Supreme Court Rules Utah Doesn’t Have a Right to Its Own Land

[Smokin Joe]

Yes, we were a country but gave up a hell of a lot of land that helped form 5 other states.

We paid up, just like others need to do

When is enough enough?

Is 30% of your state enough tribute? 50%? 70% MORE?

Thankfully we don't have the spectacular vistas or tourist draws many other states have, but those we have are Federally controlled, as is access, for the most part to a lake with a shoreline longer than California's. Still, by virtue of mostly being private land, we had an oil boom in the Williston Basin when Obama's people were doing all they could to stop drilling. Other States have not been so  fortunate.

(You don't even have to control all the land in the west, just the water and access to it.)

[IsailedawayfromFR]

When is enough enough?

Is 30% of your state enough tribute? 50%? 70% MORE?

Thankfully we don't have the spectacular vistas or tourist draws many other states have, but those we have are Federally controlled, as is access, for the most part to a lake with a shoreline longer than California's. Still, by virtue of mostly being private land, we had an oil boom in the Williston Basin when Obama's people were doing all they could to stop drilling. Other States have not been so  fortunate.

(You don't even have to control all the land in the west, just the water and access to it.)

Any and all grants to become states are due to negotiations between the US govt( ie, existing states) and whoever wants to become a state.

There is not a standard, it is a negotiation.

There is little incentive or logic for existing states to permit a new state to joining without sufficient reasons to do so.  The federal govt already owns the territories, so why give it up, especially as new state senators and congressmen would dilute the congressional influence of existing states?

Most new western states contributed a huge burden to the federal government to control the indigenous natives there, so necessitated military resources.

In spite of the US owning no lands within the state, that protection is the reason Texas gave up its extensive land holdings in the five later-formed states.  It needed the federal government help to confront the Comanche and other tribes, as well as Mexican incursions.  And Texas paid a lot for that protection, and federal govt greatly profited by obtaining extensive new lands.

Other states may have needed even more protection and were not nearly in the negotiating position that Texas was at the time.

Having said all that, I do admit that taking out federal control of lands makes it simpler for a state to secede as the federal lands would remain a sticking point on compensation.  That point simply melts away one reason to block secession.

Another reason why I prefer a state to purchase from the feds the federal lands within a state.

And nothing prevents a state from purchasing federal lands, so why don't they if they really want them?

[Bigun]

Any and all grants to become states are due to negotiations between the US govt( ie, existing states) and whoever wants to become a state.

There is not a standard, it is a negotiation.

There is little incentive or logic for existing states to permit a new state to joining without sufficient reasons to do so.  The federal govt already owns the territories, so why give it up, especially as new state senators and congressmen would dilute the congressional influence of existing states?

Most new western states contributed a huge burden to the federal government to control the indigenous natives there, so necessitated military resources.

In spite of the US owning no lands within the state, that protection is the reason Texas gave up its extensive land holdings in the five later-formed states.  It needed the federal government help to confront the Comanche and other tribes, as well as Mexican incursions.  And Texas paid a lot for that protection, and federal govt greatly profited by obtaining extensive new lands.

Other states may have needed even more protection and were not nearly in the negotiating position that Texas was at the time.

Having said all that, I do admit that taking out federal control of lands makes it simpler for a state to secede as the federal lands would remain a sticking point on compensation.  That point simply melts away one reason to block secession.

Another reason why I prefer a state to purchase from the feds the federal lands within a state.

And nothing prevents a state from purchasing federal lands, so why don't they if they really want them?

Wrong! There certainly is a standard. Territories that later become states are reqired to be treated as equals with currently existing states.

[Smokin Joe]

Nope. A state cannot simply purchase lands from the Federal Government.

It requires an act of Congress for any transfer to occur.

No, a state cannot simply purchase federal lands within its borders without explicit authorization from Congress, as the federal government retains broad authority over such lands under the Property Clause of the Constitution.
Here's a more detailed explanation:

    Federal Authority:
    The Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2) grants Congress the power to regulate and manage federal lands, territories, and other property of the United States.

No Automatic State Ownership:
States do not automatically gain ownership or control of federal lands within their borders.
Congressional Authority:
Congress can choose to transfer ownership of federal land to states, but this requires an act of Congress.
Examples of Federal Land Management:
Federal agencies, like the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the National Park Service (NPS), manage federal lands for various purposes, including resource management, conservation, and recreation.
State Laws and Federal Lands:
State laws generally do not apply to federal lands unless authorized by federal law.
Acquisition and Disposal:
The federal government has specific authorities for acquiring and disposing of lands, which may include sales, exchanges, or donations.
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF):
The LWCF is a primary source of funding for federal land acquisition.
State Jurisdiction:
States can acquire federal lands through land exchanges or other means, but only with the consent and authorization of the federal government.
Examples of Federal Land Sales:
The General Services Administration (GSA) and the BLM sell excess federal lands.
Federal Enclave Jurisdiction:
The United States obtains exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction over federal lands in a state through state statutes, cession statutes, or reservations of federal jurisdiction upon admission of a state into the Union.

Do you honestly think the Federal Government will willingly surrender, even for payment, the level of control it exerts over resources within states like Nevada or Wyoming or Montana (and Utah), even if that control is deleterious to the citizens of that State?
 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Wrong! There certainly is a standard. Territories that later become states are reqired to be treated as equals with currently existing states.

And they are treated as equals in all respects save the negotiated arrangements regarding land ownership.

How else could the federal government retain so much land ownership within those states more recently admitted to the Union?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Nope. A state cannot simply purchase lands from the Federal Government.

It requires an act of Congress for any transfer to occur.


Do you honestly think the Federal Government will willingly surrender, even for payment, the level of control it exerts over resources within states like Nevada or Wyoming or Montana (and Utah), even if that control is deleterious to the citizens of that State?
 

Exactly the reason I support the right of a state to purchase federal lands within its boudaries.

Circling back to Utah, are they attempting to purchase these lands are simply asking for a transfer of titile?  They should have a right to purchase approved by Congress, as should any state.

I have rarely if ever seen a state attempt to purchase federal lands.

[roamer_1]

Exactly the reason I support the right of a state to purchase federal lands within its boudaries.

Circling back to Utah, are they attempting to purchase these lands are simply asking for a transfer of titile?  They should have a right to purchase approved by Congress, as should any state.

I have rarely if ever seen a state attempt to purchase federal lands.

You spoke earlier of what Texas gave up... KS, OK... Show me where Kansas had to buy their lands. Or Oklahoma. Or Illinois or Indiana for that matter.

And that, bear in mind, was under far more presence in US military than the northwest EVER had. It was Mountain men and fur traders, and later, the loggers and miners that opened the Northwest. The US nearly, or merely, acquired it. You're talking nearly the very end of the West and gold rushes and all that... Late 1800's. Hardly ANY development beyond the trails that ran up the passes. Hell, there wasn't hardly railroad here to speak of till the 1900s.

So don't tell me about the vast expenditures - They weren't hardly there. WE did that. We made this land by grinding it off our asses.

So again, show me Kansas and Oklahoma PAYING for their lands. Or ANY of the Midwest. Or the rust belt.

[Bigun]

And they are treated as equals in all respects save the negotiated arrangements regarding land ownership.

How else could the federal government retain so much land ownership within those states more recently admitted to the Union?

So how did every territory that later became a state prior to 1865 wind up with very little federal land within their borders and all those after did not? None of the states that came out of the Louisianna purchase have that problem, so some obviously got treated differently than others.

[roamer_1]

So how did every territory that later became a state prior to 1865 wind up with very little federal land within their borders and all those after did not? None of the states that came out of the Louisianna purchase have that problem, so some obviously got treated differently than others.

This ain't no damn piano. The evidence is plain to see. You can draw a hard line right down the Rockies, and everything westward WAS treated differently... Prior to those states becoming states, the US discharged its territorial lands by various means. Maybe it was California and the gold rush. Maybe it was the railroad. Something to do with robber barons gaining political influence... But somewhere, right in there, the US decided it COULD hold lands within a state. And so they DID.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

So how did every territory that later became a state prior to 1865 wind up with very little federal land within their borders and all those after did not? None of the states that came out of the Louisianna purchase have that problem, so some obviously got treated differently than others.

Dunno.  Suspect it was management of the Indian problem entered into it.

In any event, if a state like Nevada, and other states, agreed as a condition of statehood to
disclaim forever “all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within
said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition
of the United States”, those states really don't have much argument to force the feds to simply transfer title to state lands.

I do believe some right of a state should exist to permit it to purchase federal lands within its boundaries, though.

[Bigun]

Dunno.  Suspect it was management of the Indian problem entered into it.

I suspect that our form of government changed, and Shelby Foote himself attests to the fact.

Before the war, it was said ‘the United States are’—grammatically it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war it was always ‘the United States is,’ as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an ‘is.’

https://www.civilwarmonitor.com/it-made-us-an-is/

[Smokin Joe]

So how did every territory that later became a state prior to 1865 wind up with very little federal land within their borders and all those after did not? None of the states that came out of the Louisianna purchase have that problem, so some obviously got treated differently than others.

Now you did it. You mentioned the date when the Federal Government stopped being Federal, and became a National Government instead. No longer was the Union a voluntary compact: it had been retained only by force of arms. If anyone wants to bray about cost, the cost was all over the Southeast, from the Mississippi to the Atlantic, from the Gulf to the Mason-Dixon Line (and a little beyond).

What was spent in the west was spent only keep the several Tribes from enforcing the terms of treaties with the "Great White Father", treaties which were violated with amazing regularity.

[Bigun]

Now you did it. You mentioned the date when the Federal Government stopped being Federal, and became a National Government instead. No longer was the Union a voluntary compact: it had been retained only by force of arms. If anyone wants to bray about cost, the cost was all over the Southeast, from the Mississippi to the Atlantic, from the Gulf to the Mason-Dixon Line (and a little beyond).

What was spent in the west was spent only keep the several Tribes from enforcing the terms of treaties with the "Great White Father", treaties which were violated with amazing regularity.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

--John Adams

[Smokin Joe]

--John Adams

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Now you did it. You mentioned the date when the Federal Government stopped being Federal, and became a National Government instead. No longer was the Union a voluntary compact: it had been retained only by force of arms. If anyone wants to bray about cost, the cost was all over the Southeast, from the Mississippi to the Atlantic, from the Gulf to the Mason-Dixon Line (and a little beyond).

What was spent in the west was spent only keep the several Tribes from enforcing the terms of treaties with the "Great White Father", treaties which were violated with amazing regularity.

Ok, you guys have convinced me that me that the hand was too heavy on those later territories for whatever reason, and all those federal lands should now be sent pronto to the care and management of the states they are in.

Guess I was interested in getting some money in by selling lands to reduce the debt we all have to pay in.  I think I read somewhere that Trump was thinking about doing that, but he will have to find the dough elsewhere.

Please accept my apologies. @Bigun @Smokin Joe @roamer_1

[Smokin Joe]

Ok, you guys have convinced me that me that the hand was too heavy on those later territories for whatever reason, and all those federal lands should now be sent pronto to the care and management of the states they are in.

Guess I was interested in getting some money in by selling lands to reduce the debt we all have to pay in.  I think I read somewhere that Trump was thinking about doing that, but he will have to find the dough elsewhere.

Please accept my apologies. @Bigun @Smokin Joe @roamer_1

Unfortunately, Congress is in control of the disposition of those lands, ultimately. Congress would have to agree to the deal, and it would have to include mineral rights, water rights, etc. Otherwise, the States could not prioritize purchase of lands that would ultimately provide the resources to pay for themselves in revenues to the State in the form of taxes, extraction taxes, income taxes, and so forth, and some land sales could be done to the private sector as well. The real purpose, ultimately, is to get the resources within the boundaries of the states under the control of the respective states, to allow development of those resources currently stymied by Federal land use rules.
Therein lies much of the frustration, to be sitting with good grazing land, a valuable mineral deposit or mature timber (or even deadfall and underbrush that makes a fire hazard, but could be cleared by private efforts under permit (collecting permit fees, too) for firewood or even timber), but not be able to utilize those resources for the economic development of the State, or the safety of its residents, because of rules made by unelected bureaucrats thousands of miles away who haven't even seen the locale firsthand, and who do not understand the ramifications of their decisions on those who live on that land.

[Bigun]

Ok, you guys have convinced me that me that the hand was too heavy on those later territories for whatever reason, and all those federal lands should now be sent pronto to the care and management of the states they are in.

Guess I was interested in getting some money in by selling lands to reduce the debt we all have to pay in.  I think I read somewhere that Trump was thinking about doing that, but he will have to find the dough elsewhere.

Please accept my apologies. @Bigun @Smokin Joe @roamer_1

No apologies to me are necessary @IsailedawayfromFR . You are not the only one who has never been fully advised about this.

[Bigun]

Unfortunately, Congress is in control of the disposition of those lands, ultimately. Congress would have to agree to the deal, and it would have to include mineral rights, water rights, etc. Otherwise, the States could not prioritize purchase of lands that would ultimately provide the resources to pay for themselves in revenues to the State in the form of taxes, extraction taxes, income taxes, and so forth, and some land sales could be done to the private sector as well. The real purpose, ultimately, is to get the resources within the boundaries of the states under the control of the respective states, to allow development of those resources currently stymied by Federal land use rules.
Therein lies much of the frustration, to be sitting with good grazing land, a valuable mineral deposit or mature timber (or even deadfall and underbrush that makes a fire hazard, but could be cleared by private efforts under permit (collecting permit fees, too) for firewood or even timber), but not be able to utilize those resources for the economic development of the State, or the safety of its residents, because of rules made by unelected bureaucrats thousands of miles away who haven't even seen the locale firsthand, and who do not understand the ramifications of their decisions on those who live on that land.

The congress indeed plays a role but the parameters that must be met are laid out in Article IV of the Constitution.

[roamer_1]

Please accept my apologies. @Bigun @Smokin Joe @roamer_1

No apology is necessary in order to cede the point @IsailedawayfromFR ... No fault, no foul.

You're a careful thinker, and I can appreciate that - Even be grateful for it (as it is becoming so rare) - Even from an opposing position.

It's all good.