This document discusses the transfer of public lands in Utah from federal to state control. It argues that Utah is entitled to these lands based on promises made in its statehood enabling act and precedents set by other states. Transferring public lands would help fund education and grow the economy by providing access to mineral wealth estimated at $150 trillion that is currently "locked up". The document cites Thomas Hart Benton, a 19th century senator from Missouri, who fought for years to change federal land policies and transfer more lands to new western states. It provides several examples of legal authority supporting the transfer of lands to states.
Why the difference? The Western states of the United States of America need their public lands (owned and managed by the federal government) transferred to local control. Increasing access, health AND productivity. Currently these lands are failing under the federal control.
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.
This document discusses the unequal treatment of Western states compared to Eastern states with regards to federally controlled public lands. It notes that while Eastern states had sovereignty over their lands from the beginning, Western states had over 90% of their lands controlled by the federal government indefinitely. It highlights the arguments made by Illinois Representative Orlando Ficklin in 1848 for a bill to cede public lands to the states, including that all states must have equal sovereignty and rights to develop their resources. It also discusses how Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri relentlessly advocated for reforming the system to transfer more control of public lands to the states.
This document discusses federal land ownership and advocates for the transfer of federal lands to state control. It argues that federal land ownership undermines states' rights and that transferring lands is the only solution large enough to balance the federal budget, secure domestic resources, achieve energy independence, and protect the environment. It aims to educate readers on this issue and encourage them to support politicians willing to pursue the transfer of federal lands from federal to state control.
Ken Ivory delivers this presentation to elected officials throughout Washington State. The effort is to convince the US Government to fulfill the promise they made to the western states, the same promise they fulfilled to states east of Colorado. http://www.americanlandscouncil.org
As the reach and power of Washington, DC continues to grow, our nation needs people like you to hire and inspire leaders that will battle for the only solution big enough to fund education, care for the environment, and grow the economy locally and nationally. Learn more about the Transfer of Public Lands and then utilize that knowledge to educate others, especially your local, state, and national representatives.
The document advocates for the transfer of federal public lands in western states to state control. It argues that federal control of over 50% of lands in western states has led to dysfunctional management resulting in catastrophic wildfires, restricted access to natural resources, and economic hardship for western communities that are dependent on federal subsidies. The document proposes that transferring public lands to state control would lead to better stewardship, economic opportunity, and independence for western states in managing the lands and resources within their own boundaries, in line with their statehood rights.
"The independent power of the states...serves as a check on the power of the Federal Government: by denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power...The States are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it." - US Supreme Court Affordable Care Act Decision, June 2012
Why the difference? The Western states of the United States of America need their public lands (owned and managed by the federal government) transferred to local control. Increasing access, health AND productivity. Currently these lands are failing under the federal control.
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.
This document discusses the unequal treatment of Western states compared to Eastern states with regards to federally controlled public lands. It notes that while Eastern states had sovereignty over their lands from the beginning, Western states had over 90% of their lands controlled by the federal government indefinitely. It highlights the arguments made by Illinois Representative Orlando Ficklin in 1848 for a bill to cede public lands to the states, including that all states must have equal sovereignty and rights to develop their resources. It also discusses how Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri relentlessly advocated for reforming the system to transfer more control of public lands to the states.
This document discusses federal land ownership and advocates for the transfer of federal lands to state control. It argues that federal land ownership undermines states' rights and that transferring lands is the only solution large enough to balance the federal budget, secure domestic resources, achieve energy independence, and protect the environment. It aims to educate readers on this issue and encourage them to support politicians willing to pursue the transfer of federal lands from federal to state control.
Ken Ivory delivers this presentation to elected officials throughout Washington State. The effort is to convince the US Government to fulfill the promise they made to the western states, the same promise they fulfilled to states east of Colorado. http://www.americanlandscouncil.org
As the reach and power of Washington, DC continues to grow, our nation needs people like you to hire and inspire leaders that will battle for the only solution big enough to fund education, care for the environment, and grow the economy locally and nationally. Learn more about the Transfer of Public Lands and then utilize that knowledge to educate others, especially your local, state, and national representatives.
The document advocates for the transfer of federal public lands in western states to state control. It argues that federal control of over 50% of lands in western states has led to dysfunctional management resulting in catastrophic wildfires, restricted access to natural resources, and economic hardship for western communities that are dependent on federal subsidies. The document proposes that transferring public lands to state control would lead to better stewardship, economic opportunity, and independence for western states in managing the lands and resources within their own boundaries, in line with their statehood rights.
"The independent power of the states...serves as a check on the power of the Federal Government: by denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power...The States are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it." - US Supreme Court Affordable Care Act Decision, June 2012
The document discusses the history of federal control over public lands within states and arguments for transferring those lands to state control. It notes that when new states were admitted to the union, compacts were created to transfer federal public lands within the new states equally to the states. However, vast amounts of land remained under long-term federal control in western states like Oregon. The document argues that this unequal treatment of western states violates the terms of statehood and harms state sovereignty, revenues, and ability to manage resources and growth. It advocates for the transfer of federal public lands to state control on equal terms as the original states and early western states like Illinois that successfully compelled such land transfers.
The document discusses clauses from statehood documents of various states that disclaim rights and title to public lands within the state borders. It notes that states like Alabama have only 2.7% public lands while others like Louisiana have 4.6% public lands, questioning why there is a difference given the similar wording in the states' disclaimers of public lands.
Learn the basics of the Transfer of Public Lands! This presentation will help answer questions such as: why transfer lands? Has this been done before? And Can we afford to transfer the lands? You will also learn what you can do to help American Lands Council move this important effort forward.
This document outlines a pledge for political candidates to commit to securing full statehood equality for western states in terms of public land management. It argues that federal management of public lands in the west is failing to ensure healthy forests, wildlife, communities, and recreation. A legal analysis found that western states are entitled to the same rights over public lands as eastern states. Turning ordinary federal lands over to state control through the #FreeTheLands movement would make land management more efficient and protect access to recreation, while respecting valid existing rights. The goal is fundamental fairness and equality for western states in determining the future of their own public lands.
The document discusses myths surrounding the transfer of public lands from federal to state control. It addresses four common myths: 1) the lands are too arid or rugged for states to manage; 2) states gave up claims to the lands; 3) states cannot effectively manage the lands; 4) such a transfer would be unconstitutional. The document argues each myth is unfounded and refuted by examples of other states that compelled Congress to transfer public lands, the original intent of state enabling acts, and state abilities to manage lands responsibly.
The document calls on Congress to convey title of federal public lands to Western states based on the following key points:
1) Over 50% of lands in Western states are still controlled by the federal government despite a duty to dispose of them.
2) Retaining control of these lands harms the states' economies and independence.
3) Transferring title of the lands to the states would generate revenue to address national debt and support economic growth.
4) The federal government is not properly managing these lands and their resources.
This document discusses the argument for transferring public lands from federal to state control in western states. It argues that federal control of over 50% of western lands has led to dysfunctional management resulting in catastrophic wildfires, restricted access to resources, and economic hardship for western communities. The document advocates for transferring control of public lands, except for national parks and designated wilderness areas, to willing western states. It cites evidence that states generate greater economic returns from land management compared to the federal government. The goal of the transfer is to improve access, environmental health, and economic productivity through more responsive local stewardship of public lands by the states.
The document discusses the growth of nationalism and sectionalism in the early United States. It explores factors that encouraged nationalism like Henry Clay's American System, President Andrew Jackson who drew more Southerners into national politics, and Manifest Destiny. However, it also discusses how the nation developed regional divisions between the industrial North and agricultural South over issues like slavery, tariffs, and the balance of federal versus state power, foreshadowing the eventual Civil War.
The Congress has three types of powers - expressed, implied, and inherent. Expressed powers include regulating commerce, taxation, borrowing, and currency. Implied powers allow Congress to pass laws necessary to exercise its expressed powers. Inherent powers derive from Congress creating the national government. Congress shares war powers with the presidency and has powers over foreign relations, territories, judicial system creation, and impeachment.
This document provides answers to frequently asked questions about a proposed Transfer of Public Lands Act (TPLA). The TPLA would transfer ownership of some federal lands back to the states in which they are located. Specifically, it would affect lands designated for multiple use, excluding national parks, monuments, wilderness areas, tribal lands, and other designated areas. Previous movements like the Sagebrush Rebellion sought greater local control over federal lands, but ended with the federal government granting more input rather than full control. Supporters argue states can manage lands as responsibly as the federal government at lower cost, but balancing economic development and conservation will require determining each land's "best use".
The Supreme Court ruled in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District that governments cannot condition approval of land use permits on owners relinquishing their property rights unless there is a nexus between the demand and effects of the proposed use. In Horne v. United States Department of Agriculture, the Court found the government could not take ownership of raisins each year under a depression-era program. Finally, in Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States, the Court ruled that temporary government-caused flooding could constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment if it is substantial and frequent enough.
Causes of the Civil War: Sectionalism & States' Rightsmsdean28
The document discusses two main causes of the Civil War: sectionalism and states' rights. Sectionalism refers to the North and South viewing themselves as distinct regions with different economic and political interests. The North favored high tariffs to protect industry while the South opposed tariffs that increased cotton prices. States' rights involved debates over whether the federal or state governments held more power, such as the South's view of nullification and belief that states could secede from the Union. Political disagreements over these sectional and federalism issues increased tensions between the North and South leading up to the Civil War.
This document promotes the transfer of public lands from federal to state control through the American Lands Council organization. It argues that western states are unable to properly fund education and economic development due to the large percentage of federally controlled lands. It outlines a strategy of gaining support through local resolutions, legislation, and eventually congressional action. As evidence, it notes that many eastern states were able to achieve land transfers in the past through persistence and collective action.
The document discusses the history of trusts being used to transfer property to recipients at a future time. It outlines how in 1780, the original states created a trust agreement over western lands that bound Congress to create new states with sovereignty and independence, using proceeds to pay national debt. However, over time federal control of public lands has restricted access, economic opportunity, and threatened local control. The document advocates for joining the American Lands Council to work towards transferring public lands control to state and local governments.
After the Civil War, racial discrimination became institutionalized in the United States with the passage of Jim Crow laws that legalized segregation and denied African Americans basic civil rights. Tactics like literacy tests and poll taxes were used to prevent African Americans from voting. The 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court decision upheld the doctrine of "separate but equal" and allowed racial segregation to continue for nearly 60 years. It took the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision to begin overturning legalized segregation.
The ICOW meeting featured presentations on various issues impacting ranchers such as private property rights, sustainable development initiatives, water rights, and cattle selection. Representatives discussed threats to property rights from federal overreach, concerns about Agenda 21 and Smart Growth programs eroding private land ownership, and challenges to water access through changing legislation. Presenters encouraged members to protect rights by electing supportive state legislators and raising awareness of these issues.
Andrew Jackson sought to remove Native American tribes from eastern lands to territories west of the Mississippi River. This resulted in the passage of the 1830 Indian Removal Act and the forced relocation of the "Five Civilized Tribes" including the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears. The Supreme Court initially ruled in Worcester v. Georgia that states did not have authority over tribal lands, but President Jackson defied this ruling, allowing the removal to proceed. Over 4,000 Cherokee died during the forced march west.
Learn the basics of the Transfer of Public Lands! This presentation will help answer questions such as: why transfer lands? Has this been done before? And Can we afford to transfer the lands? You will also learn what you can do to help American Lands Council move this important effort forward.
Alaska is more than 67% federally controlled lands. Hawaii has less than 20% and was granted land by the federal government. Why the difference? The Transfer of Public Lands is the Only Solution Big Enough to 1) fund education, 2) better care for our lands and forests, 3) protect access, 4) create jobs, and 5) grow our local, state, and national economies and tax base.
Thomas Hart Benton believed that gratuitous land grants to actual settlers was better public policy than selling land to the highest bidder. As a senator from Missouri in the 1820s, he fought for a system of graduated land prices and donations to destitute settlers. Benton argued that cultivation of land generated far more revenue for the government through duties on imports than direct sales of land. He cited examples from other nations and colonies that had systems of generous land distribution to promote settlement. Benton worked to reform federal land policy to be more favorable to the interests of western states.
The document discusses the history of federal control over public lands within states and arguments for transferring those lands to state control. It notes that when new states were admitted to the union, compacts were created to transfer federal public lands within the new states equally to the states. However, vast amounts of land remained under long-term federal control in western states like Oregon. The document argues that this unequal treatment of western states violates the terms of statehood and harms state sovereignty, revenues, and ability to manage resources and growth. It advocates for the transfer of federal public lands to state control on equal terms as the original states and early western states like Illinois that successfully compelled such land transfers.
The document discusses clauses from statehood documents of various states that disclaim rights and title to public lands within the state borders. It notes that states like Alabama have only 2.7% public lands while others like Louisiana have 4.6% public lands, questioning why there is a difference given the similar wording in the states' disclaimers of public lands.
Learn the basics of the Transfer of Public Lands! This presentation will help answer questions such as: why transfer lands? Has this been done before? And Can we afford to transfer the lands? You will also learn what you can do to help American Lands Council move this important effort forward.
This document outlines a pledge for political candidates to commit to securing full statehood equality for western states in terms of public land management. It argues that federal management of public lands in the west is failing to ensure healthy forests, wildlife, communities, and recreation. A legal analysis found that western states are entitled to the same rights over public lands as eastern states. Turning ordinary federal lands over to state control through the #FreeTheLands movement would make land management more efficient and protect access to recreation, while respecting valid existing rights. The goal is fundamental fairness and equality for western states in determining the future of their own public lands.
The document discusses myths surrounding the transfer of public lands from federal to state control. It addresses four common myths: 1) the lands are too arid or rugged for states to manage; 2) states gave up claims to the lands; 3) states cannot effectively manage the lands; 4) such a transfer would be unconstitutional. The document argues each myth is unfounded and refuted by examples of other states that compelled Congress to transfer public lands, the original intent of state enabling acts, and state abilities to manage lands responsibly.
The document calls on Congress to convey title of federal public lands to Western states based on the following key points:
1) Over 50% of lands in Western states are still controlled by the federal government despite a duty to dispose of them.
2) Retaining control of these lands harms the states' economies and independence.
3) Transferring title of the lands to the states would generate revenue to address national debt and support economic growth.
4) The federal government is not properly managing these lands and their resources.
This document discusses the argument for transferring public lands from federal to state control in western states. It argues that federal control of over 50% of western lands has led to dysfunctional management resulting in catastrophic wildfires, restricted access to resources, and economic hardship for western communities. The document advocates for transferring control of public lands, except for national parks and designated wilderness areas, to willing western states. It cites evidence that states generate greater economic returns from land management compared to the federal government. The goal of the transfer is to improve access, environmental health, and economic productivity through more responsive local stewardship of public lands by the states.
The document discusses the growth of nationalism and sectionalism in the early United States. It explores factors that encouraged nationalism like Henry Clay's American System, President Andrew Jackson who drew more Southerners into national politics, and Manifest Destiny. However, it also discusses how the nation developed regional divisions between the industrial North and agricultural South over issues like slavery, tariffs, and the balance of federal versus state power, foreshadowing the eventual Civil War.
The Congress has three types of powers - expressed, implied, and inherent. Expressed powers include regulating commerce, taxation, borrowing, and currency. Implied powers allow Congress to pass laws necessary to exercise its expressed powers. Inherent powers derive from Congress creating the national government. Congress shares war powers with the presidency and has powers over foreign relations, territories, judicial system creation, and impeachment.
This document provides answers to frequently asked questions about a proposed Transfer of Public Lands Act (TPLA). The TPLA would transfer ownership of some federal lands back to the states in which they are located. Specifically, it would affect lands designated for multiple use, excluding national parks, monuments, wilderness areas, tribal lands, and other designated areas. Previous movements like the Sagebrush Rebellion sought greater local control over federal lands, but ended with the federal government granting more input rather than full control. Supporters argue states can manage lands as responsibly as the federal government at lower cost, but balancing economic development and conservation will require determining each land's "best use".
The Supreme Court ruled in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District that governments cannot condition approval of land use permits on owners relinquishing their property rights unless there is a nexus between the demand and effects of the proposed use. In Horne v. United States Department of Agriculture, the Court found the government could not take ownership of raisins each year under a depression-era program. Finally, in Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States, the Court ruled that temporary government-caused flooding could constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment if it is substantial and frequent enough.
Causes of the Civil War: Sectionalism & States' Rightsmsdean28
The document discusses two main causes of the Civil War: sectionalism and states' rights. Sectionalism refers to the North and South viewing themselves as distinct regions with different economic and political interests. The North favored high tariffs to protect industry while the South opposed tariffs that increased cotton prices. States' rights involved debates over whether the federal or state governments held more power, such as the South's view of nullification and belief that states could secede from the Union. Political disagreements over these sectional and federalism issues increased tensions between the North and South leading up to the Civil War.
This document promotes the transfer of public lands from federal to state control through the American Lands Council organization. It argues that western states are unable to properly fund education and economic development due to the large percentage of federally controlled lands. It outlines a strategy of gaining support through local resolutions, legislation, and eventually congressional action. As evidence, it notes that many eastern states were able to achieve land transfers in the past through persistence and collective action.
The document discusses the history of trusts being used to transfer property to recipients at a future time. It outlines how in 1780, the original states created a trust agreement over western lands that bound Congress to create new states with sovereignty and independence, using proceeds to pay national debt. However, over time federal control of public lands has restricted access, economic opportunity, and threatened local control. The document advocates for joining the American Lands Council to work towards transferring public lands control to state and local governments.
After the Civil War, racial discrimination became institutionalized in the United States with the passage of Jim Crow laws that legalized segregation and denied African Americans basic civil rights. Tactics like literacy tests and poll taxes were used to prevent African Americans from voting. The 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court decision upheld the doctrine of "separate but equal" and allowed racial segregation to continue for nearly 60 years. It took the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision to begin overturning legalized segregation.
The ICOW meeting featured presentations on various issues impacting ranchers such as private property rights, sustainable development initiatives, water rights, and cattle selection. Representatives discussed threats to property rights from federal overreach, concerns about Agenda 21 and Smart Growth programs eroding private land ownership, and challenges to water access through changing legislation. Presenters encouraged members to protect rights by electing supportive state legislators and raising awareness of these issues.
Andrew Jackson sought to remove Native American tribes from eastern lands to territories west of the Mississippi River. This resulted in the passage of the 1830 Indian Removal Act and the forced relocation of the "Five Civilized Tribes" including the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears. The Supreme Court initially ruled in Worcester v. Georgia that states did not have authority over tribal lands, but President Jackson defied this ruling, allowing the removal to proceed. Over 4,000 Cherokee died during the forced march west.
Learn the basics of the Transfer of Public Lands! This presentation will help answer questions such as: why transfer lands? Has this been done before? And Can we afford to transfer the lands? You will also learn what you can do to help American Lands Council move this important effort forward.
Alaska is more than 67% federally controlled lands. Hawaii has less than 20% and was granted land by the federal government. Why the difference? The Transfer of Public Lands is the Only Solution Big Enough to 1) fund education, 2) better care for our lands and forests, 3) protect access, 4) create jobs, and 5) grow our local, state, and national economies and tax base.
Thomas Hart Benton believed that gratuitous land grants to actual settlers was better public policy than selling land to the highest bidder. As a senator from Missouri in the 1820s, he fought for a system of graduated land prices and donations to destitute settlers. Benton argued that cultivation of land generated far more revenue for the government through duties on imports than direct sales of land. He cited examples from other nations and colonies that had systems of generous land distribution to promote settlement. Benton worked to reform federal land policy to be more favorable to the interests of western states.
The document compares the enabling acts of several western states with those of eastern states regarding the transfer of public lands to the states upon statehood. It finds that the enabling acts are largely the same, requiring new states to have republican governments and disclaiming state ownership over unappropriated federal lands. However, the federal government's performance in maintaining federal land ownership has differed greatly, with much higher percentages of land remaining under federal control in the western states compared to the eastern states. This suggests the states did not inherently give up lands through the enabling acts as sometimes claimed.
UTAH’S TRANSFER OF PUBLIC LANDS ACT: A LEGAL CASE FOR LOCALIZING LAND OWNERSHIPAmerican Lands Council
DECEMBER 5, 2013
UTAH’S TRANSFER OF PUBLIC LANDS ACT:
A LEGAL CASE FOR LOCALIZING LAND OWNERSHIP
Background
•
Utah’s Transfer of Public Lands Act (TPLA) calls
on the federal government to fulfill its pledge
under the state’s Enabling Act to dispose of
most federal lands in the state.
•
The act has been challenged with arguments
that the state gave up its public lands upon
statehood, and that it is unconstitutional to
demand the federal government dispose of
these lands.
What's at stake?
•
The federal government owns about two-
thirds of Utah’s land, including lands with
significant economic potential from respon
-
sible development and tax revenues.
•
Many of these lands that are eligible for de
-
velopment – excluding parks, wilderness
areas, etc. – are being effectively cut off as
economic resources by federal policies.
•
Utah’s public programs, including education,
health and safety, and more, are unable to
benefit from the economic and tax revenues
these lands have the potential to provide.
What's next?
•
Ultimately the courts will decide the fate
of the TPLA, but the public will play a vital
role through their elected representatives
in whether the state is allowed access to
its lands.
•
Other Western states with significant federal
lands holdings are considering similar legis
-
lation and closely watching the Utah battle
to regain sovereignty over its lands.
KEY POINTS
The document discusses the issue of public land ownership and control in the United States. It argues that the federal government should grant the remaining public lands to the states, as the original intention was for the federal government to act as temporary trustees until debts were paid. However, wars and expanding federal control have prevented lands from being returned to state control. The document advocates for western states to unite in opposing further federal withdrawals and expansions, and argues that states are now capable of managing public lands within their own borders.
The document discusses Utah's Transfer of Public Lands Act, which calls on the federal government to transfer ownership of most federal lands in Utah back to the state. It provides background on land ownership in Utah, noting that the federal government owns about two-thirds of the state's land. It then makes the case that the Transfer Act is constitutional and consistent with the original intent of Utah's founding, when the federal government was expected to eventually dispose of public lands. It argues that interpreting Utah's Enabling Act and the U.S. Constitution in their original contexts supports the validity of the Transfer Act.
- The document discusses several key events and ideas in early American history, including the writing of the Declaration of Independence, framing of the Constitution, slavery and abolitionism, westward expansion, and the Civil War.
- It also summarizes major political philosophies and figures that emerged during this period, such as Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists, Hamilton vs. Jefferson, and abolitionists like Frederick Douglass and John Brown.
- Key documents and compromises that shaped the nation are outlined, from the Northwest Ordinance to the Three-Fifths Compromise to the Emancipation Proclamation.
If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed; but the power for that is not with us. We can only act upon her rights as they exist. It is not for us to look at the hardship of withholding. Our duty is at an end if we find it is within the power of a State to withhold.
~ United States Supreme Court
Highlighted knowledge-and-courage-–-keys-to-the-transfer-of-public-landsAmerican Lands Council
The document argues that the federal government should transfer control of public lands in western states back to state governments. It notes that over 50% of lands in western states are currently controlled by the federal government, despite a 200-year-old obligation to transfer these lands. It claims there is no valid reason for the high level of federal control and that states have tolerated this situation for too long. The document calls on local, state, and national leaders as well as citizens to take action through knowledge and courage to compel Congress to honor its promise to transfer public land title, as it has done for other states.
A series of primary documents pertaining to Andrew Jackson.docxbartholomeocoombs
A series of primary documents pertaining to Andrew
Jackson and his vision for America
1. Andrew Jackson’s Annual Message to Congress on Indian Removal
(December 6, 1830)
Prior to the modern practice of giving a “State of the Union Address,” U.S. Presidents from Thomas Jefferson
until Woodrow Wilson submitted a written report to Congress to be read before both houses outlining the
administration’s policies and outlook for the nation. In this message, President Andrew Jackson articulated
his support of the Indian Removal Act passed by Congress earlier that same year as a necessary requirement
for the growth and prosperity of the “southwestern frontier” as well as a humanitarian gesture towards the
native peoples of the region.
2. President Jackson's Veto Message Regarding the Bank of the United
States’ Renewed Charter (July 10, 1832)
This formal message to Congress explaining President Jackson’s decision to veto a bill renewing the charter
for the Bank of the United States offers a glimpse at Jackson’s views on the evolution of the American
economy and his concerns about the path upon which it was progressing.
3. President Jackson's Proclamation Regarding Nullification (December 10,
1832)
President Jackson believed South Carolina’s attempts to nullify federal law could set a terrible precedent. In
expressing his opposition to the concept of Nullification, Jackson foreshadowed the specter of secession and
crisis that could rip the very fabric of the Union.
1. Andrew Jackson’s December 6, 1830 Annual Message to Congress
. . . . It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the Government, steadily pursued for
nearly thirty years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy
consummation. Two important tribes have accepted the provision made for their removal at the last session of
Congress, and it is believed that their example will induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious
advantages.
The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the United States, to individual States, and to the
Indians themselves. The pecuniary advantages which it promises to the Government are the least of its
recommendations. It puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the General and State
Governments on account of the Indians. It will place a dense and civilized population in large tracts of country now
occupied by a few savage hunters. By opening the whole territory between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on
the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent
States strong enough to repel future invasions without remote aid. It will relieve the whole State of Mississippi and
the western part of Alabama of Indian occupancy, and enable those States to advance rapidly i.
Federally Managed Lands in the West: The Economic and Environmental Implicati...ALEC
The document discusses the issue of federal control of public lands in Western states. It notes that while the federal government controls an average of 4% of land in Eastern states, it controls over 50% of land on average in Western states. Several Western states have petitioned to transfer control of select federal lands, excluding national parks and tribal lands, to state control. The document argues that states would be better economic and environmental stewards of these lands and that the federal government's control is inconsistent with the doctrine of equality among states. It provides historical context on the transfer of federal lands to states and an overview of current federal land ownership.
Slide 3 WestCal Political Science 5 Western Political Thought 2016WestCal Academy
Political Science 5 - Western Political Thought provides an overall perspective of major political movements of history from the rising of Egyptian, Greek and Roman Empires to Fascism and Communism as seen by great political thinkers from Plato, Aristotle, and St. Augustine, Machiavelli, Marx, and Lenin. Students will analyze the most important ideas and theories that have been developed from the time of the ancient Greeks to the present day. Students will learn that the American Founding Fathers designed a viable representative government by first dedicating themselves to careful study of the political philosophy of Europeans, with particular attention given to British political thinkers from the 16th and 17th century. The founding fathers focused primarily on the natural rights of man, which in turn varied according to the individual philosopher studied. Over the course of their study, the founding fathers openly discussed their opinions with one another so as to properly bring forth differing views in order to prudently construct a government that would protect individual liberty, as well as determine what was required of government to protect civil liberties. The class is taught from the perspective of industry professionals with knowledge of how classical and modern political continues to influence American government. Students will learn of multiple career options relating to the field of political science.
This concurrent resolution calls on the federal government to transfer ownership of public lands to willing western states like Utah. It argues that the federal government promised to transfer public lands to states when they joined the union, as it did with states east of Colorado, and has failed to fulfill this promise for western states. The resolution urges Utah's congressional delegation to introduce and support legislation transferring public lands to state control to generate revenue and allow for resource development.
The document discusses several key aspects of early American history following the Revolutionary War. It outlines the impact of the revolution in increasing equality and expanding voting rights, though women's rights did not progress. It also describes the weak national government under the Articles of Confederation and various problems that arose. Several compromises and new governing documents, like the Northwest Ordinance and US Constitution, were devised to address these issues and establish a stronger federal republic.
The document summarizes key political divisions and events in the 1850s leading up to the Civil War. It discusses the formation of the Republican Party in opposition to the expansion of slavery. It outlines the impact of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott decision, which ruled that African Americans could not be citizens and Congress could not regulate slavery in federal territories. The debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas on the issues of slavery and territorial expansion are also summarized.
The document provides an overview of the key causes of the American Civil War, including sectionalism between the industrial North and agricultural South, debates over states' rights in relation to slavery, the Tariff of Abomination and Nullification Crisis, the westward expansion and debates over whether new states would be slave or free, and compromises like the Missouri Compromise and Compromise of 1850 that attempted to balance the number of slave and free states. Violence erupted in Kansas over popular sovereignty, and the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision further inflamed tensions before the election of Abraham Lincoln led southern states to secede and form the Confederacy.
The Public Lands Debate in Utah: Key Issues Involving the Transfer of Public ...The Ocean Foundation
Utah elevated an age-old conflict between the states and the federal government with the passage of the Transfer of Public Lands Act; igniting a battle over public lands. Most of Utah's territory is owned by the federal government. In this paper, we analyze the legal, economic, and social repercussions of the TPLA. This study focuses on the issue of public lands management in Utah. Of increasing importance, the issue of wildfires on public lands: (1) strain federal and state institutional resources, (2) burden the development of the Wildlands User Interface, and (3) contribute to environmental degradation. Furthermore, we assess the value of public lands and question whether Utah is perfectly capable of managing the public lands more efficiently than the federal government. Our research indicates that applying TPLA to BLM lands in the Uintah Basin, with some limitation, could potentially open up new funding opportunities for the School Institutional Trust Lands Administration.
Similar to Knowledge and Courage: The Keys to Success (18)
This document provides information about Senator Jennifer Fielder and Senate Joint Resolution 15 (SJ-15), which conducted a legislative study of federal land management in Montana. Some key points:
- Senator Fielder is from Montana and chairs SJ-15, which had strong bipartisan support.
- SJ-15 found that federal lands make up over 27 million acres in Montana and that federal funding and management of these lands is inadequate, jeopardizing environmental, economic, and social factors.
- A county survey conducted for SJ-15 showed widespread concerns about issues like wildfires, access restrictions, and payments to counties being too low to make up for non-taxable federal lands.
The American Lands Council is a non-profit organization formed in 2012 with a mission to transfer federal public lands to local control. They are seeking an Office Manager to work full-time out of their South Jordan, Utah office. Responsibilities include managing finances, scheduling events, processing paperwork, overseeing the website, and assisting with operations. Qualified candidates should have skills in Microsoft Office, QuickBooks, communication, and working independently. Experience with public lands issues, education materials, and overseeing employees is preferred.
The resolution supports studying the transfer of federal lands in Mineral County, Montana to state control. It notes that 82% of the county's land is federally managed, and federal management has broken promises of sustained yield practices, multiple use, and payment in lieu of taxes. As a result, the county has become impoverished. Further, the federal government has allowed dangerous fuel loads to accumulate, threatening communities and increasing wildfire risks. In contrast, state-managed lands in Montana are said to be managed responsibly and profitably.
St. George, UT Chamber of Commerce Letters in Support of the TransferAmerican Lands Council
The St. George Chamber of Commerce wrote to several Utah representatives and senators thanking them for their past support of transferring federal public land management to the state. They request continued help passing legislation for this. A recent report found that revenue from public lands could cover current management costs if transferred. The letter argues state management would improve economies, education, and communities compared to the federal government.
Lincoln County in Montana has faced declining revenue from federal lands over the past two decades, leaving its fiscal condition delicate. Revenue to the county from the US Forest Service's 25% Fund, based on economic activity in the Kootenai National Forest, has fallen from $4.5 million in 1994 to around $330,000 annually since 2008. This has forced large cuts to the county road budget and use of cash reserves. The county's dire fiscal situation is closely tied to unresponsive federal forest management policies that have turned the forest from an economic asset into a liability.
If you would like to have an ALC Representative attend your event please complete this form. Submission instructions can be found on the bottom of the form.
This document contains tables summarizing land management revenues, expenditures, employment, and output for Utah and several other states over a five year period from 2008-2012. It also contains tables projecting potential revenues, expenditures, employment if Nevada were to expand its state land management program based on averages from Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Idaho models. Revenues come from sources like surface management, oil and gas leasing, timber, and land sales. Expenditures covered operating and capital costs. Projections for Nevada estimated revenues of $248-592 million, expenditures of $18-86 million, and 165-1070 jobs depending on the state model used.
The document contains tables summarizing revenue, expenses, and employment statistics for public land management in several Western states, including Nevada, and for the Bureau of Land Management nationwide from 2008-2012. It shows that on average, revenue from public lands was highest in New Mexico at $59.25 per acre, while expenses were highest in Idaho at $8.60 per acre. On average, net revenue per acre ranged from $16.60 in Idaho to $57.78 in New Mexico. For BLM nationwide, total revenue averaged $559,317 per FTE while expenses averaged $212,088 and net revenue $347,229 per FTE over the 5-year period.
This document contains tables summarizing land management revenues, expenditures, employment, and output for New Mexico and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) nationwide from fiscal years 2008 to 2012. Key figures for New Mexico include total annual revenues ranging from $420 million to $652 million, expenditures from $13 million to $13 million, and net revenues from $407 million to $639 million. For the BLM nationwide, total annual revenues ranged from $4.1 billion to $5 billion, expenditures from $1.7 billion to $2.4 billion, and net revenues from $2 billion to $2.6 billion.
This document contains tables summarizing land management revenues, expenses, employment and output for Idaho and several other states over a five year period from 2008-2012. It also contains tables comparing these metrics across multiple states and estimating potential revenues, expenses and employment if Nevada were to manage additional public lands using models from other states. Revenues come from activities like grazing, agriculture/residential leases, timber, minerals and more.
This document contains tables summarizing public land management revenues, expenditures, employment and output for various states and for the Bureau of Land Management nationwide over a five year period from 2008-2012. Key figures reported include total revenues, expenses, net revenue, acres managed, revenue and expenses per acre, full time employees and revenue/expense per FTE. The data shows variation between states and years in these metrics.
Intertech Complete Public Land Management Task Force Report Tables American Lands Council
This document contains tables summarizing public land management revenues, expenditures, employment and output for the states of Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, and Utah over a five year period from FY2008 to FY2012. The tables provide details on total acres managed, revenues and expenditures by source (e.g. grazing, agriculture, oil/gas leases), number of leases, revenue and expenditures per acre, and distribution of revenues to state beneficiaries for each state.
The document is a report from the Nevada Land Management Task Force to the Nevada Interim Legislative Committee on Public Lands regarding the potential congressional transfer of public lands in Nevada to state ownership. The summary includes:
1) The task force recommends the Nevada Legislature request legislation to transfer ownership of certain federal lands in Nevada to the state in phases, excluding certain protected areas.
2) An initial phase would include over 7.2 million acres of Bureau of Land Management land meeting certain criteria like being suitable for disposal.
3) Subsequent phases could include additional BLM land, U.S. Forest Service land, and Bureau of Reclamation surplus land, upon request from local governments or the state legislature within 10 years.
This document provides a summary and analysis of a study examining the potential impacts of transferring federal public lands in Utah to state ownership. Some key findings of the study include:
1) Revenues from activities on BLM and Forest Service lands averaged $317.6 million and $7.9 million annually, respectively, while management costs averaged $118.6 million for BLM lands and $93.9 million for Forest Service lands.
2) Wildfire suppression costs averaged $33.4 million annually over the past decade, with federal spending averaging $27.6 million and state spending $5.8 million.
3) Revenue sharing programs like PILT and SRS provided around $46 million to local
Andreas Schleicher presents PISA 2022 Volume III - Creative Thinking - 18 Jun...EduSkills OECD
Andreas Schleicher, Director of Education and Skills at the OECD presents at the launch of PISA 2022 Volume III - Creative Minds, Creative Schools on 18 June 2024.
Elevate Your Nonprofit's Online Presence_ A Guide to Effective SEO Strategies...TechSoup
Whether you're new to SEO or looking to refine your existing strategies, this webinar will provide you with actionable insights and practical tips to elevate your nonprofit's online presence.
A Visual Guide to 1 Samuel | A Tale of Two HeartsSteve Thomason
These slides walk through the story of 1 Samuel. Samuel is the last judge of Israel. The people reject God and want a king. Saul is anointed as the first king, but he is not a good king. David, the shepherd boy is anointed and Saul is envious of him. David shows honor while Saul continues to self destruct.
Philippine Edukasyong Pantahanan at Pangkabuhayan (EPP) CurriculumMJDuyan
(𝐓𝐋𝐄 𝟏𝟎𝟎) (𝐋𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝟏)-𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐬
𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐏𝐏 𝐂𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐮𝐦 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬:
- Understand the goals and objectives of the Edukasyong Pantahanan at Pangkabuhayan (EPP) curriculum, recognizing its importance in fostering practical life skills and values among students. Students will also be able to identify the key components and subjects covered, such as agriculture, home economics, industrial arts, and information and communication technology.
𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧 𝐄𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐮𝐫:
-Define entrepreneurship, distinguishing it from general business activities by emphasizing its focus on innovation, risk-taking, and value creation. Students will describe the characteristics and traits of successful entrepreneurs, including their roles and responsibilities, and discuss the broader economic and social impacts of entrepreneurial activities on both local and global scales.
Level 3 NCEA - NZ: A Nation In the Making 1872 - 1900 SML.pptHenry Hollis
The History of NZ 1870-1900.
Making of a Nation.
From the NZ Wars to Liberals,
Richard Seddon, George Grey,
Social Laboratory, New Zealand,
Confiscations, Kotahitanga, Kingitanga, Parliament, Suffrage, Repudiation, Economic Change, Agriculture, Gold Mining, Timber, Flax, Sheep, Dairying,
Temple of Asclepius in Thrace. Excavation resultsKrassimira Luka
The temple and the sanctuary around were dedicated to Asklepios Zmidrenus. This name has been known since 1875 when an inscription dedicated to him was discovered in Rome. The inscription is dated in 227 AD and was left by soldiers originating from the city of Philippopolis (modern Plovdiv).
3. Does it matter?
The Statehood Promises are the same to
transfer the public lands
It’s already been done before - repeatedly!
It’s the Only Solution Big Enough to:
fund Education
better care for the Environment (forests, habitat, watershed, etc.)
grow the Economy locally and nationally
attain Energy independence
6. Utah’s $16.2 Billion Annual Revenues
Utah’s
Utah’s
Looming
Looming
$7.3 Billion
$7.3 Billion
Budget Hole
Budget Hole
45.3%
The $7.3 Billion of
“Federal Funds”
Utah Spends Annually
45.3%
Source: Intergovernmental
Dependency: A Study of
Key Dependency Measures
of the 50 States, 2012
CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP
10. Erskine Bowles
Co-Chair of Pres. Obama’s National Fiscal Responsibility Commission
Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff
(2 Minutes)
11. More than $150 Trillion in Minerals
Locked Up in Federally Controlled Lands ...
“a total worth to the economy of fossil fuels on
federal lands of $150.5 trillion, over 9 times our
national debt.”Federal Assets Above and Below Ground,
Institute for Energy Research, Feburary 17, 2013
17. “You Gave Up Your Lands”
(“forever disclaim all right and title”)
18. Forever Disclaim All Right and Title ...?
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
19. Forever Disclaim All Right and Title ...?
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
20. Forever Disclaim All Right and Title ...?
“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, and that … no
taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or
property therein belonging to or which may hereafter be
purchased by the United States.”
Nebraska
1% Public Lands
21. 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
North Dakota
3.9% Public Lands
thereto shall have been&
extinguished by the
United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the
South Dakota shall be
disposition of the United States, and … no taxes
imposed by5.4% Public Lands therein
the States on lands or property
belonging to or which may hereafter be purchased by the
United States or reserved for its use;”
22. THE PROMISES ARE THE
SAME!
UTAH - 66.5% PUBLIC LANDS
“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
23. The Promises are the Same!
UTAH - 66.5% PUBLIC LANDS
“That five per centum of the proceeds of the
sales of public lands lying within said State, which
shall be sold by the United States ..., shall be paid to
the said State, to be used as a permanent fund, the interest
of which only shall be expended for the support of the
common schools within said State.”
Section 9, Utah Enabling Act, July 16, 1894
24. IL, MO, IN, AR, LA, AL, MS, Fl, were as much as 90%
federally controlled for decades ...
Why the Difference?
26. U.S. Senator
Thomas Hart Benton
(D-MO)
“... 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 ...”
27. U.S. Senator
Thomas Hart Benton
(D-MO)
“The new States of the West were the
sufferers by this federal land policy.
They were in a different condition from other
States. In these others, the local legislatures
held the primary disposal of the soil, so
much as remained vacant within their limits,
and being of the same community, made
equitable alienations among their
constituents. In the new States it was
different. The federal government held the
primary disposition of the soil; and the
majority of Congress (being independent
of the people of these States), was less
heedful of their wants and wishes.”
28. U.S. Senator
Thomas Hart Benton
(D-MO)
“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.”
29. U.S. Senator
Thomas Hart Benton
(D-MO)
“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.”
30. “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 ...”
U.S. Senator
Thomas Hart Benton
(D-MO)
Thirty Years View, Thomas Hart Benton
31. Hawaii
(the last and Western-most State)
“… 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.” Hawaii Enabling Act,
March 18, 1959
32. Examples of legal authority
• 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);
• "Whenever [i.e. once] the United States shall have fully
executed these trusts, the municipal sovereignty of the new
states will be complete, throughout their respective borders, and
they, and the original states, will be upon an equal footing, in all
respects whatever." “. . . the United States never held any
municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction or right of soil in and for
the territory ... of the new States ... except for temporary
purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the
Virginia and Georgia Legislatures, and the deeds of cession
executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the
treaty with the French Republic of the 30th of April, 1803, ceding
Louisiana." (Pollard v. Hagan, 1845).
36. Born in Roanoke, Va. in 1883, Thomas Maddock first came to Arizona in 1898 from Newcastle, Pa. A Republican from Coconino County, he was elected to the first Arizona
Legislature and later served as Secretary and State Chairman of the Arizona Republican Party. He served as Arizona State Highway Engineer from 1917-1922, and was a
member of the Colorado River Commission from 1923 to 1928. He also served as an engineer and general manager of the Gila Valley Irrigation District at Safford from 1939
until his retirement in 1967. Thomas Maddock died in Phoenix in 1971.
37. “The Federal Government was intended to be merely a trustee
of the lands, to sell them to settlers.”
38. Quoting the1832 Public Land Committee of the U.S.:
“The public debt being now paid, the public lands are entirely released from the pledge they were under
to that object and are free to receive a new and liberal destination for the relief of the States in
which they lie. The speedy extinction of the Federal title within their limits is necessary to the
independence of the new States, to their equality with the older States, to the
development of their resources, to the subjection of their soil to taxation, cultivation, and
settlement, and to the proper enjoyment of their jurisdiction and sovereignty.”
39. 2009 U.S. Supreme Court
Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs
(Unanimous Decision)
Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs
(Unanimous Decision)
“‘[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.”
40. “... the TPLA ... calls for the disposal of lands that by the very
nature of – theircompact and came with an encumbrance
attached where acquisition government committed itself to
made
sovereigns a promised that itpromise exercisebetween two
the federal
disposal and a manner (and wouldan understanding that
obligations in expectation by the State that its disposal
with
respects thewould dispose of such lands) so that both a
the
government of the proceeds from the sales would be federal
percentage
shared
with the to tax such lands when disposed ...” would have the
State and the State thereafter
capacity
41. “... the intent of the parties, the
text, and the context of the
statehood enabling acts,
obligate the federal
government to dispose of the
public lands.”
42.
43. Bob Smith, UT Attorney General Nominee
“There’s great consensus today about the legal validity ... It’s time to take immediate action.”
(90 seconds)
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
44. 5 western states have already passed
transfer of public lands legislation ....
49. State Managed Public Lands
High
Low
Average
Federally Managed Public Lands
High
Low
Average
50. 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, 2103
52. Thomas S. Monson
"Of course we will face fear,
experience ridicule, and meet
opposition. Let us have the courage to
defy the consensus, the courage to
stand for principle. Courage, not
compromise, brings the smile of God’s
approval. ... A moral coward is one
who is afraid to do what he thinks is
right because others will disapprove or
laugh. Remember that all men have
their fears, but those who face their
fears with dignity have courage as
well." Thomas S. Monson
53. Martin Luther King, Jr.
“The soft-minded man
always fears change.
he feels security in the
status quo and has an
almost morbid fear of
the new. for him, the
greatest pain is the
pain of a new idea.”
54. The new idea ...
“Battle For” the Only Solution Big Enough
to:
fund Education
better care for the Environment (forests, habitat,
watershed, etc.)
grow the Economy locally and nationally
attain Energy independence
55. Does it matter?
The Statehood Promises are the same to
transfer the public lands
It’s already been done before - repeatedly!
It’s the Only Solution Big Enough to:
fund Education
better care for the Environment (forests, habitat, watershed, etc.)
grow the Economy locally and nationally
attain Energy independence
59. Gov. Bullock
Western Governors Association
June 2013
QuickTime™ and a
JVT/AVC Coding decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
60. The Only Solution Big Enough - Overview Video
3 minutes
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
61. Property
George Sutherland
U.S. Supreme Court Justice
1921
“man—has three great rights ... the
right to his life, the right to his liberty,
the right to his 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.”
65. 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.”
66. 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 …”
67. July 13, 1787, An Ordinance for the
Government of the 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 …”
68. U.S. Constitution Article IV, Section 3 – 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.
69. Madison Debates
Tuesday, August 30, 1787
In Convention
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, ...."
Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to postpone this in order to take up the following.
"The Legislature shall have power to dispose of and make all
needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other
property belonging to the U. States; and nothing in this constitution
contained, shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims either
of the U. S. or of any particular State." -The postponemt. agd. to nem.
con.
70. “… it is the real interest of each and all the
States in the Union, and particularly of the new
States, that the 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 that the general
interest would be best promoted by
surrendering such lands to the
States.”
President Andrew Jackson
1767-1845
71. 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;
72. 20th Congress
No. 726.
Session
2d
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.
73. This map shows locations that experienced
wildfires greater than 250 acres, from 1980 to
2003. Credit: Bureau of Land Management/U.S.
Forest Service/U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service/Bureau of Indian Affairs/National Park
Service/USGS
Quantitative Easing = creating money out of thin air. What cost or consequence of this? To the value of money? To the price of real things? To the dollar as the international reserve currency? To our children’s standard of living when they have to compete with other nations for their currency to buy goods internationally?
Within less than one generation of statehood, the Utah Legislature reflected its understanding of the bargain for the disposal of public lands in this Senate Joint Memorial demanding disposal of the public lands “on terms of equality with the older States.”
The spirit and letter of the land grants to the National government refers to the trust arrangement under the Resolution of 1780. It was only by this undertaking that the States ceded their claims to the western territory to the national government only for the creation of new states and to pay the national debt of the Revolutionary War "and for no other use or purpose whatsoever."
By the late 1920s, the public land states compelled congressional hearings on the issue of “Granting Remaining Unreserved Public Lands To States.”
Congress proposed to grant the surface outright to the States but retain the subsurface rights under federal control. The States rejected this proposal. This statement by Thomas Maddock of Arizona is reflective of the general position of the public lands States.
This article addresses the contractual obligations of both the state and the federal government reading the enabling act as a whole document under general rules of contract construction. Interestingly, it addresses that “shall” in Article 9 of Utah’s Enabling Act is the mandatory "shall", as it is similarly used throughout the Enabling Act.