The state that successfully compelled the transfer of its public lands using these arguments was Nevada. In the late 19th century, Nevada argued for the transfer of federal lands within its borders using reasoning around state sovereignty, unfair restrictions on revenue generation and management compared to eastern states, health and welfare of its citizens, and fulfillment of the terms of its statehood enabling act - ultimately resulting in the transfer of public lands to Nevada's control.

1. “The Opportunity to Stand for Something”
The Transfer Public Lands
GOPAC
Rep. Ken Ivory (UT)
May 18, 2015

2. “We don't propose, like
some people, to meet
today’s problems by
saying that they don't
exist, and tomorrow's
problems by wishing
that tomorrow wouldn't
come.
Harry S. Truman

3. "Men make history, and
not the other way
around. In periods where
there is no leadership,
society stands still.
Progress occurs when
courageous, skillful
leaders seize the
opportunity to change
things for the better."
Harry S. Truman

4. Better Access  Better Health  Better Productivity

5. “The Green River
Formation … where
Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming come together,
contains about as much
recoverable oil as all
the rest of the world’s
proven reserves
combined” locked up in
federally controlled
lands.
Energy Independence Locked Up

6. Because our
abundant natural
resources are locked
up in federally
controlled lands,
America is at the
mercy of foreign
powers for rare
earth minerals vital
to national defense,
renewable energy,
and electronics
technologies.
March 22, 2015
National Security At Risk

7. It Matters for Our States
and Our Nation!

8. "This is a wonderful
time to be alive…
we're lucky not to live
in pale and timid
times. We've been
blessed with
the opportunity
to stand for
something.”
Ronald Reagan

9. This… not This…
We’re Talking About

11. www.AmericanLandsCouncil.org
Better Access  Better Health  Better
Productivity

12. "Gentlemen,
this is a
football.”
Vince Lombardi
Coach for the Green Bay
Packers 1959-1967.
96 wins, two Superbowl
wins. Coach of the Year in
1959, inducted into the hall
of fame in 1971, namesake
for the Superbowl trophy.

15. Life, Liberty, Property
“Man—has three great rights ... life,
… liberty, … property. ... The three
rights are so bound together as to be
essentially one right. To give a man
his life, but deny him his liberty, is to take
from him all that makes his life worth
living. To give him his liberty, but
take from him the property
which is the fruit and badge of
his liberty, is to still leave him a
slave.”
George Sutherland
U.S. Supreme
Court Justice
1921

22. “… powers which … concern the lives,
liberties, and properties of the people’
were held by governments more
local and more accountable
than a distant federal bureaucracy.”
U.S. Supreme Court
NFIB v. Sebelius (June, 2012)
“Basic Principles”
State Jurisdiction Checks
Federal Power

23. “The independent power of
the States also serves as a check
on the power of the Federal
Government.”
U.S. Supreme Court
NFIB v. Sebelius (June, 2012)
“Basic Principles”
State Jurisdiction Checks
Federal Power

24. “‘By denying any one government
complete jurisdiction over all the
concerns of public life, federalism
protects the liberty of the
individual from arbitrary power.’”
U.S. Supreme Court
NFIB v. Sebelius (June, 2012)
“Basic Principles”
State Jurisdiction Checks
Federal Power

25. “…we look to the States to defend their
prerogatives by adopting “the simple expedient
of not yielding” to federal blandishments
when they do not want to embrace the federal
policies as their own."
U.S. Supreme Court
NFIB v. Sebelius (June, 2012)
“Basic Principles”
States Must Act Like
Independent Sovereigns

26. “The States are separate and
independent sovereigns.
Sometimes they have to
act like it."
U.S. Supreme Court
NFIB v. Sebelius (June, 2012)
“Basic Principles”
States Must Act Like
Independent Sovereigns

28. Rights we don’t know
are no better than rights
we don’t have.
Rights we don’t
exercise are no better
than rights we don’t
have.

29. Equality of States Essential to
Republic
“…‘the constitutional equality
of the States is essential to
the harmonious operation of
… the Republic ....”
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. ___ (2013)

30. Equal Sovereignty is
Fundamental
There is a “‘fundamental principle
of equal sovereignty’ among the
States.” …
“… our Nation ‘was and is a
union of States, equal in
power, dignity and authority.’”
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. ___ (2013)

31. Equal in Liberty, Property
& Self Governance?

32. If you were the opposing
quarterback, What
Would You Do?

34. The Promises Are the Same
Why The Difference?

38. 1889 Enabling Act
North & South Dakota, Montana, and Washington
“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 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 … no taxes shall be imposed by the
States on lands or property therein belonging to or which
hereafter be purchased by the United States or reserved for
its use;”

39. Montana’s Enabling Act Affirms:
Lands shall be sold and 5% of the
proceeds shall be paid to the states…
“That five per centum of the proceeds of the sales of public
lands lying within said States which shall be sold by the
United States subsequent to the admission of said States into
the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the
same, shall be paid to the said States, to be used as a
permanent fund, the interest of which only shall be expended
for the support of common schools within said States,
respectively.” -- Montana, Washington, North Dakota, South
Dakota Enabling Act of 1889 §13

40. Why did Governor Warren say this:
"The State of Wyoming will,
after the date of admission,
receive 5% of the net receipts
from all sales of US Lands
within its borders, which will
continue until all such lands
are sold.” -- Governor Francis E.
Warren, Inaugural Address, 1889
MYTH: “You Gave Up Your Lands”

41. MYTH: “You Gave Up Your Lands”
“In harmony with the spirit and
letter of the land grants to the
national government, … and in
conformity with the terms
of our Enabling Act, … we
hereby earnestly urge a policy that will
afford an opportunity to settle our lands
and make use of our resources on
terms of equality with the
older states, to the benefit and upbuilding
of the State and to the strength of the nation.”
Utah Senate Joint Memorial No. 4, 1915,
Asking Congress for a More Liberal National Policy
in the Disposition of the Public Domain

42. • Enabling Acts are "solemn compacts" and "bi-
lateral [two-way] agreements" that are to be
performed "in a timely fashion" (Andrus v. Utah,
1980);
• The federal government holds territorial lands “in
trust for the several states to be ultimately created out
of the territory." (Shively v. Bowlby, 1894);
KEY SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
SOLEMN COMPACTS,
BI-LATERAL AGREEMENTS
MYTH: “It’s Not Legal”

43. U.S. Constitution Article IV, Section 3
– New States
(NOTE: Article IV, New States; NOT Article I, Powers of Congress)
“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.”
*NOTE: The Constitution does not say Congress shall
have the power to keep the lands forever and ever!

44. “the legal
arguments in
favor of the
TPLA are
serious”
--The Federalist Society
(a national organization of 40,000
lawyers, law students, scholars
and other individuals located in
every state and law school in the
nation)

46. “[T]he consequences of admission are instantaneous, and
it ignores the uniquely sovereign character of that
event … to suggest that subsequent events [acts of
Congress] somehow can diminish what has already
been bestowed.’ And that proposition applies a fortiori
[with even greater force] where virtually all of the
State’s public lands . . .are at stake.”
2009 U.S. Supreme Court
Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs
(Unanimous Decision)

47. IT’S ALREADY BEEN DONE BEFORE!
MI, IA, IL, MO, IN, AR, LA, AL, MS, Fl, etc.
were as much as 90% federally controlled for decades ...

48. One Man...
One LEADER...
Refused To Be Silent or Take
“NO”
for an Answer

49. “... my election to the Senate of the United
States ... found me doing battle for
an ameliorated system of disposing of our
public lands; and with some success. I
resolved to move against the
whole system ... I did so in a bill,
renewed annually for a long time; and in
speeches which had more effect upon the
public mind than upon the federal
legislation ...”
U.S. Senator
Thomas Hart Benton
(D-MO)

50. “They were as a stepmother, instead of a
natural mother: and the federal government
being sole purchaser from foreign nations,
and sole recipient of Indian cessions, it
became the monopolizer of
vacant lands of the West: and
this monopoly, like all monopolies,
resulted in hardships to those upon whom it
acted.”
U.S. Senator
Thomas Hart Benton
(D-MO)

51. “But the members in Congress
from the new States should not
intermit their exertions, nor vary their
policy; and should fix their eyes
steadily upon the period of
the speedy extinction of the
federal title to all the lands within
the limits of their respective States ...”
Thirty Years View, Thomas Hart Benton
U.S. Senator
Thomas Hart Benton
(D-MO)

52. Hawaii
(the last Western State admitted)
Enabling Act
March 18, 1959
“… the United States grants to the State of Hawaii,
effective upon its admission into the Union, the United
States’ title to all the public lands and other public
property within the boundaries of the State of Hawaii,
title to which is held by the United States immediately
prior to its admission into the Union.”

53. MYTH: States Can’t Afford It!

54. To Infinity…
& Beyond!
Washington DC financial “management”
National Debt 1940-Present
Seriously??

60. MYTH: “States will Shut it Down?”

61. MYTH: “State will Sell It!”
Debt-Ridden WA DC is Selling It!
May 2, 2015, Rep.
Ted Poe (R-TX)
introduced the
American Land Act
(H.R. 1931) which
would require USFS
and BLM to auction
off 8% of the lands
they control per year
for the next 5 years.

62. MYTH: “State will Sell It!”
Will Debt-Ridden WA DC follow?

63. Why The difference?

64. Why The difference?

65. “Wildfires are scorching the earth and burning through the
United States’ bank account.” Washington Post, July 25, 2014

66. TRENDING
Decreased Logging = Increased Wildfire

67. TRENDING
ESA FLPMA

68. USDA
REPORT:
Nearly 10,000
miles of electrical
transmission lines
on national forest
lands in the west
are at risk.
TRENDING

69. USDA REPORT:
“Fires are becoming larger and more
severe.”
“Since 2000, ten western states have
had record fire seasons.”
“Trends indicate the amount of wildfire
and associated damage will increase
beyond our recent experiences.”
“The forest service does not
have the budget to treat the
affected acres.”
- USFS Risk & Reliability Report, Aug 2013
TRENDING

70. Failing Federal
Policies:
“Analysis paralysis” and
“management by
litigation” are killing
millions of animals,
destroying our
environment, wasting
natural resources, and
depressing western
communities.
TRENDING

72. MYTH: It’s Impossible!

75. Efforts underway in:
• Utah
• Nevada
• Wyoming
• Idaho
• Montana
• Arizona
• New Mexico
• Colorado
• Alaska
• Washington
• Oregon
• South Carolina
• Tennessee
• Arkansas
• Georgia
• Texas & more

76. “The federal government has
been a lousy landlord for
western states and we simply
think the states can do it better.
If we want healthier
forests, better access to
public lands, more
consistent funding for
public education and
more reliable energy
development, it makes
sense to have local
control.”
Rep. Chris Stewart (UT)
Other members include Reps. Mark Amodei,
R-Nev.; Diane Black, R-Tenn.; Jeff Duncan,
R-S.C.; Cresent Hardy, R-Nev.; and Cynthia
Lummis, R-Wyo.
Congressional Federal Land Action Group
created April 28, 2015

79. rev April 2015
79
IT’S NOT JUST A
GOP THING…
*Cities, Counties, States
*School Districts/Education
Assoc
*Trade Unions
*Chambers, Econ Councils
*User Groups
*Resource Industries
*Farm Bureau, Cattlemen,
etc.

80. Why The difference?

81. “Our people look for a cause to believe in … a
banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors
which make it unmistakably clear where we
stand on all of the issues troubling the people.”
Ronald Reagan

82. What Can Your Constituents Do?
Sign the Petition:
www.americanlandscouncil.org
Tell Someone! Share News, Blogs and Resources from the
ALC Website on Social Media, Newsletters, Letters to the Editor,
Conferences, etc.
Tell Your Leaders! Persistently encourage local, state and
national leaders to stand with resolve and without shame like Sen.
Thomas Hart Benton
Open Doors! Many are looking for answers big enough to
secure better stewardship of our lands and greater opportunities for
our communities, states and nation. Introduce them to the only
solution big enough in the Transfer of Public Lands to local
stewardship.

83. What Can You Do Now?
Educate – Share the vision of TPL with constituents, colleagues,
leaders, organizations, conferences, speeches, articles, etc.
Negotiate – Communicate the unwavering expectation for TPL with
federal officials and agencies thru meetings, hearings, conferences, etc.
Legislate – Pass resolutions, ordinances, and legislation at the local,
state and national level supporting TPL and facilitating the transition (studies,
logistics, interstate compacts, federal devolution, etc.)
Litigate – Combine our common legal and financial resources, public
and private, in defense of the “constitutional equality of the States … essential
for the harmonious operation of … the Republic.”

85. www.AmericanLandsCouncil.org

86. Ken Ivory, UT State Rep.
American Lands Council
801.694.8380
Ken@AmericanLandsCouncil.org
“The Opportunity To Stand For Something
… Worth Fighting For!”

87. Bonus Slides

88. Which western State
successfully compelled
the transfer of its public
lands with these
arguments?

89. Successful arguments for the transfer of
public lands:
First, Federal control of its lands
restricted the ability to
improve, protect, and manage
its resources, limiting its
opportunities to generate
revenue on terms of equality
with states to their east.

90. Successful arguments for the transfer of
public lands:
Second, Why should the State
be deprived of the ability to
protect the health, safety, and
welfare of its people exercised by
States to the east.

91. Successful arguments for the transfer of
public lands:
Third, The State should have the
same authority to improve and
regulate the growth and progress
of its lands within its boundaries
"according to its own views of
prosperity and happiness" as
exercised by states to the east.

92. Successful arguments for the transfer of
public lands:
Fourth, The State insisted that it
was unfair for eastern states to
be required to subsidize States
in the west due to federal control
of western lands.

93. Successful arguments for the transfer of
public lands:
Fifth, The State was adamant that
the statehood enabling act terms
were "obligatory upon the parties
to it" such that "any act on the part
of the [federal] government to
delay... would doubtless be an
infringement of the compact itself.”

94. Successful arguments for the transfer of public
lands:
Sixth, The State questioned why its citizens
should "be subject to the operation of the
laws of the United Sates," over such
matters as land use and planning regulations,
which are "confessedly purely municipal,
which have no existence in the older States,
and which they [the States] alone have the
right to pass.”

95. Successful arguments for the transfer of public
lands:
Seventh, The State contended that the
exercise of such "extraordinary powers"
by the federal government was not
consistent with "the rights reserved to
the States respectively by the
Constitution of the United States" and is
not expressly granted anywhere in the
statehood enabling act.

96. Which western State
successfully compelled
the transfer of its public
lands with these
arguments?

97. Illinois!
Its lands were more than 95% federally controlled for DECADES!

99. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
February 21, 1848
Mr. Ficklin [Orlando B. Ficklin, D-IL], on leave, introduced the following bill: which
was read twice, and referred to the committee on Public Lands.
A Bill
To cede the public lands within the limits of the new States
on certain conditions therein mentioned.
Whereas, the land within the limits of the original
States of the Union, as well as the unappropriated
“crown lands” claimed by different States, were
acquired by the blood and common treasure of the
whole nation, and rightfully belong to the States,
whether new or old, within whose limits the same
are situated;

100. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
February 21, 1848
Mr. Ficklin [Orlando B. Ficklin, D-IL], on leave, introduced the following bill: which
was read twice, and referred to the committee on Public Lands.
A Bill
To cede the public lands within the limits of the new States
on certain conditions therein mentioned.
… whereas, the harmony and successful
working of our federative system require a
perfect equality of rights amongst the
several States of the Union, as independent
political sovereignties;

101. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
February 21, 1848
Mr. Ficklin [Orlando B. Ficklin, D-IL], on leave, introduced the following bill: which
was read twice, and referred to the committee on Public Lands.
A Bill
To cede the public lands within the limits of the new States
on certain conditions therein mentioned.
… whereas, the new States, admitted into the
Union, cannot be on an equality with the original
States without the right of eminent domain to the
public lands, within their respective limits, as a
necessary incident to sovereignty, whether such
lands were acquired by conquest, treaty, or
otherwise;

102. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
February 21, 1848
Mr. Ficklin [Orlando B. Ficklin, D-IL], on leave, introduced the following bill: which
was read twice, and referred to the committee on Public Lands.
A Bill
To cede the public lands within the limits of the new States
on certain conditions therein mentioned.
… and whereas this principle, so just in itself, has
been recognized by Congress, as well in ceding to
the State of Tennessee the public lands within her
limits granted by North Carolina to this government,
as by admitting the State of Texas into the Union,
she retaining her public domain; therefore –

103. A Bill
To cede the public lands within the limits of the new States
on certain conditions therein mentioned.
… Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled, That all the public and
unappropriated lands within the States of Ohio,
Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Alabama, Mississippi,
Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Florida, and Iowa,
with the exception of the sites of fortifications, navy
and dock yards, arsenals, magazines, and all other
public buildings and grounds for the same, be, and
the same are hereby, ceded to the several States,
within the limits of which they are respectively
situated …

104. U.S. Constitution
Annotated
Article IV, Section 3, CL 1
– New States
“The right of every new State to
exercise all the powers of
government which belong to and
may be exercised by the original
States of the Union must be
admitted and remain unquestioned
except so far as they are
temporarily deprived of control
over the public lands.”

105. Resolution supporting
Transfer of Public Lands
passed unanimously at
MTGOP State Convention
June 21, 2014.

107. Equality in Liberty, Property
& Self Governance?

108. Rights we don’t know
are no better than rights
we don’t have.
Rights we don’t
exercise are no better
than rights we don’t
have.

109. “that the people inhabiting the said territory, do agree
and declare that they forever disclaim all right and
title to the waste or unappropriated lands lying within
the said territory; and that the same shall be and remain
at the sole and entire disposition of the United
States...”
ALABAMA
2.7% PUBLIC LANDS
Forever Disclaim All Right and Title ...?

110. “that the people inhabiting the said territory do agree
and declare that they forever disclaim all right or
title to the waste or unappropriated lands lying within
the said territory, and that the same shall be and remain
at the sole and entire disposition of the United
States...”
LOUISIANA
4.6% PUBLIC LANDS
Forever Disclaim All Right and Title ...?

111. “That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and
declare that they forever disclaim all right and title
to the unappropriated public lands lying within said
territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the
sole and entire disposition of the United States, ....”
NEBRASKA
1% PUBLIC LANDS
Forever Disclaim All Right and Title ...?

112. Forever Disclaim All Right and Title ...?
“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 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, …;”
Enabling Act of 1889 §4, Second
North Dakota 3.9% Federally Controlled Lands
South Dakota 5.4% Federally Controlled Lands

113. 5% of Proceeds SHALL be paid to the State
“That five per centum of the proceeds of the sales of
public lands lying within said States which shall be
sold by the United States subsequent to the
admission of said States into the Union, …, shall be
paid to the said States, to be used as a permanent
fund, …for the support of common schools within
said States, respectively.” -- Montana, Washington, North
Dakota, South Dakota Enabling Act of 1889 §13
Similar language is found in the enabling acts of virtually all
newly created states east and west of Colorado.

114. “That the people inhabiting said proposed State do
agree and declare that they forever disclaim all
right and title to the unappropriated public
lands lying within the boundaries thereof; ... 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,...”
Section 3, Utah Enabling Act, July 16, 1894
Utah
66.5% Public Lands

115. “That five per centum of the proceeds of the
sales of public lands … which shall be sold
by the United States subsequent to the
admission of said State into the Union…,
shall be paid to the said State, … for the
support of the common schools within said
State.”
Section 9, Utah Enabling Act, July 16, 1894
Utah 66.5% Public Lands

116. Arizona Enabling Act 1910
“That the people inhabiting said proposed state do
agree and declare that they forever disclaim all
right and title to the unappropriated and
ungranted public lands lying within the
boundaries thereof and to all lands lying within said
boundaries owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, the right or
title to which shall have been acquired through or from the United
States or any prior sovereignty, and that until the title of such Indian
or Indian tribes shall have been extinguished the same shall be and
remain subject to the disposition and under the absolute jurisdiction
and control of the Congress of the United States;”
AZ ST, ENABLING ACT, Sec. 20

117. “That five per centum of the proceeds of
sales of public lands lying within said state
which shall be sold by the United States
subsequent to the admission of said state into
the Union, …, shall be paid to the said state
to be used as a permanent inviolable fund …
for the support of the common schools
within said state.”
AZ ST, ENABLING ACT, Sec. 27
Arizona Enabling Act 1910

121. Why The difference?

122. Why The difference?

123. Why The difference?

124. Why The difference?

126. Arizona’s $31.5 Billion Annual Revenues
The $16.3 Billion
of “Federal Funds”
Arizona Spends Annually
Arizona’s
Looming
$16.3 Billion
Budget Hole
51.7%
Source: Intergovernmental Financial
Dependency: A Study of Key
Dependency Measures for the 50 States,
CliftonLarsenAllen, LLP, 2012

128. Terms of Equality?
Why Not Us?

129. Equality of States Essential to
Republic
“…‘the constitutional equality
of the States is essential to
the harmonious operation of
… the Republic ....”
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. ___ (2013)

130. Equal Sovereignty is
Fundamental
There is a “‘fundamental
principle of equal sovereignty’
among the States.” …
“… our Nation ‘was and is a
union of States, equal in power,
dignity and authority.’”

131. “‘[T]he consequences of admission are
instantaneous, and it ignores the uniquely
sovereign character of that event … to
suggest that subsequent events [acts of Congress]
somehow can diminish what has already been
bestowed.’ And that proposition applies a fortiori
[with even greater force] where virtually all
of the State’s public lands . . .are at
stake.”
2009 U.S. Supreme Court
Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs
(Unanimous Decision)

133. SO, WHY DOES THE FEDERAL GOVT
HAVE TITLE ANYWAY??

135. U.S. Constitution
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2
– New 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.

136. PRESIDENT
ANDREW JACKSON
1767-1845
“… it is the real interest of each and all the States in the
Union, and particularly of the new States, thatthe
price of these lands shall be
reduced and graduated, and that after
they have been offered for a certain number of years
the refuse remaining unsold shall
be abandoned to the States and
the machinery of our land system
entirely withdrawn. It can not be supposed
the compacts intended that the United States should
retain forever a title to lands within the States which are of
no value, and no doubt is entertained thatthe
general interest would be best
promoted by surrendering such
lands to the States.”

137. PRESIDENT
ANDREW JACKSON
1767-1845
"By the facts here collected from the early history of
our Republic it appears that the subject of the public
lands entered into the elements of its institutions. It
was only upon the condition that those lands should
be considered as common property, to be disposed
of for the benefit of the United States, that some of the
States agreed to come into a 'perpetual union.' The
States claiming those lands acceded to those views
and transferred their claims to the United States
upon certain specific conditions, and on those
conditions the grants were accepted. These solemn
compacts, invited by Congress in a resolution declaring
the purposes to which the proceeds of these lands
should be applied, originating before the Constitution
and forming the basis on which it was made,
bound the United States to a particular
course of policy in relation to them by ties
as strong as can be invented to secure the
faith of nations.”

138. PRESIDENT
ANDREW JACKSON
1767-1845
"The Constitution of the United States
did not delegate to Congress the power
to abrogate these compacts. On the
contrary, by declaring that nothing in it
'shall be so construed as to prejudice
any claims of the United States or of
any particular State,' it virtually provides
that these compacts and the rights
they secure shall remain untouched
by the legislative power, which shall
only make all 'needful rules and
regulations' for carrying them into effect.
All beyond this would seem to be an
assumption of undelegated power."

139. THE ONLY SOLUTION BIG ENOUGH
TRANSFER PUBLIC LANDS TO THE
STATES

145. 3 Fundamental Truths
1. The Statehood Terms Are The Same for the
transfer of federally controlled lands for all
newly created states east and west of
Colorado;
2. It’s Already Been Done Before!
3. It’s The Only Solution Big Enough to secure
Better Access, Better Environmental Health
and Better Productivity for our lands and our
nation.

146. Extra Slides
“THE SOFT-MINDED MAN
ALWAYS FEARS CHANGE.
HE FEELS SECURITY IN
THE STATUS QUO AND
HASAN ALMOST
MORBID FEAR OFTHE
NEW. FOR HIM,THE
GREATEST PAIN ISTHE
PAIN OFA NEW IDEA.”
MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.

147. The Path Forward
to compel Congress to treat
Western States Equally:
* Education
* Negotiation
* Legislation
* Litigation

148. What Can I Do?
 Sign the Petition
 Tell Someone
 Tell Your Leaders
Secure Opportunity
through The Only
Solution Big
Enough

151. Why The difference?

152. U.S. Constitution
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2
– New 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.

153. From the Journals of the Continental Congress, Tuesday,
October 10, 1780, pages 915-16:
“Resolved, That the unappropriated lands that may be
ceded or relinquished to the United States, by any particular
states, . . . shall be disposed of for the common
benefit of the United States, and be settled and
formed into distinct republican states, which
shall become members of the federal union, and have the
same rights of sovereignty, freedom and
independence, as the other states . . .
That the said lands shall be granted and settled at such
times and under such regulations as shall hereafter
be agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled.”

154. By the United States in Congress assembled. April 23, 1784 : Resolved,
that so much of the territory ceded, or to be ceded by individual states,
to the United States … shall be divided into distinct states in the
following manner ...
“THIRD. That they in no case shall interfere with the
primary disposal of the soil by the United
States in Congress assembled; nor with the
ordinances and regulations which Congress
may find necessary for securing the title in
such soil to the bona fide purchasers.
…
That … such state shall be admitted by its delegates into the
Congress of the United States, on an equal footing
with the said original states …”

155. Territory of the United States, North-West of the River Ohio
(Northwest Ordinance)
“… to provide also for the establishment of States,… and for
their admission to a share in the federal councils on an
equal footing with the original States …
… The legislatures of those … new States, shall
never interfere with the primary
disposal of the soil by the United States in
Congress assembled, nor with any regulations
Congress may find necessary for securing the
title in such soil to the bona fide
purchasers …”

156. Mr. WILSON ... There was nothing in the Constitution affecting one way or the
other the claims of the U. S. & it was best to insert nothing leaving every
thing on that litigated subject in statu quo.
Mr. MADISON ... He thought it best on the whole to be silent on the
subject. He did not view the proviso of Mr. Carrol as dangerous; but to make it
neutral & fair, it ought to go farther & declare that the Claims of
particular States also should not be affected. …
Mr. CARROL withdrew his motion and moved the following. "Nothing in this
Constitution shall be construed to alter the Claims of
the U. S. or of the individual States to the Western
territory, ...."
Madison Constitution Debate
Tuesday, August 30, 1787

157. Douglas Complex Fire

158. “Few, or none of our public men, had
raised their voice against this hard policy
before I came into the national councils.
My own was soon raised there against it:
and it is certain that a great amelioration
has taken place in our federal land policy
during my time: and that the sentiment of
Congress, and that of the public
generally, has become much more liberal
in land alienations; and is approximating
towards the beneficent systems of the rest
of the world.”
U.S. Senator
Thomas Hart Benton
(D-MO)

161. What Can I Do?
Sign the Petition
 Tell Someone
 Tell Your Leaders (AOC Resolution,
HB3444, SJM5)
 Be Part of The Only Solution Big
Enough

162. www.AmericanLandsCouncil.org
Text “Sign” to 801.416.2543

163. What Can I Do?
 Sign the Petition
Tell Someone
(Email, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube,
Carrier Pigeon, etc.)
 Tell Your Leaders (AOC Resolution, HB3444,
SJM5)
 Be Part of The Only Solution Big
Enough

165. YouTube
American Lands Council Channel

166. What Can I Do?
 Sign the Petition
 Tell Someone
Tell Your Leaders
(AOC Resolution, HB3444,
SJM5)
 Be Part of The Only Solution Big
Enough

174. US Senator Lisa Murkowski
“We Can’t Afford to Pay Counties to NOT Utilize their Resources”

176. Liberty cannot exist –
depriving Life of real
meaning – without
the right and control
(i.e. self government)
of Property.

177. 20th Congress, 1st Session, House of Reps., Rep. No. 125, Graduate
Price of Public Lands, February 5, 1828
Mr. Duncan, from the Committee on the Public Lands, to which the subject
had been referred, made the following
REPORT:
If these lands are to be withheld from sale, which is the effect of the present system,
in vain may the People of these States expect the advantages of well settled
neighborhoods, so essential to the education of youth, and to the pleasures of social
intercourse, and the advantages of religious instruction. Those States will, for many
generations, without some change, be retarded in endeavors to increase their comfort
and wealth, by means of works of internal improvements, because they have not the
power, incident to all sovereign States, of taxing the soil, to pay for the benefits
conferred upon its owner by roads and canals.
When these States stipulated not to tax the lands of the United States until they
were sold, they rested upon the implied engagement of Congress to cause them to be
sold, within a reasonable time. No just equivalent has been given those States for a
surrender of an attribute of sovereignty so important to their welfare, and to an equal
standing with the original States.
A remedy for such great evils may be found in carrying into effect the spirit of the
Federal Constitution, which knows of no inequality in the powers and rights of the
several States;

178. 20th Congress No. 726.
2d Session
APPLICATION OF MISSOURI FOR A CHANGE IN THE SYSTEM OF
DISPOSING OF THE PUBLIC LANDS.
COMMUNICATED TO THE SENATE JANUARY 26, 1829.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
The memorial of the general assembly of the State of Missouri
respectfully showeth: That the system of disposing of the public lands of the
United States now pursued is highly injurious, in many respects, to the
States in which those lands lie, . . . with the present condition of the
western States. But the general assembly will state that a perseverance in
the present system manifestly appears to them to be . . . an infringement of
the compact between the United States and this State; and that the State of
Missouri never could have been brought to consent not to tax the lands of
the United States whilst unsold; and not to tax the lands sold until five years
thereafter, if it had been understood by the contracting parties that a system
was to be pursued which would prevent nine-tenths of those lands from
ever becoming the property of persons in whose hands they might be taxed.

186. Liberty cannot exist,
hence Life has no real
meaning, without
the right and control
(self government)
of Property.

187. This is NOT just a “Western Issue”

193. Why The difference?

194. Why The difference?

195. Why The difference?

196. Why The difference?

198. U.S. House of Representatives - Natural Resources Committee
State Forests Management Superior to Federal Forests
for Job Creation, Revenue Production, Local Economies and Fire Prevention
February 26, 2013

200. “The oath the several legislative,
executive, and judicial officers of the
several states take to support the
federal Constitution, is as effectual a
security against the usurpation of the
general government as it is against the
encroachment of the state governments.
For an increase of the powers by
usurpation is as clearly a violation of the
federal Constitution as a diminution of
these powers by private encroachment;
and that the oath obliges the officers of
the several states as vigorously to
oppose the one as the other.”Theophilus Parsons, January 23, 1788

201. “But there is another check, founded in
the nature of the Union, superior to all the
parchment checks that can be invented. If
there should be a usurpation, it will not be
on the farmer and merchant, employed and
attentive only to their several occupations; it
will be upon thirteen legislatures,
completely organized, possessed of the
confidence of the people, and having the
means, as well as inclination,
successfully to oppose it. Under these
circumstances, none but madmen
would attempt a usurpation.”
Theophilus Parsons, January 23, 1788

202. "… it will be their own
FAULTS, if the several
states suffer the federal
sovereignty to interfere in
the things of
their respective
jurisdictions."
John Dickinson (Fabius), Letter III, 1788 (all caps in original)

203. So . . .

217. Forever Disclaim All Right and Title ...?
“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 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, …;”
Enabling Act of 1889 §4, Second
North Dakota 3.9% Federally Controlled Lands
South Dakota 5.4% Federally Controlled Lands

218. The Promises are the Same!
“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 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, …;”
Section 3, Utah Enabling Act, July 16, 1894
Utah
66.5% Public Lands

219. 5% of Proceeds SHALL be paid to the State
“That five per centum of the proceeds of the sales of
public lands lying within said States which shall be
sold by the United States subsequent to the admission
of said States into the Union, …, shall be paid to the
said States, to be used as a permanent fund, …for the
support of common schools within said States,
respectively.”
Enabling Act of 1889 §13
North Dakota 3.9% Federally Controlled Lands
South Dakota 5.4% Federally Controlled Lands

220. “That five per centum of the proceeds of the sales of
public lands lying within said States which shall be
sold by the United States subsequent to the admission
of said States into the Union, …, shall be paid to the
said States, to be used as a permanent fund, …for the
support of common schools within said State.”
Section 9, Utah Enabling Act, July 16, 1894
Utah 66.5% Public Lands
The Promises are the Same!

221. “This separation of the two spheres is
one of the Constitution's structural
protections of liberty. … a healthy
balance of power between the
States and the Federal Government
will reduce the risk of tyranny and
abuse from either front.’”
Printz v. United States
521 U.S. 898 (1997)
States Are Supreme
In Their Sphere

222. “To quote Madison once again:
‘In the compound republic of America,
the power surrendered by the people is first
divided between two distinct governments,
… Hence a double security arises to the rights
of the people. The different governments will
control each other, at the same time that each will be
controlled by itself.’ The Federalist No. 51, at 323.”
Printz v. United States
521 U.S. 898 (1997)
States Are Supreme
In Their Sphere

223. “The Federal Government has
expanded dramatically over the past
two centuries, but it still must show
that a constitutional grant of power
authorizes each of its actions.”
U.S. Supreme Court Affordable
Care Act Decision (June, 2012)
Federal Govt Powers Limited
By Constitution

224. “The same does not apply to the States,
because the Constitution is not the source of
their power. … state governments do not need
constitutional authorization to act. ... Our cases refer to this
general power of governing, possessed
by the States but not by the Federal
Government, as the ‘police power.’”
U.S. Supreme Court Affordable
Care Act Decision (June, 2012)
States’ Powers NOT Limited
By Constitution

225. “The Framers thus ensured that powers
which ‘in the ordinary course of affairs,
concern the lives, liberties, and
properties of the people’ were held by
governments more local and more
accountable than a distant federal
bureaucracy.”
U.S. Supreme Court Affordable
Care Act Decision (June, 2012)
State Jurisdiction Checks
Federal Power

226. “The independent power of the
States also serves as a check on the power
of the Federal Government: ‘By denying any
one government complete jurisdiction
over all the concerns of public life, federalism
protects the liberty of the individual
from arbitrary power.’”
U.S. Supreme Court Affordable
Care Act Decision (June, 2012)
State Jurisdiction Checks
Federal Power

227. “In the typical case we look to the States to
defend their prerogatives by adopting “the
simple expedient of not yielding” to federal
blandishments when they do not want to
embrace the federal policies as their own."
U.S. Supreme Court Affordable
Care Act Decision (June, 2012)
States Must Act Like
Independent Sovereigns

228. “The States are separate and
independent sovereigns.
"Sometimes they have to act like
it."
U.S. Supreme Court Affordable
Care Act Decision (June, 2012)
States Must Act Like
Independent Sovereigns

229. The Constitution thus contemplates that a State's government
will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens. As
Madison expressed it: "[T]he local or municipal authorities
form distinct and independent portions of
the supremacy, no more subject, within their
respective spheres, to the general authority than the general
authority is subject to them, within its own sphere."
The Federalist No. 39, at 245.
Printz v. United States
521 U.S. 898 (1997)
States Are Supreme
In Their Sphere

230. The Line
“. . . this Constitution deserves
approbation [praise] . . . [for] the
accuracy with which the line is
drawn between the powers of
the general government and
those of the particular state
governments. . . . the powers are
as minutely enumerated and defined
as was possible . . .”
James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, 4 Dec.
1787

231. Copyright (c) 2011 Ken Ivory All Rights Reserved

232. Copyright (c) 2011 Ken Ivory All Rights Reserved

233. Copyright (c) 2011 Ken Ivory All Rights Reserved

234. Copyright (c) 2011 Ken Ivory All Rights Reserved

235. The Line
"It must be done by the
States themselves,
erecting such barriers at
the constitutional line as
cannot be surmounted
either by themselves or by
the General Government."
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Archibald Stuart,
1791.

236. What Can I Do?
 Do you believe that the right and control of property,
liberty, and self-government are fundamental to our
unprecedented American experiment?
 Do you believe these are things worth sacrificing for to
pass on to our children and grandchildren just like our
ancestors secured them for us?
 Do you believe that if Illinois, etc. can do it there is no
reason besides a lack of (i) knowledge, (ii) commitment,
and (ii) effort why we shouldn’t be able to do the very same
thing?
 Why Not Us?

237. The Line as Understood for nearly 150 Years
Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D-NY), March 2, 1930
“Congress has been given the right to legislate on . . .
particular subject[s], but this is not the case in the
matter of a great number of other vital problems of
government, such as the conduct of public utilities,
of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture,
of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other
important features. In these, Washington must not be
encouraged to interfere.”

238. “State Legislatures will
 jealously and closely watch the
operations of this Government, and
 be able to resist with more effect
[better] than any other power on earth
can do; and
 the greatest opponents to a Federal
Government admit the State Legislatures
to be sure guardians of the people's
liberty.”
James Madison, Introduction of the Bill of Rights, The Annals of Congress,
House of Representatives, First Congress

239. “THE STATE GOVERNMENT WILL HAVE
THE ADVANTAGE OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, whether we compare them
in respect to the immediate dependence
of the one on the other; to the weight of
personal influence which each side will
possess; TO THE POWERS
RESPECTIVELY VESTED IN THEM; TO
THE PREDILECTION AND PROBABLE
SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE; TO THE
DISPOSITION AND FACULTY OF
RESISTING AND FRUSTRATING THE
MEASURES OF EACH OTHER.”
James Madison, Federalist 45

240. Ambitious encroachments of the federal government,
on the authority of the State governments,
(i) WOULD NOT EXCITE THE OPPOSITION OF A
SINGLE STATE, OR OF A FEW STATES ONLY.
(ii) They would be SIGNALS OF GENERAL ALARM.
(iii) Every government would ESPOUSE THE COMMON
CAUSE.
(iv) A CORRESPONDENCE WOULD BE OPENED.
(v) PLANS OF RESISTANCE WOULD BE
CONCERTED.
(vi) ONE SPIRIT WOULD ANIMATE AND CONDUCT
THE WHOLE.
(vii) unless the projected innovations should be
voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial
of force would be made in the one case [foreign
invasion] as was made in the other [federal
intrusion].
(viii) ONE SET OF REPRESENTATIVES WOULD BE
CONTENDING AGAINST THIRTEEN SETS OF
REPRESENTATIVES
James
Madison,
Federalist 46

241. “It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system,
that the State governments will, in all
possible contingencies, afford complete
security against invasions of the public
liberty by the national authority.
(i) The [State] legislatures will have BETTER MEANS OF
INFORMATION.
(ii) They can DISCOVER THE DANGER at a distance; and
(iii) POSSESSING ALL THE ORGANS OF CIVIL POWER,
and
(iv) the confidence of the people, they can at once
(v) ADOPT A REGULAR PLAN OF OPPOSITION, in which
they can
(vi) COMBINE ALL THE RESOURCES OF THE
COMMUNITY.
(vii)They can READILY COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER
IN THE DIFFERENT STATES, and
(viii) UNITE THEIR COMMON FORCES FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THEIR COMMON LIBERTY.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 28

242. It Matters for Oregon’s Public Safety…

243. “This separation of the two spheres is
one of the Constitution's structural
protections of liberty. … a healthy
balance of power between the
States and the Federal Government
will reduce the risk of tyranny and
abuse from either front.’”
Printz v. United States
521 U.S. 898 (1997)
Federalism: A
Double Security

244. “To quote Madison once again:
‘In the compound republic of America,
the power surrendered by the people is first
divided between two distinct governments,
… Hence a double security arises to the rights
of the people. The different governments will
control each other, at the same time that each will be
controlled by itself.’ The Federalist No. 51, at 323.”
Printz v. United States
521 U.S. 898 (1997)
Federalism: A
Double Security

245. States
Uniting!
• Local, State & National
Support Growing