PDA

View Full Version : Judge rules in favor of Trump Administration vs. California over federal land sales




Swordsmyth
11-04-2018, 10:56 PM
A federal judge in California ruled in favor of the Trump Administration on Thursday, blocking a bill that gave the state the right to thwart the sale of federal lands to private interests, including loggers, oil drillers and developers, reports said.
U.S. District Judge William Shubb ruled against the state’s Senate Bill 50, which gave the State Lands Commission the first right of refusal of the sale of federal lands in California, the Sacramento Bee reported. The bill was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown in October 2017, according to the Sacramento Bee (https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article221054635.html). State Sen. Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica had sponsored the law, the San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Judge-knocks-down-California-law-to-stop-Trump-13359436.php) reported.
The judge’s ruling said the bill is unconstitutional because it “trespasses on the federal government’s ability to convey land to whomever it wants,” the Bee reported.
The federal government owns 46 million acres of land in California, including Point Reyes National Seashore and Yosemite National Park, according to the Chronicle.


The State Lands Commission said it is analyzing the ruling, but had no further comment, the Bee reported.
Meanwhile, the Trump Administration lauded the court victory.
“The court’s ruling is a firm rejection of California’s assertion that, by legislation, it could dictate how and when the federal government sells federal land,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a prepared statement, according to the Bee. “This (law) was a stunning assertion of constitutional power by California, and it was properly and promptly dismissed by the district judge.”
The lawsuit had cited the sale of Army property east of San Francisco, which the state declined to purchase. The State Lands Commission has requested information about a planned property sale in Santa Barbara County to decide whether to buy first, according to the lawsuit.
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 contended,
The deadline to appeal the ruling is Dec. 31.

More at: https://www.foxnews.com/us/judge-rules-in-favor-of-trump-administration-vs-california-blocks-bill-giving-state-right-to-regulate-sale-of-federal-land

Zippyjuan
11-04-2018, 11:20 PM
So Federal Government rights over State's Rights on this one. The relevant part of the Constitution:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a4_3_2.html


Article 4, 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.

Does the ruling prejudice any claim by the State to the land which is within its borders?

PAF
11-05-2018, 07:21 AM
https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/caadmit.htm

specsaregood
11-05-2018, 07:24 AM
So Federal Government rights over State's Rights on this one. The relevant part of the Constitution:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a4_3_2.html
Does the ruling prejudice any claim by the State to the land which is within its borders?

I don't like the ruling; but the root of the issue is that the Federal Government shouldn't "own" the land in the first place.

Grandmastersexsay
11-05-2018, 07:27 AM
So Federal Government rights over State's Rights on this one. The relevant part of the Constitution:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a4_3_2.html



Does the ruling prejudice any claim by the State to the land which is within its borders?

You make a point, just not the one you intended to. The is about private property rights. Should the government have the first right of refusal to whom you sell your house? The real problem here is that the federal government should not have purchased huge swaths of land without purpose to begin with.

Danke
11-05-2018, 07:34 AM
Sell all Federal land and pay off the debt.

specsaregood
11-05-2018, 07:36 AM
Sell all Federal land and pay off the debt.

Sell it to anybody and any entity?

Danke
11-05-2018, 08:00 AM
Sell it to anybody and any entity?

No, just to those that can afford it.

specsaregood
11-05-2018, 08:05 AM
?
No, just to those that can afford it.

So you would have no problem with china outbidding everybody else and buying up the land?

Danke
11-05-2018, 08:09 AM
?

So you would have no problem with china outbidding everybody else and buying up the land?

Do you?

specsaregood
11-05-2018, 08:22 AM
Do you?

Yeah, I'd prefer some type of homesteading act for American citizens.

devil21
11-05-2018, 10:02 AM
Sell all Federal land and pay off the debt.

Or we could instead repudiate the imaginary, fraudulent national debt and return ownership of the land back to the states it belongs to.

I'm still not clear on how the corporation based in the sovereign city of Washington D.C. came to be the owner of land outside of that city.

Ender
11-05-2018, 10:21 AM
Or we could instead repudiate the imaginary, fraudulent national debt and return ownership of the land back to the states it belongs to.

I'm still not clear on how the corporation based in the sovereign city of Washington D.C. came to be the owner of land outside of that city.

Exactly.