Presentation on the history and basics of the Transfer of Public Lands.

1. Transfer Public Lands
On Terms of Equality
Stevens County, Washington
Ken Ivory
American Lands Council

3. Property
“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.”
George Sutherland
U.S. Supreme
Court Justice
1921

4. 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.

5. Terms of Equality?
Why Not Us?

6. 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)

7. 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.’”

8. If you were the opposing
quarterback, would you
exploit the injury
suffered by
Richard Sherman?

11. Why The Difference?

13. Why the Difference??

14. “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 ...?

15. “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 ...?

16. “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 ...?

17. 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 4% Federally Controlled Lands
South Dakota 5% Federally Controlled Lands
Washington 30% Federally Controlled Lands

18. 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.

19. “‘[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)

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

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.”

27. 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.”

28. 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.

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

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

32. 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;

33. 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;

34. 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;

35. 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 –

36. 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 …

37. IL, MO, IN, AR, LA, AL, MS, Fl, were as much as 90% federally
controlled for decades ...

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

39. “... 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)

40. “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)

43. It Matters for Washington
… and for our Nation

45. Better Access  Better Health  Better Productivity

46. Why The difference?

47. Why The difference?

48. 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

49. Why The difference?

50. Why The difference?

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

67. 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.

69. 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.”

70. 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 …”

71. 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 …”

72. 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

73. 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.”

74. 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.’”

75. PRESIDENT
ANDREW JACKSON
1767-1845
“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.”

76. PRESIDENT
ANDREW JACKSON
1767-1845
“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.”

77. PRESIDENT
ANDREW JACKSON
1767-1845
"The Constitution of the
United States did not
delegate to Congress the
power to abrogate these
compacts."

78. PRESIDENT
ANDREW JACKSON
1767-1845
“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."

79. 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.

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

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

87. 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.

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

89. 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.

90. What Can I Do?
Sign the Petition
Tell Someone
Tell Your Leaders
Open Doors for The Only
Solution Big Enough

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

92. “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)

93. www.AmericanLandsCouncil.org

94. Ken Ivory
American Lands Council
801.694.8380
k.ivory@AmericanLandsCouncil.org

95. Extra Slides

96. Why The difference?

97. Douglas Complex Fire

99. “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)

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

103. 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

105. YouTube
American Lands Council Channel

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

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

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

112. 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;

113. 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.

117. Utah Senate Joint Memorial No. 4, 1915
Asking Congress for a More Liberal National Policy
in the Disposition of the Public Domain
“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, the members of the Legislature of the State of Utah,
memorialize the President and the Congress of the United States
for the speedy return to the former liberal National attitude
toward the public domain, … 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.”
S.J. Mem’l 4 (Utah 1915), as reprinted in CDC NOV. 2012 REPORT, supra note 42, at 17.

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

126. This is NOT just a “Western Issue”

133. Why The difference?

134. Why The difference?

135. Why The difference?

136. Why The difference?

139. “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

140. “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

141. "… 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)

142. So . . .

148. 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

149. 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

150. 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

151. “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!

152. “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

153. “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

154. “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

155. “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

156. “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

157. “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

158. “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

159. “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

160. 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

161. 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

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

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

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

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

166. 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.

167. 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?

168. 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.”

169. “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

170. “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

171. 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

172. “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

173. It Matters for Oregon’s Public Safety…