is absolutely irresponsible with what they control, not to even mention the country is broke.

 

[OKTexas]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/opinion/our-land-up-for-grabs.html?_r=0

It’s difficult to understand why, given decades of consistent, strong support from voters of both parties for protecting land, water and the thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic benefits these resources make possible.

Last week, the United States Senate voted 51 to 49 to support an amendment to a nonbinding budget resolution to sell or give away all federal lands other than the national parks and monuments.

If the measure is ever implemented, hundreds of millions of acres of national forests, rangelands, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas and historic sites will revert to the states or local governments or be auctioned off. These lands constitute much of what’s left of the nation’s natural and historical heritage.

All those that voted for this were Republicans. No Democrats voted for this bill. Are these the people you want taking care of your interests?

Maybe you read the Constitution concerning the lands congress was intended to have authority over. In fact I'll post it for you.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17​

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

It's a really simple concept, the federal government was never intended to own any land that was not necessary to the proper function of the government in performing its constitutional duties.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/opinion/our-land-up-for-grabs.html?_r=0

It’s difficult to understand why, given decades of consistent, strong support from voters of both parties for protecting land, water and the thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic benefits these resources make possible.

Last week, the United States Senate voted 51 to 49 to support an amendment to a nonbinding budget resolution to sell or give away all federal lands other than the national parks and monuments.

If the measure is ever implemented, hundreds of millions of acres of national forests, rangelands, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas and historic sites will revert to the states or local governments or be auctioned off. These lands constitute much of what’s left of the nation’s natural and historical heritage.

All those that voted for this were Republicans. No Democrats voted for this bill. Are these the people you want taking care of your interests?

Maybe you read the Constitution concerning the lands congress was intended to have authority over. In fact I'll post it for you.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17​

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

It's a really simple concept, the federal government was never intended to own any land that was not necessary to the proper function of the government in performing its constitutional duties.

The other part is that this land can only be voluntarily handed over to it by the state itself. The federal government can not forcefully take land from them. I'm not sure if this means that the federal government can use eminent domain against private persons since the fifth amendment deals with eminent domain. It would be interesting to find out if whether or not the federal government can take any land at all witout the consent of the state legislature. Did Utah and other states consent to these buyouts?

 

[OKTexas]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/opinion/our-land-up-for-grabs.html?_r=0

It’s difficult to understand why, given decades of consistent, strong support from voters of both parties for protecting land, water and the thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic benefits these resources make possible.

Last week, the United States Senate voted 51 to 49 to support an amendment to a nonbinding budget resolution to sell or give away all federal lands other than the national parks and monuments.

If the measure is ever implemented, hundreds of millions of acres of national forests, rangelands, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas and historic sites will revert to the states or local governments or be auctioned off. These lands constitute much of what’s left of the nation’s natural and historical heritage.

All those that voted for this were Republicans. No Democrats voted for this bill. Are these the people you want taking care of your interests?

Maybe you read the Constitution concerning the lands congress was intended to have authority over. In fact I'll post it for you.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17​

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

It's a really simple concept, the federal government was never intended to own any land that was not necessary to the proper function of the government in performing its constitutional duties.

The other part is that this land can only be voluntarily handed over to it by the state itself. The federal government can not forcefully take land from them. I'm not sure if this means that the federal government can use eminent domain against private persons since the fifth amendment deals with eminent domain. It would be interesting to find out if whether or not the federal government can take any land at all witout the consent of the state legislature. Did Utah and other states consent to these buyouts?

Nope, the feds retained them as a condition of statehood. My point is they retained them for unconstitutional purposes.