Land Transfer and the Tenth Amendment

[Brn2hnt]

I was having a very good discussion the other day with an individual who was relatively unaware of the issues behind the transfer of public lands. However, he did bring up a point I couldn't refute at the time. The tenth amendment states that all rights not granted to the feral gov. shall be left to the states no? How is federal ownership of land constitutional? Is it because it is left to the states OR the people, ergo it can't be owned by the states as it would no longer then be the people? I am sure there is legal standing, otherwise this would have just been taken to the SC many years ago. I am just struggling with my google-fu to find where it is constitutional. Thanks for the help

Mike

 

[James Riley]

This is a power delegated to the United States:

"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; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 2

Thus, the 10th Amendment does not apply.

 

[Nemont]

Read Article Four, Section 3, Clause 2 (the Property Clause)

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; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State

From the enabling acts of the every western State:

This is from Montana's enabling act but every one of them have words to this effect:
Second. That the people inhabiting said proposed States do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States; that the lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without the said States shall never be taxed at a higher rate than the lands belonging to residents thereof; that no taxes shall be imposed by the States on lands or property therein belonging to or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States or reserved for its use. But nothing herein, or in the ordinances herein provided for, shall preclude the said States from taxing as other lands are taxed any lands owned or held by any Indian who has severed his tribal relations, and has obtained from the United States or from any person a title thereto by patent or other grant, save and except such lands as have been or may be granted to any Indian or Indians under any act of Congress containing a provision exempting the lands thus granted from taxation; but said ordinances shall provide that all such lands shall be exempt from taxation by said States so long and to such extent as such act of Congress may prescribe.

 

[Trial153]

The constitutionality of the federal ownership of lands has been up held by every Supreme Court ruling going back all way back to Light vs The United States. Even going as far as affirming that the government has the right to manage the land and wildlife for the public interest...for example Kleppe v. New Mexico
426 U.S. 529 (1976).