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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
"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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
1 HIST 120 Dr. Schaffer Primary Sources for Underst.docxhoney725342
1
HIST 120 Dr. Schaffer
Primary Sources for Understanding Jacksonian Democracy
1. Andrew Jackson's Second Annual Message to Congress (1830).1 President Jackson
delivered this address in the aftermath of the passage of the Indian Removal Act (1830), a bill that
Jackson himself had pushed for Congress to approve. The act provided federal money for the relocation
of Native Americans and signaled strong federal support for the policy of Indian removal.
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…
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 in
population, wealth, and power. It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of
whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and
under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers,
and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of
good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian
community.
What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand
savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms embellished with all
the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy
people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization and religion?
The present policy of the Government is but a continuation of the same progressive change by a
milder process. The tribes which occupied the countries now constituting the Eastern States were
annihilated or have melted away to make room for the whites. The waves of population and civilization
are rolling to the westward, and we now propose to acquire the countries occupied by the red men of the
South and West by a fair exchange, and, ...
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.
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
Workshop 2 - Indian Treaties - History and Context - 2019 December 11Anna Naruta-Moya
This document summarizes a presentation on the Indian Treaties Conservation and Digitization Project. It provides an overview of 3 sessions: the first defines treaties and their role in US-Tribal relations; the second gives the historical context of treaties; and the third provides guidance on using a treaty research portal. Key points covered include the elements and differences of US Indian treaties; the influence of federal policies over time; and the transition from treaties to statutes in shaping the relationship between Tribal Nations and the US government.
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.
Federalism refers to a system of government where power is divided between national and state governments. The Constitution grants express, implied, and inherent powers to the national government, while reserving other powers for the states. Concurrent powers are shared between the national and state governments. Local governments exercise power granted by their state governments. The Supremacy Clause establishes that the Constitution takes precedence over other laws. The two-party system in the U.S. developed from the Federalists and Anti-Federalists and is maintained by the electoral system and ideological consensus among Americans.
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.
The document discusses federal, state, and tribal laws related to Washington tribes. It covers the U.S. Constitution and how it established federal supremacy over tribal matters. Key treaties like the Stevens Treaties of 1854-1855 reserved tribal rights to fishing and hunting. The document also summarizes several important court cases that shaped tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction, such as Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe and Montana v. United States. It concludes with an overview of more recent self-governance laws and agreements between Washington tribes and the state government.
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.
The document provides details about early American government and society in the 1790s. It discusses the three branches of government established by the Constitution and their roles. It also describes population demographics, daily life, the economy, slavery, and Washington's warnings about partisanship in his Farewell Address.
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.
How Barcodes Can Be Leveraged Within Odoo 17Celine George
In this presentation, we will explore how barcodes can be leveraged within Odoo 17 to streamline our manufacturing processes. We will cover the configuration steps, how to utilize barcodes in different manufacturing scenarios, and the overall benefits of implementing this technology.
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.
Gender and Mental Health - Counselling and Family Therapy Applications and In...PsychoTech Services
A proprietary approach developed by bringing together the best of learning theories from Psychology, design principles from the world of visualization, and pedagogical methods from over a decade of training experience, that enables you to: Learn better, faster!
Beyond Degrees - Empowering the Workforce in the Context of Skills-First.pptxEduSkills OECD
Iván Bornacelly, Policy Analyst at the OECD Centre for Skills, OECD, presents at the webinar 'Tackling job market gaps with a skills-first approach' on 12 June 2024
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).
THE SACRIFICE HOW PRO-PALESTINE PROTESTS STUDENTS ARE SACRIFICING TO CHANGE T...indexPub
The recent surge in pro-Palestine student activism has prompted significant responses from universities, ranging from negotiations and divestment commitments to increased transparency about investments in companies supporting the war on Gaza. This activism has led to the cessation of student encampments but also highlighted the substantial sacrifices made by students, including academic disruptions and personal risks. The primary drivers of these protests are poor university administration, lack of transparency, and inadequate communication between officials and students. This study examines the profound emotional, psychological, and professional impacts on students engaged in pro-Palestine protests, focusing on Generation Z's (Gen-Z) activism dynamics. This paper explores the significant sacrifices made by these students and even the professors supporting the pro-Palestine movement, with a focus on recent global movements. Through an in-depth analysis of printed and electronic media, the study examines the impacts of these sacrifices on the academic and personal lives of those involved. The paper highlights examples from various universities, demonstrating student activism's long-term and short-term effects, including disciplinary actions, social backlash, and career implications. The researchers also explore the broader implications of student sacrifices. The findings reveal that these sacrifices are driven by a profound commitment to justice and human rights, and are influenced by the increasing availability of information, peer interactions, and personal convictions. The study also discusses the broader implications of this activism, comparing it to historical precedents and assessing its potential to influence policy and public opinion. The emotional and psychological toll on student activists is significant, but their sense of purpose and community support mitigates some of these challenges. However, the researchers call for acknowledging the broader Impact of these sacrifices on the future global movement of FreePalestine.
This document provides an overview of wound healing, its functions, stages, mechanisms, factors affecting it, and complications.
A wound is a break in the integrity of the skin or tissues, which may be associated with disruption of the structure and function.
Healing is the body’s response to injury in an attempt to restore normal structure and functions.
Healing can occur in two ways: Regeneration and Repair
There are 4 phases of wound healing: hemostasis, inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling. This document also describes the mechanism of wound healing. Factors that affect healing include infection, uncontrolled diabetes, poor nutrition, age, anemia, the presence of foreign bodies, etc.
Complications of wound healing like infection, hyperpigmentation of scar, contractures, and keloid formation.
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,
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.
1. The Only Solution Big Enough!
Ken Ivory
801.694.8380
ken@americanlandscouncil.org
2. The Only Solution Big Enough!
Four Main Points
•Federal land “management” threatens western
communities and weakens the nation;
• History, law, and the terms of all Statehood agreements
(“Enabling Acts”) obligate the federal government to
dispose of the public lands;
•It’s Been Done Before!
•We have a window of opportunity for The Only Solution
Big Enough to (i) fund education; (ii) better care for our
lands and forests; (iii) protect access; (iv) create jobs; and
(v) grow local, state, and national economies and tax
base.
5. Washington’s $43.6 Billion Annual Revenues
Washington’s
The $18.3 Billion of
Looming
“Federal Funds”
Washington Spends
$18.3
Billion
Annually
42%
Budget
Hole
42%
Source: Intergovernmental Dependency: A Study of Key Dependency
Measures of the 50 States, 2012 CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP
6. Washington’s $43.6 Billion Annual Revenues
Washington’s
Looming
$18.3
Billion
Budget
Hole
42%
Source: Intergovernmental Dependency: A Study of Key Dependency
Measures of the 50 States, 2012 CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP
7. The States in red have the hardest
time growing education funds…
…Notice anything similar?
9. More than $150 Trillion in Minerals
Locked Up in Federally Controlled Lands ...
10. 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
11.
12.
13.
14.
15. 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
39. Could it be time for a New Conversation
about Our Public Lands?
40. 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.”
42. Does this sound familiar . . .
The federal government is not disposing of
our public lands as it promised;
We can’t tax the lands to adequately fund
education;
Our ability to grow our economy and
generate well-paying jobs is stifled; and
The federal government is hoarding our
abundant minerals and natural resources.
43. Illinois, Missouri and other states
(IN, MO, AR, AL, LA, MS, FL)
had as much as 90% federally
controlled lands for decades!
44. It’s Been Done Before!
One Man;
One LEADER;
Refused To Be Silent
or Take “NO”
for an Answer
45. 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 ...”
46. 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.”
47. 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.”
48. 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.”
49. “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
50. 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
55. “You Gave Up Your Lands”
(“forever disclaim all right and title”)
56. 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...
58. 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
60. 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.”
62. 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, and … no
taxes shall be imposed by the States on lands or
property therein belonging to or which may hereafter
be purchased by the United States or reserved for its
use;”
63. Forever Disclaim All Right and Title ...?
North Dakota
3.9% Public Lands
&
South Dakota
5.4% Public Lands
64. 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, and … no
taxes shall be imposed by the States on lands or
property therein belonging to or which may hereafter
be purchased by the United States or reserved for its
use;”
65. Forever Disclaim All Right and Title ...?
Washington
30% Public Lands
12,200,000 acres
Washington’s Enabling Act
is not just the same language ...
It’s The Same Document as ND & SD!
66. 5% of Proceeds SHALL be paid to WA
“That five per centum of the proceeds of the sales
of public lands lying within said States which shall
be sold by the United States subsequent to the
admission of said States into the Union, after
deducting all the expenses incident to the same,
shall be paid to the said States, to be used as a
permanent fund, the interest of which only shall be
expended for the support of common schools
within said States, respectively.” -- Montana, Washington,
North Dakota, South Dakota Enabling Act of 1889 §13
67. So, Why Does the Federal
Government Have Title Anyway??
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. 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 …”
72. 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.
73. 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.
74. “… it is the real interest of each and all the States in the Union, and
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
particularly of the new States, that
be supposed the compacts intended that the United States should
retain forever a title to lands within the States which are of no value,
the general
interest would be best
promoted by surrendering such
lands to the States.”
and no doubt is entertained that
President Andrew Jackson
1767-1845
75. 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;
76. 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.
77. 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).
80. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 (FLPMA)
“Congress declares that it is the policy of the
United States that the public lands be retained in
Federal ownership, unless ... it is determined that
disposal of a particular parcel will serve the
national interest.”
FLPMA, sec. 102(a)(1)
81. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
March 19, 2013 (3 Minutes)
82. PRESENTATION TO THE NEVADA LAND
MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE
MIKE L. BAUGHMAN, Ph.D., CEcD
PRESIDENT
INTERTECH SERVICES CORPORATION
August 16, 2013
83. STATE VS. FEDERAL MANAGEMENT: AN ECONOMIC
COMPARISON
States Can and Do Manage Public Lands Profitably (Table 2
from 1996 Intertech Report)
BLM Consistently Spends More Than It Takes In To
Manage Public Land (Table 2 from 1996 Intertech Report)
BLM Labor Is Less Efficient Than States in Managing Land
(Table 4 from 1996 Intertech Report)
Wildfire Suppression Costs Are Greater Per Acre for BLM
than for States (Tables 9 and 14 from 1996 Intertech Report)
5
84. Multi-State Observed High, Observed Low, and Average Management
Costs and Revenues for States and BLM: Selected States, 1989-1994
Multi-State Averages 1
States
Observed High
Observed Low
BLM
Average
Observed High
Observed Low
Average
Revenues
$133,243,099
$24,879,522
$62,313,472
$4,619,065
$1,847,799
$3,126,573
Expenses
$21,524,275
$5,703,916
$11,416,671
$40,072,452
$20,286,000
$29,156,971
$127,539,183
$15,610,897
$50,896,802
($18,438,201)
($35,453,387)
($26,030,398)
13,320,000
2,389,144
7,222,470
22,092,130
11,863,284
15,212,061
Revenues Per Acre
$15.96
$5.72
$9.48
$0.36
$0.12
$0.22
Expenses Per Acre
$9.01
$0.43
$3.20
$3.11
$1.13
$2.08
Net Profit (Loss)
Total Acres Managed
Source: Table 2 from “Alternatives for Management of a Expanded State Land Base in Nevada”, Intertech Services
Corporation, prepared for Eureka County, Nevada, February , 1996.
6
85. Multi-State Observed High, Observed Low, and Average Management
Costs and Revenues for States and BLM: Selected States, 1989-1994 Cont’d.
Net Profit Per Acre
$9.57
$4.36
$6.29
($2.75)
($1.01)
($1.86)
95,037
9,888
50,817
73,178
15,549
35,684
Revenues Per FTE
$949,088
$152,437
$425,366
$9,154
$4,398
$6,179
Net Profit Per FTE
$908,571
$63,761
$355,100
($42,680)
($73,273)
($51,751)
Grazing Revenues
$5,901,873
$437,464
$2,313,048
$3,024,634
$807,132
$1,812,621
$0.68
$0.12
$0.41
$0.27
$0.07
$0.15
0.1968
0.0571
0.1312
0.1721
0.0652
0.1084
$25,408,596
$24,259
$12,716,428
$738,673
$11,934
$212,391
Acres Per FTE
Grazing Revenues/Acre
AUMs Per Acre
Timber Revenues
Source: Table 2 from “Alternatives for Management of a Expanded State Land Base in Nevada”, Intertech Services
Corporation, , prepared for Eureka County, Nevada, February , 1996.
7
86. 2009 U.S. Supreme Court
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.”
87.
88. “A Legal Overview of Utah’s H.B. 148 – The Transfer of Public Lands Act”
Donald J. Kochan
The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies
•Distinct from prior state efforts to resolve the issue of federal control over more
50% of all lands in the West.
•The
U.S. Supreme Court calls statehood enabling acts “solemn bilateral
compacts” between sovereigns that are serious and enforceable.
•Read as a whole, the plain language of the enabling acts reflects
•not just a duty on the part of Utah to give clean title
to the federal
government (i.e. “forever disclaim all right and title”)
•but also a duty on the part of the federal government to timely dispose of
the public lands (“until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the
United States”)
•Utah’s benefit of the bargain in this “solemn agreement”
• part of the proceeds of sale paid directly to the State to fund education; and
• the ability to generate revenue from the lands to pay for public services.
89. Get A Copy
of This Legal Analysis
Text
“Land”
to
58885
91. “Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to
place it and I will move the world.” - Archimides 340 A.D.
UNIT
ED St
ates
Natio
nal
Orgs
State
Coun
Congressional
Transfer
of Public
Lands!
ty C
i ty O
rgani
zatio
ns F
riend
s
Fami
ly Yo
u
Jurisdiction
Leverage!
95. "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)
96. The Only Solution Big Enough!
•Federal land “management” is threatening western
communities and weakening our nation;
• The Promises are the Same to dispose of the public
lands;
•It’s Been Done Before!
•It will be our own faults if we fail to “do battle” like Thomas Hart Benton - for The Only Solution Big
Enough to (i) fund education; (ii) better care for our lands
and forests; (iii) protect access; (iv) create jobs; and (v)
grow local, state, and national economies and tax base.
97. What Can “I” Do?
Join
ALC
Now
Counties,
Organizations,
Businesses,
Individual
Study
&
Share
Legal
Analysis,
Website,
Weekly
Emails
“Like”
the
ALC
Facebook
Page
&
Share
Posts,
emails
and
info
Encourage/Demand
Leadership
From
Representatives
at
the
local,
state,
and
national
levels
Resolutions
from
States,
Counties,
and
Organizations
Education
Campaign
Executive
BrieYings
(groups,
conferences,
community
leaders,
etc.)
The
Campaign
“Campaign”
Money
and
Manpower
to
Move
the
Message
National
“Why?”
Campaign
via
internet,
social
media,
web
outreach
102. What Can “I” Do?
b
3
=
TPL
E
x
P
Education
x
Persistent
Political
Pressure
=
Transfer
of
Public
Lands
103. What Can “I” Do?
Learn
&
Share
-
www.AmericanLandsCouncil.org,
Federalist
Society
Legal
Analysis,
Facebook,
Twitter,
Emails,
etc.
Raise
Your
Voice
-
Encourage/Demand
Leadership
from
each
of
your
Representatives
at
the
local,
state,
and
national
levels
“WHY
the
Difference?”
Leverage
Your
Voice
-
Resolutions,
Petitions,
Legislation,
Executive
BrieYings
Pay
It
Forward
-
Money
&
Manpower
104. The Line as Understood for nearly 150 Years
“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.”
105. The Line as Understood for nearly 150 Years
“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.”
Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D-NY), March 2, 1930
106. With No Material Change in the Constitution,
Why the Dramatic Increase in Federal Spending?
Today, Federal
Spending is
approximately
26% of GDP
1792-1930, Federal
spending averaged
approx. 3% of GDP
107. “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.
108. "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)
109.
110. 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;
111. 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.
115. Why Would We Not Want
Increases in Jobs . . . Wealth . . . Tax Revenues?
May 15, 2012
116.
117. It’s The Only Solution Big Enough!
To Infinity, and
Beyond!
118. Idaho’s $7.9 Billion Annual Revenues
Idaho’s
The $3.3 Billion of
Looming
“Federal Funds”
Idaho Spends Annually
$3.3
Billion
42.1%
Budget
Hole
Source: Intergovernmental Dependency: A Study of Key Dependency
Measures of the 50 States, 2012 CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP
119. Idaho’s $7.9 Billion Annual Revenues
Idaho’s
Looming
$3.3
Billion
Budget
Hole
Source: Intergovernmental Dependency: A Study of Key Dependency
Measures of the 50 States, 2012 CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP
120. Utah’s $13 Billion Annual Budget
Utah’s
Looming
$5.2
Billion
The $5.2 Billion of
“Federal Funds”
Budget
Hole
Utah Spends Annually
128. What will WE do ...
... with this
Window of Opportunity?
129. Summary
* It’s Already Been Done Before!
* The Promises are the Same!
* This is the Only Solution Big Enough!
* We must to LEVERAGE ourselves and
Refuse to be Silent!
131. SENATE JOINT MEMORIAL (S. J. No.6) TO CONGRESS RELATING TO THE DELIVERY
TO THE STATES OF ALL UNAPPROPRIATED PUBLIC LANDS
February 7, 1929, delivered to printing committee.
(This resolution was presented by President Perry W. Jenkins, of the Wyoming State Senate and was
unanimously adopted by both houses and was followed by an appropriation of $10,000 for the purpose of
carrying out the objects of the memorial.)
Be it resolved by the Senate of the State of Wyoming, the House of Representatives concurring, That the
Congress of the United States be memorialized as follows:
Whereas the State of Wyoming is composed of lands acquired under four treaties: (1) Louisiana, 1803, (2)
Texas, 1845, (3) Oregon, 1864, and (4) Mexico, 1848;
Whereas in the Louisiana Purchase treaty, covering land out of which most of the State is taken, it is provided:
"The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and admitted
as soon as possible according to the principles of the Federal Constitution to the enjoyment of all the rights,
advantages, and immunities of the citizens of the United States; and in the meantime, they shall be maintained
and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess."
Whereas in the act of admission of Wyoming, approved July 10, 1890, the enactment clause reads:
" Be it enacted, etc., That the State of WYoming is hereby declared to be a State of the United States of
America and is hereby declared admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all
respects whatever and that the constitution which the people of Wyoming have formed for themselves be, and
the same is hereby accepted, ratified, and confirmed."
132. SENATE JOINT MEMORIAL (S. J. No.6) TO CONGRESS RELATING TO THE DELIVERY
TO THE STATES OF ALL UNAPPROPRIATED PUBLIC LANDS
February 7, 1929, delivered to printing committee.
Whereas we desire the trust to be fulfilled just as it was with Ohio, IndIana,
Iowa, Nebraska, and Alabama, and other States originally situated, as are the
public land, States now;
Whereas we confidently believe that the prayer of this joint memorial will
appeal, not only to the remaining 10 public-land States Similarly situated, but
also to all other States of the United States, as founded on justice and equality;
Therefore we, the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of
Wyoming, hereby memorialize the Congress of the United States to enact
such legislation as will cause the return by the United States to the States
comprising said Government of all vacant and unappropriated lands, together
with all natural resources, including water power, power sites, forests, and
minerals now held in trust by the Federal Government within the borders of
any of the said States;
133. Wyoming’s $7.3 Billion Annual Revenues
The $1.1 Billion
of “Federal Funds”
Wyoming Spends Annually
Source: Intergovernmental Financial Dependency: A Study of Key Dependency
Measures for the 50 States, CliftonLarsenAllen, LLP, 2012
Copyright (c) 2011 Ken Ivory All Rights Reserved
134. Wyoming’s $7.3 Billion Annual Revenues
Wyoming’s
Looming
$1.1 Billion
Budget Hole
15.6%
Source: Intergovernmental Financial Dependency: A Study of Key Dependency
Measures for the 50 States, CliftonLarsenAllen, LLP, 2012
Copyright (c) 2011 Ken Ivory All Rights Reserved