Presidential Public Land Positions - take 2

[Elkmagnet]

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't many, if not most, western states have either constitutional or statutory requirements to use state-owned land for the highest financial gain?

To me, that almost exclusively means sell to the highest bidder, no? If so, this is another huge reason to keep public hands under federal stewardship, since the federal government has no such mandate for federal public lands.

Chris

This is the case in Idaho. Originally that did not include the ability to sell then reinvest. But that has changed and state land seems to be selling like special brownies at a highschool bake sale.

 

[Oak]

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't many, if not most, western states have either constitutional or statutory requirements to use state-owned land for the highest financial gain?

I believe that may be true in others states, but the Colorado Constitution says:

It shall be the duty of the state board of land commissioners to provide for the prudent management, location, protection, sale, exchange, or other disposition of all the lands heretofore, or which may hereafter be, held by the board as trustee pursuant to section 9(6) of this article IX, in order to produce reasonable and consistent income over time.

 

[Lv2hnt]

Sent off emails tonight!

 

[Huntin_GI]

Sent DT some love.

 

[dcopas78]

Thanks for all the contacts. Sent a few emails and will send out a few more later today.

 

[DRAFTSTUD]

Good stuff Fin, I e-mailed Trump about a month ago on the Public Lands issue. I am glad for his stand and other stands that he is making. Now if we can use this to weed out the Carpet Baggers! John

 

[mtmander]

sent emails , waiting for any reply

 

[NoWiser]

Emails sent. It's hard to imagine a life without public lands.

 

[sweetnectar]

Last time I read the constitution it was clear as to what lands the federal government is allowed to have and for what purposes. If you dig into it it might upset a bunch of people on this site. If you want public land it is up to the states. It belongs to the states. And yes I know it is not a popular thing to say on this site. So here we are in our dellema as to what to do now. I'd argue Cruz follows closer the the constitution and Trump closer to leaving the situation alone.

 

[Nameless Range]

Last time I read the constitution it was clear as to what lands the federal government is allowed to have and for what purposes. If you dig into it it might upset a bunch of people on this site. If you want public land it is up to the states. It belongs to the states. And yes I know it is not a popular thing to say on this site. So here we are in our dellema as to what to do now. I'd argue Cruz follows closer the the constitution and Trump closer to leaving the situation alone.

I don't believe you. Please share and elaborate.

 

[Spitz]

Thanks for making this so easy Randy. Well worth the few minutes it took to click a few links and share with these candidates what it takes to earn my vote.

 

[Straight Arrow]

And yes I know it is not a popular thing to say on this site.

Nor is it true. You may interpret the Constitution however you wish, but the overwhelming number of serious legal scholars studying and writing on the subject points to the federal Constitutional right to the public land ownership. Furthermore 125 years of US Supreme Court decisions regarding this question upholds that right of ownership on behalf of all the people under the Constitution of the United States of America.
To interpret it differently is self-serving and incorrect. If your assertion were correct, then the Sagebrush Rebellion would not have fizzled like a wet firecracker as it did. And to be clear, the states cannot "take back" ownership which they never held in the first place.
It is not a matter of your opinion versus mine, or of the Bundyesque blundering about federal government overreach. It is a matter of legal precedence and substantiated truth. But we each and all have the bravely defended right and privilege of believing whatever we wish ... true or false.

 

[BuzzH]

Last time I read the constitution it was clear as to what lands the federal government is allowed to have and for what purposes. If you dig into it it might upset a bunch of people on this site. If you want public land it is up to the states. It belongs to the states. And yes I know it is not a popular thing to say on this site. So here we are in our dellema as to what to do now. I'd argue Cruz follows closer the the constitution and Trump closer to leaving the situation alone.

Worn out and wrong-headed thinking by a Cruz apologist.

Show me where the Constitution limits the authority of the federal Government to own land...

Good luck with that.

 

[tjones]

Nor is it true. You may interpret the Constitution however you wish, but the overwhelming number of serious legal scholars studying and writing on the subject points to the federal Constitutional right to the public land ownership. Furthermore 125 years of US Supreme Court decisions regarding this question upholds that right of ownership on behalf of all the people under the Constitution of the United States of America.
To interpret it differently is self-serving and incorrect. If your assertion were correct, then the Sagebrush Rebellion would not have fizzled like a wet firecracker as it did. And to be clear, the states cannot "take back" ownership which they never held in the first place.
It is not a matter of your opinion versus mine, or of the Bundyesque blundering about federal government overreach. It is a matter of legal precedence and substantiated truth. But we each and all have the bravely defended right and privilege of believing whatever we wish ... true or false.

Simply and easy to understand even for the most rightwing extremists.

Thanks.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Does this mean we have to give it all back to Mexico & France?

BTW - Good to see you around, Nectar.

And the Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution disagrees with you.

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....

ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 2

 

[JMG]

Ditto. I sent in my comments to the contacts listed.

 

[Whiptail]

Last time I read the constitution it was clear as to what lands the federal government is allowed to have and for what purposes. If you dig into it it might upset a bunch of people on this site. If you want public land it is up to the states. It belongs to the states. And yes I know it is not a popular thing to say on this site. So here we are in our dellema as to what to do now. I'd argue Cruz follows closer the the constitution and Trump closer to leaving the situation alone.

Nothing in the constitution about owning land, but there is this about the military:

"The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years...."

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 12

 

[bigskyblueman]

Took note of the Trump statement opposing the sell off of public lands and messaged the debate moderators to ask the other candidates their position on the issue.

 

[dannyb278]

Trump seriously redeemed himself a bit in my eyes when he voiced this.

only time can tell if he means it or is just providing lip service to voters

Either way, its great to see a R voicing that opinion anywhere at the national level

 

[dannyb278]

Last time I read the constitution it was clear as to what lands the federal government is allowed to have and for what purposes. If you dig into it it might upset a bunch of people on this site. If you want public land it is up to the states. It belongs to the states. And yes I know it is not a popular thing to say on this site. So here we are in our dellema as to what to do now. I'd argue Cruz follows closer the the constitution and Trump closer to leaving the situation alone.

Not only is it not popular, but it is dead wrong.

See previous comments if additional information is needed.