Ted Cruz

[Okbow87]

Has it ever been brought up that all the federally owned land is one of the only solvent assets they have to back all the currency they continually print.

 

[3Arrows]

Im a public land Hunter but I'm an American first. I am a veteran and i took an oath to protect the Constitution and with that said...

"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, dockyards, and other needful buildings" (Art I, Sect. 8, Clause 17)...I believe it belongs to the States...with that said..

 

[3Arrows]

Dr. Skousen Explains the Growth of Federal Power in Violation of the Constitution

It would also appear that this provision gives each state the right to assume title to all lands within its boundaries which the federal government is not using for the purposes specified in this section.

But what about new states coming into the Union where most of the territory consists of federal public lands? The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 declared that all new states would come into the Union on a basis of complete equality or equal footing with the original thirteen states. Therefore it was assumed that as soon as a new territory was granted statehood, the people of that state would acquire title to every acre of land other than a very small percentage granted to the federal government for the "erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings."

But Congress did not allow this to happen. When Ohio was admitted into the Union in 1903, the government retained title to all of the public lands but assured the people that Ohio would acquire jurisdiction as soon as these lands could be sold to help pay off the national debt. This, then, became the established policy for new states:

The federal government would retain all ungranted public lands.The government guaranteed that it would dispose of these lands as soon as possible.The new state would acquire jurisdiction over these lands as fast as they were sold to private individuals.

As a result of this policy, all of the states east of the Mississippi, and those included in the Louisiana Purchase, eventually acquired all but a very small percentage of the land lying within their state boundaries.

However, when the territory of the western states was acquired from Mexico, Congress radically digressed from the Constitution by virtually eliminating the sale or disposal of federal lands. The general policy was to permanently retain major portions of each of the western states for purposes not listed in the Constitution. This policy resulted in the government becoming the permanent owner and manager of over 35 percent of the American landmass. At the present time, vast areas within the boundaries of these states are permanently designated as part of the federal domain for national forests, national parks, national monuments, coal and oil reserves, lands leased for profit to ranchers or farmers, and huge tracts of land with valuable resources completely locked up as "wilderness areas."

Here is the amount of land in each of the western states still held by the federal government: (these figures do not include Indian reservations)

Arizona45%New Mexico35%California45%Oregon52%Colorado36%Utah66%Idaho64%Washington30%Montana30%Wyoming50%Nevada87%

The most flagrant example of all, however, is found in the conditions under which Alaska was admitted to the Union in 1959. The people were only allowed to occupy approximately 4 percent of their state.

Of course, the government should have exclusive jurisdiction over those lands acquired for the purposes listed in the Constitution. As Madison stated:

"The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned in every such establishment."

It is obvious that the federal government is currently occupying millions of acres within certain states without the concurrence of those states.*

 

[tipsntails7]

Im a public land Hunter but I'm an American first. I am a veteran and i took an oath to protect the Constitution and with that said...

"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, dockyards, and other needful buildings" (Art I, Sect. 8, Clause 17)...I believe it belongs to the States...with that said..

"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."

Article 4 section 3 would disagree

 

[Matt Cashell]

The SCOTUS rejected Skousen's arguments with Kleppe v. New Mexico, unanimously.

It is obvious that the federal government is currently occupying millions of acres within certain states without the concurrence of those states.*

Except ... Every one of the Western states did concur. They forever disclaimed any title to Federal Lands in their enabling acts.

These are matters of settled law. The Constitution in plain language supports Federal ownership/management of public lands and the court has supported that for 200 years.

 

[Trial153]

I keep hearing that if a transfer takes place, rules or stipulations need to be placed on the land that the states would have to abide by.

We calls these unfunded mandates. Currently all the states have legitimately complained about the Feds unfunded mandates that are placed on them.

This will just be another example. here is the land you own it and pay for its management but fed will lay the guilde lines out.
Why would they agree to that?

It comes down to this. we have a management problem not an ownership problem. Let's fix the issue and manage the lands better, let's also include the states as stakeholders. Land transfers don't solve the problem they just pass it down the road.

Lastly I can't even fathom that proponents of these transfers don't understand difficulties, financial and political of states managing these lands. So that leads to question their real motivations.
following the money trail that is lobbing for these transfers makes sheds light on the real motivations behind this. Seeing who and what is really behind this should frighten all of us.

 

[5MilesBack]

I keep hearing that if a transfer takes place, rules or stipulations need to be placed on the land that the states would have to abide by.

We calls these unfunded mandates. Currently all the states have legitimately complained about the Feds unfunded mandates that are placed on them.

This will just be another example. here is the land you own it and pay for its management but fed will lay the guilde lines out.
Why would they agree to that?

I don't believe the Constitution allows for Federal control over "state" land. So if the land was transferred, the Feds can't dictate how the state uses it, or even what they do with it.

 

[Trial153]

I don't believe the Constitution allows for Federal control over "state" land. So if the land was transferred, the Feds can't dictate how the state uses it, or even what they do with it.

Then all the more reason not to transfer.

 

[tipsntails7]

I don't believe the Constitution allows for Federal control over "state" land. So if the land was transferred, the Feds can't dictate how the state uses it, or even what they do with it.

That's the problem....the states will do whatever they want, limit hunter access, timber, mineral mining or just sell it.

 

[Trial153]

That's the problem....the states will do whatever they want, limit hunter access, timber, mineral mining or just sell it.

and that is exactly why money is flowing into this movement from the places it is.

 

[geriggs]

the only way Trump beats Hillary is if she is indicted. maybe

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_Clinton_vs._Republicans.html

 

[Shrek]

the only way Trump beats Hillary is if she is indicted. maybe

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_Clinton_vs._Republicans.html

Make a hundred dollar bet with you right now ! Trump vs Clinton I take Trump... It's a sure thing so put your money where your mouth is.

 

[Mike7]

I thought I read somewhere (maybe a case?) that Congress/the Feds can release/cede lands for state management while not releasing all interest in the land or full control (I am talking about the Western states only where the state has never had an interest in much of the land that has been under complete federal control from the beginning).

 

[jmez]

Trump would shred Hillary in a general election.

 

[Trial153]

Trump over Hillary every day of the week and twice in Sunday.


http://static.currentaffairs.org/20...s-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency

 

[5MilesBack]

That's the problem....the states will do whatever they want, limit hunter access, timber, mineral mining or just sell it.

Unless........

 

[Matt Cashell]

I thought I read somewhere (maybe a case?) that Congress/the Feds can release/cede lands for state management while not releasing all interest in the land or full control (I am talking about the Western states only where the state has never had an interest in much of the land that has been under complete federal control from the beginning).

Congress has worked out management agreements in some cases with state agencies. It is a management choice, not a ownership choice. This is one of the great benefits of the current system, and does not require transferred ownership.

Transfer would do the opposite. Once title is transferred, as 5mb said, the Feds would have no say.

So, this makes one wonder, why do the forces behind transfer want to limit management options? Why do they push transfer, instead of lobbying for management agreements or compromise plans like the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act?

The answer is simple. They are not interested in transferring management. They are only interested in privatization.

 

[5MilesBack]

The answer is simple. They are not interested in transferring management. They are only interested in privatization.

So, what would happen if all the western states added state constitutional amendments that forbade the direct sale or lease of said transferred lands? That could happen, and in that scenario the Feds get nothing, and privatization gets nothing. Is there still an incentive to transfer the lands?

Question two: Do the mineral rights automatically transfer with the lands, or do the Feds continue to hold those?

 

[Matt Cashell]

So, what would happen if all the western states added state constitutional amendments that forbade the direct sale or lease of said transferred lands? That could happen, and in that scenario the Feds get nothing, and privatization gets nothing. Is there still an incentive to transfer the lands?

First,

This is changing the discussion, as no politician has proposed a Constitutional Amendment like this, that I am aware of, and certainly not Cruz.

Second,

An amendment wouldn't change the state's inability to afford management.

The only recourse eventually would be to amend it back and sell.

States aren't going to sell public lands because they want to, but because they will have to.

 

[tipsntails7]

So, what would happen if all the western states added state constitutional amendments that forbade the direct sale or lease of said transferred lands? That could happen, and in that scenario the Feds get nothing, and privatization gets nothing. Is there still an incentive to transfer the lands?

Question two: Do the mineral rights automatically transfer with the lands, or do the Feds continue to hold those?

Why would the states do that?