Transfer of Federal Lands to the States

highplainsdrifter wrote:


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.

The reason I specified "at the time of the founding" was that it was a gamble to ratify the Constitution and join the Union at that time. The Western States were joining an established and stable nation.

Dred Scott was "settled law" until it wasn't. ;)

That said, Justice Thomas is an avid RVer; I wonder if he's a member on RV.net. If so, perhaps he'll weigh in.

LS