Who owns the west?

[JakeStarkey]

The correct answer is the Mormons. The Mormons own the west.

You should know this jake

and Nauvoo and Beaver Island and Fredericksburg and Mentor Lake and everywhere!

 

[sakinago]

The federal government, who represents We the People, owns most of the West.

Not the locals. Not the extraction industries. We the People.

Uh nooo, the FED is not supposed to own STATE land like that. It's suppose to go to the states, who do a much better job at representing the people who live in those states than the FED. The federal government was told twice by SCOTUS to give the land back to the states. If the fed owns that land, then we as citizens cannot own that land.

OK, we know your unsupported opinion substituting for fact.

Article 1 section 8. Which is before Article 3, And article 4 section 3, CLAUSE 1. Which is before the article 4 section 3 clause 3, that's you're referencing. What all these are saying combined, is that the fed can have its forts and what not, and have authority over those lands, no more than 10sq miles or something around that number. And again SCOTUS ruled twice that the fed is to give the land back to the states, based on article 1 section 8, and article 4 section 3 clause 1. Clause 3 of section 4 is just saying congress can have authority over the lands it's PERMITTED to have, the states can't tax the fed on that land or pass laws over that land.

 

[JakeStarkey]

sakinago does not understand the ordering of the Constitution.

Art I deals with the legislature and its powers.

Art 3 deals with scotus and its powers. SCOTUS made no such rulings as you suggest, sakinago.

Art IV Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

 

[RodISHI]

The federal government, who represents We the People, owns most of the West.

Not the locals. Not the extraction industries. We the People.

And that's a huge problem. Because MOST of that land was put under BLM because no one wanted it at the time. Not even the Forestry service. Time to reshuffle those cards. I've proposed that a large part of those holdings should be given to the Indian Tribes as repayment for raiding and stealing from the "Indian Trust Fund".

That huge Federal holding leads to classic "tragedy of the commons" where the ownership is not CLOSELY COUPLED or bonded that land. And looks at it as a job, not an asset. A lot could be devolved to orgs like the Nature Conservancy whom the public trusts FAR MORE than the Forestry or BLM. And the BULK of that land should devolve to state control..

No not nature conservancy either as they just serve their own few.

It does need to be worked out though for the ranchers and people who have used the land that pay taxes both to the feds and the states in those states aren't screwed at every turn.

 

[flacaltenn]

The federal government, who represents We the People, owns most of the West.

Not the locals. Not the extraction industries. We the People.

And that's a huge problem. Because MOST of that land was put under BLM because no one wanted it at the time. Not even the Forestry service. Time to reshuffle those cards. I've proposed that a large part of those holdings should be given to the Indian Tribes as repayment for raiding and stealing from the "Indian Trust Fund".

That huge Federal holding leads to classic "tragedy of the commons" where the ownership is not CLOSELY COUPLED or bonded that land. And looks at it as a job, not an asset. A lot could be devolved to orgs like the Nature Conservancy whom the public trusts FAR MORE than the Forestry or BLM. And the BULK of that land should devolve to state control..

No not nature conservancy either as they just serve their own few.

It does need to be worked out though for the ranchers and people who have used the land that pay taxes both to the feds and the states in those states aren't screwed at every turn.

Orgs like the Nature Conservancy work WITH land holders, including govts and do the job BETTER than the BLM ever did. They BUY land and manage it. NOT put it out of reach of ranchers, farmers, etc. But condone true "multi-use" of that land. MOST of the BLM is not real desirable, but IS important habitat..

 

[sakinago]

sakinago does not understand the ordering of the Constitution.

Art I deals with the legislature and its powers.

Art 3 deals with scotus and its powers. SCOTUS made no such rulings as you suggest, sakinago.

Art IV Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Yes you're right, article 1 section 8 does grant congress its AUTHORITY, and its stated plainly in that. 10sq miles

And I loved how you just conveniently skipped over the admissions clause in article 4 section 3. Do I need to look it up for you?

 

[RodISHI]

The federal government, who represents We the People, owns most of the West.

Not the locals. Not the extraction industries. We the People.

And that's a huge problem. Because MOST of that land was put under BLM because no one wanted it at the time. Not even the Forestry service. Time to reshuffle those cards. I've proposed that a large part of those holdings should be given to the Indian Tribes as repayment for raiding and stealing from the "Indian Trust Fund".

That huge Federal holding leads to classic "tragedy of the commons" where the ownership is not CLOSELY COUPLED or bonded that land. And looks at it as a job, not an asset. A lot could be devolved to orgs like the Nature Conservancy whom the public trusts FAR MORE than the Forestry or BLM. And the BULK of that land should devolve to state control..

No not nature conservancy either as they just serve their own few.

It does need to be worked out though for the ranchers and people who have used the land that pay taxes both to the feds and the states in those states aren't screwed at every turn.

Orgs like the Nature Conservancy work WITH land holders, including govts and do the job BETTER than the BLM ever did. They BUY land and manage it. NOT put it out of reach of ranchers, farmers, etc. But condone true "multi-use" of that land. MOST of the BLM is not real desirable, but IS important habitat..

Sorry I do not see them in the same light as you do. Another thing is when you put land into a non-taxable entity the tax payers of that area are stuck with all of the upkeep of the roads, etc. so it needs to be well planned and thought out if that is a route that is taken.

 

[OKTexas]

Repeating nonsense only confirms its value as nonsense.

The Constitution is the law. Period. And it covers all states.

And Art 4 Sec 3 makes it quite clear that the federal government for We the People governs national lands. Not you. Not the locals. Not the states.

And this says for what purposes the feds may have legislative authority over lands within a State:

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;--

That Article does not refer to public lands. It refers to lands in a state that have been purchased by the federal government

So where did they get the Authority to buy the Sam Houston National Forest from TX in the 1930s? Come on dude, let's see how consistent you are.

Texas was not a territory when Texas became a state. All public lands in Texas were owned by the Texas government or county governments at the time Texas became a state.

Wasn't the question, what constitutional authority gave the feds the right to purchase land for a National Forest? It doesn't exist in Article 1 or 4.

 

[JakeStarkey]

sakinago does not understand the ordering of the Constitution.

Art I deals with the legislature and its powers.

Art 3 deals with scotus and its powers. SCOTUS made no such rulings as you suggest, sakinago.

Art IV Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Yes you're right, article 1 section 8 does grant congress its AUTHORITY, and its stated plainly in that. 10sq miles

And I loved how you just conveniently skipped over the admissions clause in article 4 section 3. Do I need to look it up for you?

Your understanding of the clause is a substitution for how it actually works in American history.

All of your wishing that it was different does not change that you are wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And Art 4 Sec 3 makes it quite clear that the federal government for We the People governs national lands. Not you. Not the locals. Not the states.

And this says for what purposes the feds may have legislative authority over lands within a State:

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;--

That Article does not refer to public lands. It refers to lands in a state that have been purchased by the federal government

So where did they get the Authority to buy the Sam Houston National Forest from TX in the 1930s? Come on dude, let's see how consistent you are.

Texas was not a territory when Texas became a state. All public lands in Texas were owned by the Texas government or county governments at the time Texas became a state.

Wasn't the question, what constitutional authority gave the feds the right to purchase land for a National Forest? It doesn't exist in Article 1 or 4.

Your wishes does not substitute for how the Constitution works. Nothing prohibits the government from buying state lands. The government could sell federal lands, or gift them, for that matter, to the states or private individuals.

 

[flacaltenn]

The federal government, who represents We the People, owns most of the West.

Not the locals. Not the extraction industries. We the People.

And that's a huge problem. Because MOST of that land was put under BLM because no one wanted it at the time. Not even the Forestry service. Time to reshuffle those cards. I've proposed that a large part of those holdings should be given to the Indian Tribes as repayment for raiding and stealing from the "Indian Trust Fund".

That huge Federal holding leads to classic "tragedy of the commons" where the ownership is not CLOSELY COUPLED or bonded that land. And looks at it as a job, not an asset. A lot could be devolved to orgs like the Nature Conservancy whom the public trusts FAR MORE than the Forestry or BLM. And the BULK of that land should devolve to state control..

No not nature conservancy either as they just serve their own few.

It does need to be worked out though for the ranchers and people who have used the land that pay taxes both to the feds and the states in those states aren't screwed at every turn.

Orgs like the Nature Conservancy work WITH land holders, including govts and do the job BETTER than the BLM ever did. They BUY land and manage it. NOT put it out of reach of ranchers, farmers, etc. But condone true "multi-use" of that land. MOST of the BLM is not real desirable, but IS important habitat..

Sorry I do not see them in the same light as you do. Another thing is when you put land into a non-taxable entity the tax payers of that area are stuck with all of the upkeep of the roads, etc. so it needs to be well planned and thought out if that is a route that is taken.

No one is building roads into these areas. You need to go visit them. Other than fire/logging trails, there's a bunch of real nothing going on there. That's WHY it's BLM land. And if the Nat. Cons. wanted a road for access to habitat work or maintenance or recreation access, THEY would fund it. Or get a grant from the state or make partnerships. They are quite clever..

 

[OKTexas]

Repeating nonsense only confirms its value as nonsense.

The Constitution is the law. Period. And it covers all states.

And Art 4 Sec 3 makes it quite clear that the federal government for We the People governs national lands. Not you. Not the locals. Not the states.

And this says for what purposes the feds may have legislative authority over lands within a State:

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;--

That Article does not refer to public lands. It refers to lands in a state that have been purchased by the federal government

So where did they get the Authority to buy the Sam Houston National Forest from TX in the 1930s? Come on dude, let's see how consistent you are.

By agreement and contract between the US and TX.

You have to show they did not have the authority, and you have not done that.

Your affirmation, sweet cheeks, so support it.

Show me where the constitutional authority exists for the feds to buy land from a State for a national forest, it's not in article 1 or 4.

 

[sakinago]

sakinago does not understand the ordering of the Constitution.

Art I deals with the legislature and its powers.

Art 3 deals with scotus and its powers. SCOTUS made no such rulings as you suggest, sakinago.

Art IV Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Yes you're right, article 1 section 8 does grant congress its AUTHORITY, and its stated plainly in that. 10sq miles

And I loved how you just conveniently skipped over the admissions clause in article 4 section 3. Do I need to look it up for you?

Your understanding of the clause is a substitution for how it actually works in American history.

All of your wishing that it was different does not change that you are wrong.

And pollard vs Hagan says what?

 

[RodISHI]

The federal government, who represents We the People, owns most of the West.

Not the locals. Not the extraction industries. We the People.

And that's a huge problem. Because MOST of that land was put under BLM because no one wanted it at the time. Not even the Forestry service. Time to reshuffle those cards. I've proposed that a large part of those holdings should be given to the Indian Tribes as repayment for raiding and stealing from the "Indian Trust Fund".

That huge Federal holding leads to classic "tragedy of the commons" where the ownership is not CLOSELY COUPLED or bonded that land. And looks at it as a job, not an asset. A lot could be devolved to orgs like the Nature Conservancy whom the public trusts FAR MORE than the Forestry or BLM. And the BULK of that land should devolve to state control..

No not nature conservancy either as they just serve their own few.

It does need to be worked out though for the ranchers and people who have used the land that pay taxes both to the feds and the states in those states aren't screwed at every turn.

Orgs like the Nature Conservancy work WITH land holders, including govts and do the job BETTER than the BLM ever did. They BUY land and manage it. NOT put it out of reach of ranchers, farmers, etc. But condone true "multi-use" of that land. MOST of the BLM is not real desirable, but IS important habitat..

Sorry I do not see them in the same light as you do. Another thing is when you put land into a non-taxable entity the tax payers of that area are stuck with all of the upkeep of the roads, etc. so it needs to be well planned and thought out if that is a route that is taken.

No one is building roads into these areas. You need to go visit them. Other than fire/logging trails, there's a bunch of real nothing going on there. That's WHY it's BLM land. And if the Nat. Cons. wanted a road for access to habitat work or maintenance or recreation access, THEY would fund it. Or get a grant from the state or make partnerships. They are quite clever..

I lived in Idaho for seventeen years. There are roads and paths to many of these remote areas. In some ranchers have cattle and people still are able to use the areas for recreational purposes. I am also very familiar with the way nature conservancy has done in a case of land they control very near where we lived, they were total assholes about it except for a few of the elitist who were connected with them. I say let the states and the people in those states have a large say in what happens to their lands.

 

[Political Junky]

That's why Trump is doing such a great service by overturning obama's land grabs and returning the land to the states.

Bless him.

The Right would love to see all those landmarks filled with skyscrapers and trailer parks.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Americans have paid for public lands with blood and treasure. Americans have financed and invested in the upkeep and protection of those lands year after year since they became territories and later as public lands within states. Whenever the topic of transferring those lands to new owners it is nothing more than schemes to allow private interest to exploit the wealth and investments of the American people.

Show me in the Constitution were the federal government are authorized to make investments for the American people outside the enumerated powers.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2
"The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

The federal government assumed authority over the West, they didn't buy it, with the exception of Alaska. Even Alaska was treated differently, than say, the land bought under the LA purchase.

Sure Tex, if you wish to totally ignore the Texas Annexation of 1845 netting 389,000 sq. miles, or the Oregon Treaty of 1846 with those 286,000 sq. miles, or the Mexican Cession of 1848 adding another 525,000 sq. miles or the Gadsden Purchase of 1854 with another 29,670 sq. miles. Of that 1.23 Million sq. miles, some was purchased, some was split by treaty and some was obtained as spoils of war.

But the manner in which it was obtained does not change the fact that ALL of the land, save that within those territories which may have been held by parties with proper title, became the property of the United States held in trust for the People of the United States. Ignore the totality of the Constitution at your own peril!

There were no States of the United States within these territories when the US took possession of them was there. Therefore, NO STATE had a prior claim to be negatively impacted. Be sure to follow OSHA regs with that hole you're digging!

 

[JakeStarkey]

sakinago does not understand the ordering of the Constitution.

Art I deals with the legislature and its powers.

Art 3 deals with scotus and its powers. SCOTUS made no such rulings as you suggest, sakinago.

Art IV Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Yes you're right, article 1 section 8 does grant congress its AUTHORITY, and its stated plainly in that. 10sq miles

And I loved how you just conveniently skipped over the admissions clause in article 4 section 3. Do I need to look it up for you?

Your understanding of the clause is a substitution for how it actually works in American history.

All of your wishing that it was different does not change that you are wrong.

And pollard vs Hagan says what?

Not what you think. Want to show us?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's why Trump is doing such a great service by overturning obama's land grabs and returning the land to the states.

Bless him.

The Right would love to see all those landmarks filled with skyscrapers and trailer parks.

And statues to Trump!

 

[flacaltenn]

And that's a huge problem. Because MOST of that land was put under BLM because no one wanted it at the time. Not even the Forestry service. Time to reshuffle those cards. I've proposed that a large part of those holdings should be given to the Indian Tribes as repayment for raiding and stealing from the "Indian Trust Fund".

That huge Federal holding leads to classic "tragedy of the commons" where the ownership is not CLOSELY COUPLED or bonded that land. And looks at it as a job, not an asset. A lot could be devolved to orgs like the Nature Conservancy whom the public trusts FAR MORE than the Forestry or BLM. And the BULK of that land should devolve to state control..

No not nature conservancy either as they just serve their own few.

It does need to be worked out though for the ranchers and people who have used the land that pay taxes both to the feds and the states in those states aren't screwed at every turn.

Orgs like the Nature Conservancy work WITH land holders, including govts and do the job BETTER than the BLM ever did. They BUY land and manage it. NOT put it out of reach of ranchers, farmers, etc. But condone true "multi-use" of that land. MOST of the BLM is not real desirable, but IS important habitat..

Sorry I do not see them in the same light as you do. Another thing is when you put land into a non-taxable entity the tax payers of that area are stuck with all of the upkeep of the roads, etc. so it needs to be well planned and thought out if that is a route that is taken.

No one is building roads into these areas. You need to go visit them. Other than fire/logging trails, there's a bunch of real nothing going on there. That's WHY it's BLM land. And if the Nat. Cons. wanted a road for access to habitat work or maintenance or recreation access, THEY would fund it. Or get a grant from the state or make partnerships. They are quite clever..

I lived in Idaho for seventeen years. There are roads and paths to many of these remote areas. In some ranchers have cattle and people still are able to use the areas for recreational purposes. I am also very familiar with the way nature conservancy has done in a case of land they control very near where we lived, they were total assholes about it except for a few of the elitist who were connected with them. I say let the states and the people in those states have a large say in what happens to their lands.

I used to go visit college buds in Idaho that went into the Forestry Service and BLM in Idaho. Out of Cottonwood and a couple other places. Got several long trips into the backcountry there. Including a great trip with some of "river rangers" friends. It's was superb. Some of the tiny suspension bridges we crossed in jeep would "limit the traffic" !!!

 

[OKTexas]

sakinago does not understand the ordering of the Constitution.

Art I deals with the legislature and its powers.

Art 3 deals with scotus and its powers. SCOTUS made no such rulings as you suggest, sakinago.

Art IV Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Yes you're right, article 1 section 8 does grant congress its AUTHORITY, and its stated plainly in that. 10sq miles

And I loved how you just conveniently skipped over the admissions clause in article 4 section 3. Do I need to look it up for you?

You're confusing the 10 miles square, which is actually 100 square miles for DC, with other purchases.