Transfer of Federal Lands to the States

LenSatic wrote:

highplainsdrifter wrote:
Here is a link to another article regarding the federal government's authority to own land:

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/3463803-155/op-ed-lands-transfer-to-states-it

That's an interesting argument, but doesn't it strike you as a bit of a stretch? Plus, the author of this opinion piece was the Solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior. Would he argue otherwise?

The way I approach questions of what is or is not constitutional is by asking, "If this was the spelled out in the original drafts of the Constitution, would it have been ratified by the states?

Assume, for the sake of this discussion, that, at the time of the founding of this country, all 50 states were in the Union. Would the Western States have ratified the Constitution had this Federal ownership of their land been clearly stated? Remember, Washington D.C., a Federal district, was supposed to be square, but Virginia withdrew it's "donation" of land to the District.

LS

You ask: Would the Western States have ratified the United States Constitution if they had been part of the Union at the time of founding? I think the answer to that questions lies in the state constitutions. Article 21, Section 26 of the Wyoming Constitution states: "The people of this state do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof…" Many of the western states' constitutions have exactly the same wording.

So if they were willing to give up claim to federal land at the time of their statehood, yes I think they would have been willing recognize federal lands at the time the United States Constitution was ratified.

While this may be an interesting theoretical argument, it is ancient history. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled the federal government has the authority to buy/sell/manage federal land.

Our discussion should not be on the legality of it (that has been settled). Our discussion should be whether the federal government should own and manage western lands. That is a political question, not a legal question.

My answer to the political question is "emphatically yes". If the states get ownership, much of the land will be sold or overdeveloped in order to pay the high cost of management. Once it is privatized, we can kiss our boondocking butts goodbye.