Mike Lee: Public Land vs. Government Land

[TaftFan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObZUgoyvknc&feature=youtu.be

[seapilot]

Imagine a corporation owning 70% of the land in a state. Good video and I am glad someone is bringing up this long overdue matter for discussion in congress.

[ObiRandKenobi]

dig mike lee

[ClydeCoulter]

Very good.

[Matt Collins]

http://www.apeconmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/map-owns_the_west_sm.jpg



http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341bfae553ef014e87f3e653970d-800wi

[Ender]

dig mike lee

Yep.

I'm gaining more respect for the man by the minute.

[susano]

http://www.apeconmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/map-owns_the_west_sm.jpg



http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341bfae553ef014e87f3e653970d-800wi

How did this ever happen? I don't know. Did the feds just tell states they were taking the land or did they "buy" or what? More importantly, how to get it back?!

[Matt Collins]

How did this ever happen? I don't know. Did the feds just tell states they were taking the land or did they "buy" or what? More importantly, how to get it back?!
Most of the western states were territories of the federal government, therefore when they became states they were set up differently than the eastern states.

[mad cow]

http://www.apeconmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/map-owns_the_west_sm.jpg



http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341bfae553ef014e87f3e653970d-800wi

Article one,Section Eight:
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.

Looks like there are a hell of a lot of Forts,Magazines,Arsenals dock-yards and other needful buildings in Alaska,Utah and Nevada.

[susano]

Most of the western states were territories of the federal government, therefore when they became states they were set up differently than the eastern states.

Meaning what, Matt? Did the feds just draw lines around territories and declare them states comprised federal lands, or what? Sorry, I don't know the process for how states are supposed to come about and don't feel like looking it up, at the moment. Just seems like a state would preclude the idea of being full of federal land.

[Matt Collins]

Looks like there are a hell of a lot of Forts,Magazines,Arsenals dock-yards and other needful buildings in Alaska,Utah and Nevada.In that case, yes there is a lot of testing and military presence in Nevada, and even Utah.

[Matt Collins]

Meaning what, Matt? Did the feds just draw lines around territories and declare them states comprised federal lands, or what? Sorry, I don't know the process for how states are supposed to come about and don't feel like looking it up, at the moment. Just seems like a state would preclude the idea of being full of federal land.You're not far off.... Nevada was created illegally by Lincoln (as was WV) for instance.

[mad cow]

In that case, yes there is a lot of testing and military presence in Nevada, and even Utah.

President Clinton didn't even have the balls to stand in Utah when he declared Grand Staircase-Escalante a national monument,stealing almost 2 million acres from Utah.He did it from across the river in Arizona.

Please point out anything in the Constitution that authorizes National Parks,Monuments,Wildlife Areas,Forests,Seashores or any thing other than what I posted in post #9.

See that teeny-weeny dot in the S.E. corner of VA in your map?That is The Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge,more Federal land of questionable Constitutionality.NNE of it is an itsy-bitsy teeny-weeny red dot that represents Naval Station Norfolk,the largest Naval base in the world.
I will admit to it's Constitutionality so long as it was "purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be",and it still should be one of the larger red dots on your map.

[eduardo89]

Article one,Section Eight:
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.

Looks like there are a hell of a lot of Forts,Magazines,Arsenals dock-yards and other needful buildings in Alaska,Utah and Nevada.

The federal government can own land, but it cannot exercise legislative authority over it. It is not prohibited from owning land which is subject to the states' legislative authority.

[mad cow]

The federal government can own land, but it cannot exercise legislative authority over it. It is not prohibited from owning land which is subject to the states' legislative authority.

Could you point that out in the Constitution?And does legislative authority include putting up roadblocks and armed Federal guards to keep State residents from recreating on that land?

[heavenlyboy34]

The federal government can own land, but it cannot exercise legislative authority over it. It is not prohibited from owning land which is subject to the states' legislative authority.
Sounds like a doctrine originating during the Teddy Roosevelt regime. Yes?

[eduardo89]

Could you point that out in the Constitution?And does legislative authority include putting up roadblocks and armed Federal guards to keep State residents from recreating on that land?

Article One, Section Eight. It says the federal government has sole legislative over DC as well as the power to 'to exercise like Authority' over military bases and other 'needful Buildings' such as federal courthouses. The Constitution never says the federal government may not own land over which it does not have those special powers.


Sounds like a doctrine originating during the Teddy Roosevelt regime. Yes?

No.

[mad cow]

Article One, Section Eight. It says the federal government has sole legislative over DC as well as the power to 'to exercise like Authority' over military bases and other 'needful Buildings' such as federal courthouses. The Constitution never says the federal government may not own land over which it does not have those special powers.



No.


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.

You bolded the first 8 words of that clause,bold the entire thing and see how it reads.

The DoI states that "we hold these truths to be self evident",does that mean they hold every sentence written in history true and self evident or just the rest of that sentence?

The Constitution also never says that Supreme Court Justices aren't allowed to rape 9 year old children and then bar-b-que them for dinner when they get sexually tired of them.

The Constitution only grants limited,delegated and enumerated powers to the Federal Government.
Can you go outside of the clause that you only bolded eight words from and show me some other limited,delegated and enumerated power that grants the Federal government the power to buy,steal,acquire by any other means real estate from the States?

[Matt Collins]

Please point out anything in the Constitution that authorizes National Parks,Monuments,Wildlife Areas,Forests,Seashores or any thing other than what I posted in post #9.
pfft... no one pays attention to that "quaint" piece of paper any more :p

[AZJoe]

https://a4cgr.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/federal-fault-line.jpg?w=600

[Pericles]

How did this ever happen? I don't know. Did the feds just tell states they were taking the land or did they "buy" or what? More importantly, how to get it back?!

In Texas you see three categories:

1. Military bases
2. Corps of Engineer lakes
3. National forest / grassland / park

[shakey1]

Thank you Mr Lee.

[CPUd]

How did this ever happen? I don't know. Did the feds just tell states they were taking the land or did they "buy" or what? More importantly, how to get it back?!

The states can get a lot of that back if they wanted to. Some of them like Nevada have it written in their state constitution that certain areas of land are ceded to the federal government. Others like Utah have moved to get some of their land back. When they were territories, people could go out there and if they do certain things like dig a well, build a structure, prove a mine or well, etc., they would get the title to that land. Some people did, but in the 1800's it was a very difficult life (and still pretty tough today). Natural disasters, disease, attacks by the natives, any of those could wipe out years of work, and homesteads could be so isolated from civilization that people would go stir crazy out there in the middle of nothing but desert land. But the point is not a lot of people settled those areas the way they settled the lands East of the Mississippi River. And when it came time for statehood, there was an issue of taxation- if no one wants to live in certain areas, the states did not want to be in a position where they would be liable for federal taxes on it. Obviously the US could exempt those lands, but ceding them to the feds was a simple way to moot the issue.

Also the discovery of oil and gold complicated the issue of private ownership. So someone could own title to the surface, but someone else could own what is underneath.

[Swordsmyth]

The states can get a lot of that back if they wanted to. Some of them like Nevada have it written in their state constitution that certain areas of land are ceded to the federal government. Others like Utah have moved to get some of their land back. When they were territories, people could go out there and if they do certain things like dig a well, build a structure, prove a mine or well, etc., they would get the title to that land. Some people did, but in the 1800's it was a very difficult life (and still pretty tough today). Natural disasters, disease, attacks by the natives, any of those could wipe out years of work, and homesteads could be so isolated from civilization that people would go stir crazy out there in the middle of nothing but desert land. But the point is not a lot of people settled those areas the way they settled the lands East of the Mississippi River. And when it came time for statehood, there was an issue of taxation- if no one wants to live in certain areas, the states did not want to be in a position where they would be liable for federal taxes on it. Obviously the US could exempt those lands, but ceding them to the feds was a simple way to moot the issue.

Also the discovery of oil and gold complicated the issue of private ownership. So someone could own title to the surface, but someone else could own what is underneath.


The states don't pay property taxes to the feds.
The feds held on to this land when they converted the territories to states, theft by omission if you will.

[CPUd]

The states don't pay property taxes to the feds.
The feds held on to this land when they converted the territories to states, theft by omission if you will.

No it is written specifically



[PRELIMINARY ACTION.]

Whereas,

The Act of Congress Approved March Twenty First A.D. Eighteen Hundred and Sixty Four “To enable the People of the Territory of Nevada to form a Constitution and State Government and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the Original States,” requires that the Members of the Convention for framing said Constitution shall, after Organization, on behalf of the people of said Territory, adopt the Constitution of the United States.—Therefore, Be it Resolved,
That the Members of this Convention, elected by the Authority of the aforesaid enabling Act of Congress, Assembled in Carson City the Capital of said Territory of Nevada, and immediately subsequent to its Organization, do adopt, on behalf of the people of said Territory the Constitution of the United States[.]

ORDINANCE

Slavery prohibited; freedom of religious worship; disclaimer of public lands. [Effective until the date Congress consents to amendment or a legal determination is made that such consent is not necessary.]  In obedience to the requirements of an act of the Congress of the United States, approved March twenty-first, A.D. eighteen hundred and sixty-four, to enable the people of Nevada to form a constitution and state government, this convention, elected and convened in obedience to said enabling act, do ordain as follows, and this ordinance shall be irrevocable, without the consent of the United States and the people of the State of Nevada:
First. That there shall be in this state neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment for crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
Second. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested, in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship.
Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.
[Amended in 1956. Proposed and passed by the 1953 legislature; agreed to and passed by the 1955 legislature; approved and ratified by the people at the 1956 general election. See: Statutes of Nevada 1953, p. 718; Statutes of Nevada 1955, p. 926.]

Slavery prohibited; freedom of religious worship; taxation of certain property. [Effective on the date Congress consents to amendment or a legal determination is made that such consent is not necessary.]  In obedience to the requirements of an act of the Congress of the United States, approved March twenty-first, A.D. eighteen hundred and sixty-four, to enable the people of Nevada to form a constitution and state government, this convention, elected and convened in obedience to said enabling act, do ordain as follows, and this ordinance shall be irrevocable, without the consent of the United States and the people of the State of Nevada:
First. That there shall be in this state neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment for crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
Second. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested, in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship.
Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the Congress of the United States.
[Amended in 1956 and 1996. The first amendment was proposed and passed by the 1953 legislature; agreed to and passed by the 1955 legislature; approved and ratified by the people at the 1956 general election. See: Statutes of Nevada 1953, p. 718; Statutes of Nevada 1955, p. 926. The second amendment was proposed and passed by the 1993 legislature; agreed to and passed by the 1995 legislature; and approved and ratified by the people at the 1996 general election, effective on the date Congress consents to amendment or a legal determination is made that such consent is not necessary. See: Statutes of Nevada 1993, p. 3136; Statutes of Nevada 1995, p. 2917.]



https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Const/NVConst.html

[Swordsmyth]

No it is written specifically


https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Const/NVConst.html

You did not make it clear which statement you were disagreeing with.

Nothing you posted says that the states pay property taxes to the feds.
If you are saying that in the case of Nevada it was not omission but blackmail (no statehood unless you give up the land) you may be right.

[CPUd]

You did not make it clear which statement you were disagreeing with.

Nothing you posted says that the states pay property taxes to the feds.
If you are saying that in the case of Nevada it was not omission but blackmail (no statehood unless you give up the land) you may be right.

LOL if it were blackmail they would force the state to take the land and pay taxes on it if they wanted statehood. Instead they wrote the opposite into their constitution and ratified it.

[Swordsmyth]

LOL if it were blackmail they would force the state to take the land and pay taxes on it if they wanted statehood. Instead they wrote the opposite into their constitution and ratified it.
THE STATE DOES NOT PAY PROPERTY TAXES TO THE FEDS.

[Sonny Tufts]

If you are saying that in the case of Nevada it was not omission but blackmail (no statehood unless you give up the land) you may be right.

The land never belonged to Nevada. It was originally acquired by the federal government by treaty and was specifically reserved when Nevada became a State.

[Swordsmyth]

The land never belonged to Nevada. It was originally acquired by the federal government by treaty and was specifically reserved when Nevada became a State.
They had no right to "reserve" that land.

[CPUd]

They had no right to "reserve" that land.

They didn't need one, it was ceded.

[CPUd]

THE STATE DOES NOT PAY PROPERTY TAXES TO THE FEDS.

No one is saying they did.

[Swordsmyth]

They didn't need one, it was ceded.
In other states it was not.

[Swordsmyth]

No one is saying they did.
You are saying they would have.
They would not have, they do not pay on the land they have, no state does, there is no Federal property tax on states.

[CPUd]

You are saying they would have.
They would not have, they do not pay on the land they have, no state does, there is no Federal property tax on states.

There are other kinds of taxes related to land besides the property tax. The clue is what may or may not be underneath the land.

[Swordsmyth]

There are other kinds of taxes related to land besides the property tax. The clue is what may or may not be underneath the land.
The state does not pay any taxes on the land to the feds, and the feds would not get any royalties from anybody if they had not kept the land and/or the sub-soil rights.

[Sonny Tufts]

They had no right to "reserve" that land.

Of course they did. The land belonged to the federal government by virtue of the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo, and under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution Congress had plenary control over the land. If it wanted to retain ownership and not have it be part of the State of Nevada it had every right to do so. And it did.

[Swordsmyth]

Of course they did. The land belonged to the federal government by virtue of the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo, and under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution Congress had plenary control over the land. If it wanted to retain ownership and not have it be part of the State of Nevada it had every right to do so. And it did.

And the land wasn't ceded, either, because it never belonged to the State of Nevada.

No they did not have the right to "reserve" it they would have had the right to draw the borders of the state differently but when the state was created the land belonged to them. Any Holdings the Feds desired after that should have been purchased from the state.

[CPUd]

No they did not have the right to "reserve" it they would have had the right to draw the borders of the state differently but when the state was created the land belonged to them. Any Holdings the Feds desired after that should have been purchased from the state.

They can buy it back from the feds tax free, that part is also in their state constitution.

[Swordsmyth]

They can buy it back from the feds tax free, that part is also in their state constitution.
So like I said "Blackmail" or Ransom if you prefer.

[CPUd]

So like I said "Blackmail" or Ransom if you prefer.

That would imply the state wants the land, and all that comes with it, which they clearly don't.

[Swordsmyth]

That would imply the state wants the land, and all that comes with it, which they clearly don't.
They do.
Why would they not want it, and the income that could be derived from it?
And please don't repeat your stupid line about them having to pay taxes on it.

[CPUd]

They do.
Why would they not want it, and the income that could be derived from it?
And please don't repeat your stupid line about them having to pay taxes on it.

Go read some of the Bundy threads on here from several years ago where this was discussed in detail by several folks who are from Nevada.