This is actually very good news. The hard drive to get the ownership of the lands transferred to the states was a direct result of the Obama administration using Monument status and other designations to shut down commercial uses across the West. When more than half the state is federal lands this puts a boot on the throat of the local economy. The more friendly Trump Administration and the opening back up of these lands relieves the pressure to grab the lands from the federal government. Although it is a long standing practice to ignore the US Constitution limits on what lands the federal government may own the practice could come to a halt if challenged in the Supreme Court with a more strict constructionists makeup. If Kennedy retires in the spring as is expected we could be close to that composition. If I was a greenie I’d be very careful challenging this in court. Every last acre of federal land held for parks , national forest , and BLM could be transferred to the states. All of theses states were admitted to the union as lessor states under coercion. Forced to agree to lessor status. These states can’t afford to manage theses lands without commercially exploiting them so would move to privatize much of it. As long as the states can exploit and exercise some control of some of the land without having to own and pay for it it’s a good deal for them and the rest of the country. The states can prosper and grow while most of the land remains mostly preserved and a benefit to the whole country.
That is a bunch of Sagebrush Rebellion recycled bull, Dave. This is a common tactic of anti-public lands folks, as they selectively quote the Enclave Clause of the US Constitution and completely ignore the Property Clause.
You don't have to take my word for it though ... it is long-settled Supreme Court precedent that Federal Ownership of land is constitutional under the property clause way back to 1840 and earlier:
Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 539, 96 S.Ct. 2285, 2291, 49 L.Ed.2d 34 (1976); United States v. San Francisco, 310 U.S. 16, 29, 60 S.Ct. 749, 756, 84 L.Ed. 1050 (1940). Alabama v. Texas, 347 U.S. 272, 273, 74 S.Ct. 481, 481-82, 98 L.Ed. 689 (1954); United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19, 27, 67 S.Ct. 1658, 1662-63, 91 L.Ed. 1889 (1947); Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 92, 99, 20 L.Ed. 534 (1871); United States v. Gratiot, 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 526, 537, 10 L.Ed. 573 (1840).
Regardless of the makeup of the court, I don't see them overturning 200 years of precedent.
But still, this has little to do with this thread, as the Trump administration does not challenge this authority, or even the validity of the Antiquities Act. In fact it stipulates to both federal land authority and the Antiquities Act by only attempting to reduce the size of the National Monuments, while even proposing a new Trump-Signed National Monument in Montana's Badger Two Medicine here in Montana just this week.
Zinke defends monument reductions, supports Badger-Two Medicine | Local | missoulian.com
I applaud the Badger Two Medicine proposal, but I still cant see anything in the law outlining the authority of one president to reduce the size of a previous administration's NM, and I think the chances of these NM reductions being overturned by the courts is pretty high.
