I suppose I could also address the position that Steve Miller wrote about (Love those old songs BTW
) regarding the Pollard v. Hagan case.
Miller contends the following:
“But in 1845 the U.S. Supreme Court, in Pollard vs. Hagan, a case dealing with the admission of Alabama to the Union under almost identical language, had held that such conditions were in violation of the U.S. Constitution and therefore void.”
This is pretty much an irresponsible misrepresentation of that case, and its set of circumstances were wildly different than that of adding Nevada to the union.
Had Mr. Miller read the court decision on the Pollard case he would have known the issue at hand was regulation of navigable waterways, and ruled that "submerged lands" and the regulation of them was left to the state, citing an earlier case, Miller v. Waddell's Lessee.
In Miller the Court affirmed that navigable waterways are relinquished to the states, so they can regulate travel and commerce on the waterways, which was extremely important in the pre-highway US.
There are, in fact, only Supreme Court cases that uphold the US Government's constitutional authority to manage federal lands.
Of course, Congress could pass legislation offering management of public lands to the states, but I have a feeling lots of Western states would rather not take on the financial cost of doing so.
