Can you cite some authority for that?
Because new states have to be admitted by vote of Congress and Congress can stipulate conditions in advance (like Utah giving up polygamy).
It has been nearly 180 years since the US acquired the western US in the Mexican Cession. I think that BY NOW a western state would have challenged federal ownership of land and WON in court if what you wrote is true.
The rest of your post dealt with land (e.g., Alabama) that was settled by colonists PRIOR to the establishment of the US. So there were pre-existing property rights and state sovereignty in those new states.
That was not true in the Mexican Cession, in Alaska, or in Hawaii.
If Puerto Rico petitioned for statehood tomorrow, the Congress can impose conditions on it as a condition of admittance. Look it up.
Originally Posted by ExNYer
I did cite the authority. The Constitution and the Northwest Ordinance. Neither of which have been superseded by amendment which would be the proper way of going about things. Alabama was not an original colony. The territory that became Alabama was ceded back to the US as a territory by Georgia. It then became a state in 1819 and challenged federal authority over it's sovereignty and won. That is the authority.
Subsequently, The Federal Government has used additional conditions beyond their authority. They do it all the time. Doesn't make it right. I remember when they changed the speed limit to 55mph. LA refused to comply for a while until the Feds withheld money that was rightfully the State's(Money collected by the Federal Government through fuel tax, excise taxes etc that was intended to go back to the states for the express purpose of improving the roads. The government then put conditions on that money and held it over the head of the State of Louisiana until they were forced to comply. That's what I mean by too much power.
If you trace the BLM back to it's roots in the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance which were passed for the purposes of the disposition of federal land not the collection of it. The Department of the Treasury was originally charged with this task but as bureaucracies always do it morphed through several different agencies including the General land Office into what it is today.
Given free reign what government agency is going to work itself out of a job? The BLM has justified it's existence through claiming land and then charging people grazing fees and mineral leases. It claims to be one of the few agencies that actually makes a profit.(as per their website). Well, any politician that sees that isn't going near it and we as a people accept it. Hell, they're making money, right?
The problem with any bureaucratic agency is that their policies change with whoever is in control as an act of self preservation. So it's never about the American people's best interest or considering the intentions about the founders it becomes about the pleasing the voting base.
The BLM claims 245 million acres of land. How much revenue could the government generate if they disposed of land like they were supposed to do. At $100 per acre it would generate 25 billion dollars. Then what could that land generate in revenue, jobs, taxes etc. if it were owned by entrepreneurs, ranchers, farmers, guide services, oil companies, whatever. Just like anyone in power the government doesn't want to give up control. Selling that land would be giving up control so they find a way to stay in control. They find ways to become bigger so they have more control.
When people start questioning that control they start asserting themselves through harsher and harsher means up to and including the threat of shooting citizens.
Google "Johnson Space Center Security" What you'll find is propaganda about how their security staff is there to provide for the safety of it's employees. What it won's tell you is that there is an entire building housing an arsenal of fully automatic weapons with full riot gear and enough ammunition and manpower to suppress an invasion of a third world country. Fucking NASA! Does that not concern anyone other than me?
Just because Congress does something does not mean it is Constitutional. My point continues to be that the Federal Government(all branches) has way too much self imposed authority. I just can't understand the mindset of a hard working taxpayer that is OK with that.
