The Libertarian "State"

[Seth]

Well, poor planning promotes piss poor performance and the people of the village are suffering the natural consequences of not securing a clean water supply before building a village at that location.

The river wasn't polluted when the village was built. Not their fault at all.

The river was always far from the community wasn't it? Poor planning by the community, which should have considered the impacts of such pollution in planning the community. And they have a cause of action against whomever polluted the river. If it's a natural phenomenon, then their poor planning results in the consequence of having to build expensive water purification facilities to clean the water either from the river or from their own wells. Or they can move the community.

They can, after all, move on themselves if the natural resources of the area they have chosen to settle in are insufficient to their needs. Just because they don't WANT to move doesn't give them any moral suasion to take by force that which they want or need to make their lives comfortable in their preferred location.

Yes, they can move and sell their properties to me for next to nothing. That would suit my long term plan.

Wise you. Such are the wages of ignorance and incompetence. How does the incompetence or ignorance of the community justify taking what you have lawfully acquired by force?

They can all pack up and leave, moving to a more amenable location, leaving you to fester on your land without anyone to assist you or trade with you, and they can inform all the surrounding communities of your anti-social behavior and try to persuade them to shun you as well.

People don't tend to shun those who have lots of money to spend.

That's their choice to make.

Or they can offer you more money to access your well.

Yes, they just have to pay what I demand. Tough, if they don't like it.

Correct. Or they can work around your usury in many other ways that do not include using force to steal what belongs to you.
If the only way they can think of to secure a good water supply is to use force to take it from you then they do not deserve to have good water in the first place and should die of thirst for justice to prevail.

[JimC]

Now, I enjoy a discussion of the finer points of the American Constitution, as it pertains to mineral rights in the western states, as much as any man but I particularly savoured the use of the phrase "eat a bag of dicks". Do carry on.

Post of the week!

[piscator]

So now the Land Clause of the US Constitution is a "Bald assertion"?

No, your a priori assumption that it means what you think it does is.

Seth, the Land Clause specifically delegates power over Federal Lands to Congress, not individual states.
The 10th Amendment does not delegate powers specifically delegated to Congress to the States. Sorry you don't get that, but Libertarian land grabbers are never going to wrest control of US Public Lands from Congress no matter how furiously they masturbate.
Disagree all you want, but at the end of the day the Koch Brothers just can't have that land.

[Seth]

So now the Land Clause of the US Constitution is a "Bald assertion"?

No, your a priori assumption that it means what you think it does is.

Seth, the Land Clause specifically delegates power over Federal Lands to Congress, not individual states.

Yes, it does. Problem is that Congress isn't supposed to own any "federal lands" other than what it purchases from the states with their agreement...and max 10 square miles of Washington DC. Obviously it has to have authority over lands it owns, but that doesn't mean that it gets to own everything it wants to own. The lands of a state belong to the state unless and until the Congress buys them under Article 1, Section 8.

If the Founders has intended that the Congress control every square foot of land within a state and that the state, or private individuals could sever from the federal government's control only those lands that Congress allowed to be separated then they would have said so in Article 1, Section 8, where the power of Congress over lands is granted. They didn't. They said "Congress gets to control not more than 10 square miles of land and such other lands as it buys from a state, with that state's approval, for a short list of authorized uses such as forts, magazines, arsenals, docks and other needful buildings. Not vast areas of vacant land within a state, but buildings, which obviously means structures required by the federal government for it's authorized public uses outside of the District of Columbia, over which it has plenary control.

As I said before, the enunciation of a list of things in the law is held to exclude things not on that list unless inclusion is made manifest in the language. Article 1, Section 8 specifies the only uses Congress is authorized make of real estate, and it specifies that except for DC, all real estate under the control of Congress (the Land Clause) must be bought from the particular state with that state's agreement.

This applied to the 13 original colonies, which is why there are almost no federal lands that have not been acquired from the original states in those states. The language of Article 1, Section 8 clearly contemplates that a state has sovereign control of the public domain within its boundaries as against Congressional control by right. For if unappropriated lands within a state "belong to" the federal government and are granted to the state as Congress sees fit, then the plain language of Section 8 makes no sense at all because without original sovereign authority and control of the public domain in any given state by that state's legislature there is nothing to be transferred to the Congress either for the establishment of a district to be the seat of government and nothing to be sold to Congress by the state government for forts, docks, etc..

This is a basic principle of real estate law that an "expert" would be familiar with. The purported owner of a piece of property cannot convey title to that property unless he first has title to it. You can't convey something you don't own. It's no different for governments. The state cannot convey to Congress control over public domain that the state does not first own. It's a cart>>horse kind of thing. Therefore, if Congress actually has "unlimited" control (ownership) of the public domain, then the states themselves own nothing and would need to convey nothing to the Congress. Exactly the opposite would be true, Congress would grant title to lands to the states, or to individuals, as it saw fit.

This is where the Equal Footing Doctrine comes into play. It's perfectly clear that the original 13 states did not cede all unappropriated public domain within their boundaries to the Congress as part of the formation of the Union. That's why Clause 16 of Section 8 exists at all. The Founders implicitly acknowledged that the public domain of the lands of the original states were under the dominion and control of those states, not under the dominion and control of Congress at the formation of the Union. The same was true under the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution did not pretend to change that arrangement because, of course, the states would never have agreed to ceding all the public domain within their respective boundaries as a condition of entering the Union. They ceded claim to all lands to the west of their sovereign holdings but those territories were not organized as states at the time. Instead, as territories they fell under the control of the Congress (under the Land Clause), but those lands were acquired by Congress as public domain and were held in trust for the People until the occupants of a particular area petitioned Congress for admission to the Union as a State. Congress, being the representatives of the People and the States together, was to ratify statehood under certain conditions found in Article IV, Section 3.

Clause 1. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned was well as of the Congress.

Prior to the admission of a state to the Union, the Congress does indeed have plenary control over the public domain in the territories, as it must in order to dispose of such lands in an orderly manner and to enforce laws within the territories. This applies of grants to land made to individuals of the non-state public domain prior to statehood. But the situation changes when the inhabitants of a region petition for statehood and statehood is granted. According to original intent, the act of granting admission to the Union (not "creating a state" merely granting admission of a new state created by the people themselves through occupation and use) cedes Congressional power and authority over the public domain of that region to the legislature of the new state. That's precisely what happened with the 13 original colonies. Congress did not even presume to claim sovereignty over the unoccupied and unappropriated public domain of the original states. Under the Equal Footing Doctrine, the same reasoning and process applies to the admission of a new state to the Union. It is important to note the exact wording of the clause cited above, which says that "New states may be admitted..." It does not say that new states shall be created by Congress. "Statehood" is the act of asserting sovereignty and control over certain lands against the claim of any other sovereign by the inhabitants of that land. Traditionally, sovereignty so asserted is ratified by force of arms against the competing sovereign. As civilization moved forward, claims of statehood came to be resolved by negotiation, purchase and diplomacy as a substitute for force of arms, but the effect remained the same: The sovereign asserting statehood enforced the authority to assert plenary control over the disputed lands as against all other sovereigns. Usually this was an actual sovereign like a King because that was the prevailing mode of governance pretty much worldwide throughout history.

But the formation of the United States was something entirely unprecedented in international geopolitics. For the first time a nation came into being that did NOT have a single sovereign in which ownership of the lands involved were vested and vitiated by the actual enforcement of the claim in one way or another. What existed at the time of the Revolution were established colonies that "belonged" to King George but which were controlled by those nobles to whom control was granted by the sovereign. At the formation of the United States, sovereign ownership by the King was disclaimed and rejected, and instead each colony became a sovereign in and of itself called a "state." Power and control over the lands of each of those 13 states was vested in a republican form of government exercised by an elected legislature that was subject (by mutual consent) to the enforcement of that republican form of government by the Constitution itself and enforced by the Congress. Title to the lands of each of the original states were vested in either the legitimate private holder of title that had been granted by King George prior to the formation of the Union, or to the people of the colony collectively under the republican control of their elected representatives.

Obviously the federal Congress did not claim sovereignty or control over those parts of the public domain that transferred to the state legislatures upon statehood and formation of the Union. That was explicitly set forth in the Articles of Confederation under which the states were operating when they found it necessary to ratify the Constitution precisely to help to resolve the issues of the Articles of Confederation surrounding the exercise of state sovereignty, something that was recognized and accepted when the Articles of Confederation were signed.

The Constitution did not change the sovereignty of the states over the lands within their respective boundaries in either the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution, it both acknowledged them (by recognizing them as sovereign states voluntarily entering the Union) and implicitly disclaimed sovereign powers over those state lands, while claiming sovereign power over the unappropriated and unknown lands to the west of the original states as against the claim of other sovereigns such as France, Mexico or even the native tribes. But this sovereignty claim could not stand against the existing states, and did not.

Under the Equal Footing Doctrine, as new states were admitted to the Union, Congress (the representatives of the existing states) were required to forfeit or disclaim sovereign control of the lands of the new state just as it had with the original 13 colonies, thus leaving those unappropriated lands under the sovereignty of the newly-admitted state. That's what "statehood" actually means. Thus, new states would have the same rights and title to lands within their boundaries as the original 13 colonies claimed as against the central federal government (Congress).

What happened is that at the time of statehood for the states west of the Mississippi the then-admitted states acting through Congress figured out that there was treasure and profit to be made in the west by refusing to cede title of the territorial lands that were organized into new states and reserving control of the public domain, or parts of it like the mineral resources only, to the Congress, which is to say to claim sovereignty over those lands against the interests of the inhabitants who had organized a new state and petitioned for admission to the Union. The problem with this reservation of sovereignty, which was manifested in a requirement by Congress that the new states must explicitly disclaim forever all right and title over unappropriated lands to the Congress as a condition of being admitted to the Union, precisely so that the then-existing states could retain sovereignty and control over the natural resources of the west and profit by leasing and selling those lands and resources to private individuals.

In other words, the then-existing states violated the Equal Footing Doctrine by requiring an unconstitutional ceding of title by the new states to the Congress as a condition of statehood, a power that is nowhere granted either explicitly or implicitly by the Constitution, notwithstanding the politically-motivated machinations of the Supreme Court in declaring otherwise. The sovereignty of the Congress over non-state territorial lands is indeed plenary, but it is the act of statehood that strips the Congress of that plenary control and transfers it to the legislature of the new state. That much is clear, and that reasoning is affirmed by the very fact that the Congress imposed the condition it did of complete surrender of the public domain in the western states to the Congress as a condition of statehood.

If Congress really retained sovereignty over unappropriated lands within the boundaries of a newly-organized state admitted to the Union, then it would have no need to explicitly require ceding of all right, claim and title to those lands as a condition of statehood.

It was precisely because Congress KNEW that it could not, under the Equal Footing Doctrine, claim sovereignty over the public domain of a state newly admitted to the Union that it demanded that ceding of title by the people of the state as a condition of admission.

It is therefore perfectly obvious that in doing so, the Congress was acting outside the four corners of the Constitution in requiring newly-admitted states to cede to Congress things that the original 13 colonies had not been required to cede to Congress upon formation of the Union.

Absolutely everything that follows is "fruit of the poisonous tree" and is entirely unconstitutional as such because of the lack of lawful authority to make such a demand in the first place.

This is the factual and historical basis of the "Sagebrush Rebellion" you refer to, and the fact that it failed points more to collusion and corruption on the part of the Congress and the courts than it does to any justified and lawful exercise of authority by Congress.

In short, the original intent of the Founders has been unlawfully and unconstitutionally suborned by the Congress and the Supreme Court by the relatively simple expedient of having the Supreme Court redefine the plain language of the Constitution and the principles under which it was intended to operate for entirely cupidinous and despotic reasons. The fact that it's a fait accompli doesn't change the fact that it was done in contravention of the original intent of those who wrote the Constitution, and therefore remains unlawful as the fruit of the poisonous tree.

You may say that the Supreme Court has the final say on such matters, but one of the other disputes we can discuss is the unlawful assumption of authority by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, which is the case in which the Court seized, without authority, the power to "interpret" the Constitution and rule on the constitutionality of the acts of Congress.

In short, just because the Supreme Court says it's so doesn't mean that it actually is because the Court is susceptible to bias and corruption, being comprised of human beings appointed by political process. FDR's attempt at court-packing proves that beyond any doubt.

To sum up, it was never the intention of the Founders that the Congress should retain control over any lands which comprise a state admitted to the Union. The act of admitting a region and its inhabitants that claim statehood to the Union automatically divests the Congress of title to the public domain lands of that newly-admitted state and transfers it, by the act of admission, to the state.

The 10th Amendment does not delegate powers specifically delegated to Congress to the States. Sorry you don't get that, but Libertarian land grabbers are never going to wrest control of US Public Lands from Congress no matter how furiously they masturbate.
Disagree all you want, but at the end of the day the Koch Brothers just can't have that land.

Again, your strawman arguments are just ignorant. The claim is not that the "Koch Brothers" or any other private person has a claim to the unappropriated lands of any state, it's that the Congress positively disclaims all such claims to title of unappropriated lands within a state's boundaries in favor of the plenary power and control of the legislature of the state itself by the act of admitting the state to the Union.

You might want to stop inspecting your lower bowel long enough to recognize that fact.

[Gallstones]

[Warren Dew]

They allow someone else to dig another well, unlike a socialist state.

Actually, socialists are not stupid. In a situation like that, in a socialist state, there would be as many wells dug as necessary.

To the contrary, a socialist state would seize the single well, then abuse the power it gave them far more than a private monopolist would.

[JimC]

They allow someone else to dig another well, unlike a socialist state.

Actually, socialists are not stupid. In a situation like that, in a socialist state, there would be as many wells dug as necessary.

To the contrary, a socialist state would seize the single well, then abuse the power it gave them far more than a private monopolist would.

Well, an old-fashioned Marist state probably would...

A slightly left-leaning modern progressive state would probably institute a parliamentary inquiry into wells, human consumption of water, underground aquifers and anything else they could stick into the terms of reference...

Meanwhile, with a lot of grumbling, wells would be dug by interested parties, and surrounded by lawyers armed with scary bits of parchment...

[Clinton Huxley]

Angel on the head of a pin stuff anyway. There won't be a libertarian state as the whole thing is unworkable. As far as anyone will get is arguing about interminably on internet forums.

[rainbow]

Well, poor planning promotes piss poor performance and the people of the village are suffering the natural consequences of not securing a clean water supply before building a village at that location.

The river wasn't polluted when the village was built. Not their fault at all.

The river was always far from the community wasn't it? Poor planning by the community, which should have considered the impacts of such pollution in planning the community. And they have a cause of action against whomever polluted the river. If it's a natural phenomenon, then their poor planning results in the consequence of having to build expensive water purification facilities to clean the water either from the river or from their own wells. Or they can move the community.

I guess you don't understand the basics of population dynamics and geohydrology.
Communities tend to form where there are opportunities for employment. Very little forward planning goes into them, because that's human nature. Now if a Government enforces Town Planning, then that is a different matter. Yes?
Communities tend to grow in size, which is common when the birth rate exceeds the death rate.
...so the village was doing fine for many years.
Now Geohydrology.
There are usually two types of groundwater - brackish and sweet. The sweet water is replenished with rainwater that seeps into the ground, brackish water contains a lot of salt and tends to sit below the sweet water due to it being denser.
People pput down their wells are draw down the sweet water, eventually this drops below the level of the brackish water which contaminates the well.
Got it?

Luckily for me my well is in the replenishment zone, so for now my water is good. I didn't plan it that way, just lucky.

OK, now the river. Mining activity upstream 100 years ago exposed pyrites, which now through natural weathing is forming an acid water that is decanting into the river, bringing with it dissolved heavy metals (lead, Uranium). The people that owned the mine are long dead. Who pays to clean it up?

This sort scenario is happening in many places in the world, including your very home State of Colorado. Reads the newspapers, Seth?

[rainbow]

Well, poor planning promotes piss poor performance and the people of the village are suffering the natural consequences of not securing a clean water supply before building a village at that location.

The river wasn't polluted when the village was built. Not their fault at all.

The river was always far from the community wasn't it? Poor planning by the community, which should have considered the impacts of such pollution in planning the community. And they have a cause of action against whomever polluted the river. If it's a natural phenomenon, then their poor planning results in the consequence of having to build expensive water purification facilities to clean the water either from the river or from their own wells. Or they can move the community.

I guess you don't understand the basics of population dynamics and geohydrology.
Communities tend to form where there are opportunities for employment. Very little forward planning goes into them, because that's human nature. Now if a Government enforces Town Planning, then that is a different matter. Yes?
Communities tend to grow in size, which is common when the birth rate exceeds the death rate.
...so the village was doing fine for many years.
Now Geohydrology.
There are usually two types of groundwater - brackish and sweet. The sweet water is replenished with rainwater that seeps into the ground, brackish water contains a lot of salt and tends to sit below the sweet water due to it being denser.
People put down their wells and draw down the sweet water, eventually this drops below the level of the brackish water which contaminates the well.
Got it?

Luckily for me, my well is in the replenishment zone, so for now my water is good. I didn't plan it that way, just lucky.

OK, now the river. Mining activity upstream 100 years ago exposed pyrites, which now through natural weathing is forming an acid water that is decanting into the river, bringing with it dissolved heavy metals (Arsenic, Lead, Uranium). The people that owned the mine are long dead. Who pays to clean it up?

This sort scenario is happening in many places in the world, including your very home State of Colorado. Read the newspapers, Seth?

[piscator]

So now the Land Clause of the US Constitution is a "Bald assertion"?

No, your a priori assumption that it means what you think it does is.

Seth, the Land Clause specifically delegates power over Federal Lands to Congress, not individual states.

Yes, it does. Problem is that Congress isn't supposed to own any "federal lands" other than what it purchases from the states with their agreement...[blatherblausterfapfap]

Congress doesn't "own" federal lands, the people do.

The US government negotiated and held the Louisiana Purchase, Guadalupe Hidalgo, Gadsen, Oregon Treaty long before there were States on those lands, so the US couldn't very well purchase those lands from States which didn't exist.
They were Federal Lands before they were State territory. And again, the disposition of Federal Lands is a constitutional exercise of congressional power under the Property and Supremacy Clauses of the Constitution.

"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."

Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. Pp. 426 U. S. 535-547.

(a) The Clause, in broad terms, empowers Congress to determine what are "needful" rules "respecting" the public lands, and there is no merit to appellees' narrow reading that the provision grants Congress power only to dispose of, to make incidental rules regarding the use of, and to protect federal property. The Clause must be given an expansive reading, for "[t]he power over the public lands thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations," United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 310 U. S. 29, and Congress' complete authority over the public lands includes the power to regulate and protect the wildlife living there. Pp. 426 U. S. 536-541.

(b) In arguing that the Act encroaches upon state sovereignty and that Congress can obtain exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the public lands in a State only by state consent (absent which it may not act contrary to state law), appellees have confused Congress' derivative legislative power from a State pursuant to Art. I, § 8, cl. 17, with Congress' powers under the Property Clause. Federal legislation under that Clause necessarily, under the Supremacy Clause, overrides conflicting state laws.

406 F.Supp. 1237. MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.


https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html

[Seth]

Well, poor planning promotes piss poor performance and the people of the village are suffering the natural consequences of not securing a clean water supply before building a village at that location.

The river wasn't polluted when the village was built. Not their fault at all.

The river was always far from the community wasn't it? Poor planning by the community, which should have considered the impacts of such pollution in planning the community. And they have a cause of action against whomever polluted the river. If it's a natural phenomenon, then their poor planning results in the consequence of having to build expensive water purification facilities to clean the water either from the river or from their own wells. Or they can move the community.

I guess you don't understand the basics of population dynamics and geohydrology.
Communities tend to form where there are opportunities for employment. Very little forward planning goes into them, because that's human nature. Now if a Government enforces Town Planning, then that is a different matter. Yes?
Communities tend to grow in size, which is common when the birth rate exceeds the death rate.
...so the village was doing fine for many years.
Now Geohydrology.
There are usually two types of groundwater - brackish and sweet. The sweet water is replenished with rainwater that seeps into the ground, brackish water contains a lot of salt and tends to sit below the sweet water due to it being denser.
People pput down their wells are draw down the sweet water, eventually this drops below the level of the brackish water which contaminates the well.
Got it?

Luckily for me my well is in the replenishment zone, so for now my water is good. I didn't plan it that way, just lucky.

OK, now the river. Mining activity upstream 100 years ago exposed pyrites, which now through natural weathing is forming an acid water that is decanting into the river, bringing with it dissolved heavy metals (lead, Uranium). The people that owned the mine are long dead. Who pays to clean it up?

This sort scenario is happening in many places in the world, including your very home State of Colorado. Reads the newspapers, Seth?

Yes, it is, but so what? How does any of that justify the community using force to take that which belongs to the individual against his will?

Colorado Springs needed more water for a growing city, but did it go and take it from ranchers by claiming that city-dwellers "need" it more than the ranchers who own it? Nope. It purchased water rights from willing sellers and is building a billion-dollar water line to pump the water it purchased on the free market from Pueblo to Colorado Springs.

The question is not the need for water, the question is the moral justification for seizing it from whomever owns it without their consent.

[Seth]

So now the Land Clause of the US Constitution is a "Bald assertion"?

No, your a priori assumption that it means what you think it does is.

Seth, the Land Clause specifically delegates power over Federal Lands to Congress, not individual states.

Yes, it does. Problem is that Congress isn't supposed to own any "federal lands" other than what it purchases from the states with their agreement...[blatherblausterfapfap]

Congress doesn't "own" federal lands, the people do.

That's not what the Department of Agriculture seems to think in re the National Forests. But you merely reinforce my point. The people DO own the unappropriated lands of the unsettled non-state territories, and when a group of people occupy those lands and decide to form a state, and the Congress consents to admitting that state to the Union, the unappropriated lands within those boundaries are still public domain. The issue is who becomes the steward of the land when a state is formed. The answer to that is that the state legislature takes the place of Congress in exercising control and authority over public lands previously stewarded by the Congress when the state is admitted to the Union.

The US government negotiated and held the Louisiana Purchase, Guadalupe Hidalgo, Gadsen, Oregon Treaty long before there were States on those lands, so the US couldn't very well purchase those lands from States which didn't exist.
They were Federal Lands before they were State territory. And again, the disposition of Federal Lands is a constitutional exercise of congressional power under the Property and Supremacy Clauses of the Constitution.

Yes, the DISPOSITION of those lands is conditional. Congress is not compelled to admit any new state into the Union. But, when Congress DOES admit a new state, it loses (according to original intent) it's sovereign authority over the lands of that state in favor of the legislature of the newly-admitted state. That's what "statehood" means. If the people of the territory that comprises Montana today had declared it to be the Republic of Montana and had decided to assert that republic's existence and sovereign title to the lands therein against the claim of title on the part of the Congress and the United States and had declined to apply for admission to the Union, and had those inhabitants prevailed against the counter-claim of Congress, by whatever means were necessary from negotiation or purchase to revolution and establishment of a new nation, Congress' authority over those lands would be extincted and that authority would vest in the government of the people of that republic. Sort of like Texas.

Exactly the same principle applies to the admission of a new state to the Union. The act of acknowledging the existence of a sovereign state by Congress compels Congress to admit that state on an equal footing with the original 13 colonies, which means the transfer of the authority over the public domain from the Congress to the legislature of the new state.

Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. Pp. 426 U. S. 535-547.

(a) The Clause, in broad terms, empowers Congress to determine what are "needful" rules "respecting" the public lands, and there is no merit to appellees' narrow reading that the provision grants Congress power only to dispose of, to make incidental rules regarding the use of, and to protect federal property. The Clause must be given an expansive reading, for "[t]he power over the public lands thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations," United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 310 U. S. 29, and Congress' complete authority over the public lands includes the power to regulate and protect the wildlife living there. Pp. 426 U. S. 536-541.

Yes, so what? My point is that when a state is admitted to the Union, that territory which was under Congressional control ceases to be under Congressional control and the control and title passes to the legislature of the state by that act.

(b) In arguing that the Act encroaches upon state sovereignty and that Congress can obtain exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the public lands in a State only by state consent (absent which it may not act contrary to state law), appellees have confused Congress' derivative legislative power from a State pursuant to Art. I, § 8, cl. 17, with Congress' powers under the Property Clause. Federal legislation under that Clause necessarily, under the Supremacy Clause, overrides conflicting state laws.

But only as applied to federal lands that it properly retains control of, which is not supposed to be the unappropriated lands of a state, which is under the sovereign control of the state.

406 F.Supp. 1237. MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Notice the term "derivative legislative power?" What that means is that the Court colluded with the Congress to grant greater authority over state lands in some parts of the country than were granted to it by the Founders in the Constitution. The point is that when a state is formed and admitted to the Union title to the public domain passes from the Congress to the state legislature, and nowhere in the Constitution or the writings of the Founders is found the notion that Congress can pick and choose which of the lands within a state it retains control of as a condition of admitting that state to the Union, because under the Equal Footing Doctrine new states are to be admitted to the Union on the same terms and conditions that the original 13 colonies did, and one of those conditions is that the Congress and federal government SHALL NOT exercise dominion and control over ANY of the lands of ANY of the original 13 states that it does not acquire from the state by purchase and with that state's consent. That's why Article 1, Section 8 explicitly lists the purposes for which Congress may acquire state lands, and why it carefully limits the District of Columbia to 10 square miles. If the original states had ceded all unappropriated lands to the control of Congress upon formation of the Union, if the Founders had even intended that to be the case, then the constraints and limitations of Article 1, Section 8 regarding what Congress is permitted to obtain for federal use would not exist because it would not need to exist. But those limitations DO exist and every reference by the Founders to federal control over the lands of the original states supports the idea that there was absolutely NO intent on the part of the Founders to dispossess ANY state of ANY lands within its boundaries against that state's consent and without compensation.

And under the Equal Footing Doctrine, that same principle applies to ALL states newly admitted to the Union. The Congress has plenary authority to manage territorial lands for the benefit of the people, but it cedes that authority to the state legislature the moment a state is admitted to the Union. That is what "statehood" means. It means that the inhabitants of the state claim all of the public domain within its boundaries as the property of the people of the state, which extinguishes all claims by anyone else, including previously-admitted states acting through Congress.

[JimC]

Angel on the head of a pin stuff anyway. There won't be a libertarian state as the whole thing is unworkable. As far as anyone will get is arguing about interminably on internet forums.

At least that keeps 'em off the streets...

[piscator]

Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. Pp. 426 U. S. 535-547.

(a) The Clause, in broad terms, empowers Congress to determine what are "needful" rules "respecting" the public lands, and there is no merit to appellees' narrow reading that the provision grants Congress power only to dispose of, to make incidental rules regarding the use of, and to protect federal property. The Clause must be given an expansive reading, for "[t]he power over the public lands thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations," United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 310 U. S. 29, and Congress' complete authority over the public lands includes the power to regulate and protect the wildlife living there. Pp. 426 U. S. 536-541.

Yes, so what? My point is that when a state is admitted to the Union, that territory which was under Congressional control ceases to be under Congressional control and the control and title passes to the legislature of the state by that act.

No it doesn't. According to the Constitution it's up to Congress to do with as it sees fit with those lands. Congress' power over US Public Lands is without limitations.
You or the Tea Party don't get to say it "rightfully belongs to" one state or another. That's unconstitutional. Only Congress gets to decide. You're just another random asshole with an erroneous opinion if you think otherwise.