Trump administration sues California over federal land sales

[Swordsmyth]

The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against California over a state law giving it the power to override the sale of federal lands, the department announced Monday.

Under the law, which was passed in September, California has the first right to purchase federal lands or to arrange for a specific buyer. Lawmakers had expressed concerns that the Trump administration would allow more logging, oil drilling or development.

The Justice Department says California's law, which took effect Jan. 1, is delaying land sales -- even for projects that have been in the works for years -- and is depressing their value. The auction of 1.7 acres owned by the U.S. Postal Service was suspended when nobody bid, and a developer looking to purchase property at the now-closed Naval Air Station Alameda has requested a delay, the lawsuit contends.
"The Constitution empowers the federal government—not state legislatures—to decide when and how federal lands are sold," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. "California was admitted to the Union upon the express condition that it would never interfere with the disposal of federal land. And yet, once again, the California legislature has enacted an extreme state law attempting to frustrate federal policy."

More at: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/02/trump-administration-sues-california-over-federal-land-sales.html

[oyarde]

CalExit

[Ender]

The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against California over a state law giving it the power to override the sale of federal lands, the department announced Monday.

Under the law, which was passed in September, California has the first right to purchase federal lands or to arrange for a specific buyer. Lawmakers had expressed concerns that the Trump administration would allow more logging, oil drilling or development.

The Justice Department says California's law, which took effect Jan. 1, is delaying land sales -- even for projects that have been in the works for years -- and is depressing their value. The auction of 1.7 acres owned by the U.S. Postal Service was suspended when nobody bid, and a developer looking to purchase property at the now-closed Naval Air Station Alameda has requested a delay, the lawsuit contends.
"The Constitution empowers the federal government—not state legislatures—to decide when and how federal lands are sold," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. "California was admitted to the Union upon the express condition that it would never interfere with the disposal of federal land. And yet, once again, the California legislature has enacted an extreme state law attempting to frustrate federal policy."

More at: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/02/trump-administration-sues-california-over-federal-land-sales.html

Sorry, Sessions, but according to common law, the fed has no right to any state land.

Keep yourself quartered in DC, por favor.

[spudea]

Sorry, Sessions, but according to common law, the fed has no right to any state land.

Keep yourself quartered in DC, por favor.

this is federal land? or are you saying there is no such thing even though it was part of California's agreement to join the USA.

[Ender]

this is federal land? or are you saying there is no such thing even though it was part of California's agreement to join the USA.

Fed Gov owning State land is unconstitutional.

"The Constitution simply does not authorize the federal government to own any of this land (in the Western states)."
— Andrew Napolitano on Wednesday, April 23rd, 2014 in an interview on "Hannity"


* As for acreage (“other Property”) within state boundaries: Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal government may acquire and retain land necessary for carrying out its enumerated powers. This includes parcels for military bases, post offices, buildings to house federal employees undertaking enumerated functions, and the like. It is not necessary to form federal enclaves for these purposes.

* But within state boundaries the Constitution grants no authority to retain acreage for unenumerated purposes, such as land for grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or parks.

* Once a state is created and is thereby no longer a territory, the federal government has a duty to dispose of tracts not used for enumerated purposes.
https://i2i.org/what-does-the-constitution-say-about-federal-land-ownership/

California was taken in the Mexican American War; the only thing I've ever seen about any agreement was that they would not become a slave state.

[Swordsmyth]

Fed Gov owning State land is unconstitutional.

"The Constitution simply does not authorize the federal government to own any of this land (in the Western states)."
— Andrew Napolitano on Wednesday, April 23rd, 2014 in an interview on "Hannity"


https://i2i.org/what-does-the-constitution-say-about-federal-land-ownership/

California was taken in the Mexican American War; the only thing I've ever seen about any agreement was that they would not become a slave state.

Kalifornia is interfering in sales of postal property and military base land, those are covered under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

[spudea]

Fed Gov owning State land is unconstitutional.

"The Constitution simply does not authorize the federal government to own any of this land (in the Western states)."
— Andrew Napolitano on Wednesday, April 23rd, 2014 in an interview on "Hannity"


https://i2i.org/what-does-the-constitution-say-about-federal-land-ownership/

California was taken in the Mexican American War; the only thing I've ever seen about any agreement was that they would not become a slave state.

Please read the lawsuit details. You are saying things that are not true. Thank you.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-lawsuit-invalidate-new-california-law-restricting-federal-land-sales

[Ender]

Please read the lawsuit details. You are saying things that are not true. Thank you.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-lawsuit-invalidate-new-california-law-restricting-federal-land-sales

From the 10th Amendment Center: please read. Thank you.


The Constitution therefore allows the federal government to possess land in three forms: territories, enclaves and other property. Territories referred to land that was owned by the federal government but had not been formally made into states. Enclaves referred to land within a state that was owned by the federal government for essential purposes such as ‘Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards.’ Other property refers to land holdings for enumerated purposes, and gives the federal government limited discretion to possess land.

However, the Constitution does not authorize permanent land-grabs by the federal government. It authorizes Congress to make “all needful Rules and Regulations” pertaining to land. ‘Needful’ was a word carefully chosen to indicate that the regulatory power only expanded to powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The feds were expected to sell off non-essential land and distribute the subsequent monies in ways that benefited the public good such as paying off the debt or tax cuts.

The current regime of federal land management is blatantly unconstitutional. The founding fathers never intended to create a Republic where the feds could impose draconian fees on peaceful individuals and force them from the land. As a matter of fact, that is exactly the arrangement that the Constitution was written to prevent, as it clearly violates the principles of fiduciary government, sympathy and independence.

When the historical record is examined, it makes it abundantly clear that the Republic has gone awry since the days of the founders. Systematic attacks on the property rights of Americans have been justified through deliberate misreadings of the Constitution. This will only be changed when the public wakes up, re-discovers their rights and takes action against unjust federal power. Natelson’s article can provide a kick start toward creating a proper understanding of the Constitution amongst the American people.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/05/07/federal-land-ownership-is-it-constitutional/

And here is the Bundy Blog on this very issue:

http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-constitution-of-united-states-on.html

[Swordsmyth]

From the 10th Amendment Center: please read. Thank you.



http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/05/07/federal-land-ownership-is-it-constitutional/

And here is the Bundy Blog on this very issue:

http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-constitution-of-united-states-on.html


The feds were expected to sell off non-essential land and distribute the subsequent monies in ways that benefited the public good such as paying off the debt or tax cuts.


That is what they are trying to do, I see nothing anywhere that allows Kalifornia to give itself right of first refusal over sales of federal land or any land for that matter.

[nobody's_hero]

I actually would side with California on this. If they Feds are gonna use eminent domain, then they have to use it for public purposes. They can't just take land and sell it off to private entities. That's the worst abuse of eminent domain there is.

Of course, there's a strong possibility that California also wants the land so they can sell it off to the highest bidder and pay off it's state debt use the money to buy more shit they don't need.

But yeah, Feds aren't really supposed to have any land at all and certainly not as much as they hold west of the Mississippi River. But yeah add this to the list of things that might piss Californians off so much they just leave.

[Swordsmyth]

I actually would side with California on this. If they Feds are gonna use eminent domain, then they have to use it for public purposes. They can't just take land and sell it off to private entities. That's the worst abuse of eminent domain there is.

Of course, there's a strong possibility that California also wants the land so they can sell it off to the highest bidder and pay off it's state debt use the money to buy more $#@! they don't need.

But yeah, Feds aren't really supposed to have any land at all and certainly not as much as they hold west of the Mississippi River. But yeah add this to the list of things that might piss Californians off so much they just leave.

Where did they use eminent domain?

[spudea]

From the 10th Amendment Center: please read. Thank you.



http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/05/07/federal-land-ownership-is-it-constitutional/

And here is the Bundy Blog on this very issue:

http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-constitution-of-united-states-on.html

You're posting about resource management and wilderness land.... the suit against California is about property that was obtained to lawfully carry out the enumerated powers, specifically military bases, post offices, buildings to house federal employees, which you shared above is perfectly legal for the federal government to own and dispose of.