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.
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.
Ken Ivory delivers this presentation to elected officials throughout Washington State. The effort is to convince the US Government to fulfill the promise they made to the western states, the same promise they fulfilled to states east of Colorado. http://www.americanlandscouncil.org
As the reach and power of Washington, DC continues to grow, our nation needs people like you to hire and inspire leaders that will battle for the only solution big enough to fund education, care for the environment, and grow the economy locally and nationally. Learn more about the Transfer of Public Lands and then utilize that knowledge to educate others, especially your local, state, and national representatives.
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
"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
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.
UTAH’S TRANSFER OF PUBLIC LANDS ACT: A LEGAL CASE FOR LOCALIZING LAND OWNERSHIPAmerican Lands Council
DECEMBER 5, 2013
UTAH’S TRANSFER OF PUBLIC LANDS ACT:
A LEGAL CASE FOR LOCALIZING LAND OWNERSHIP
Background
•
Utah’s Transfer of Public Lands Act (TPLA) calls
on the federal government to fulfill its pledge
under the state’s Enabling Act to dispose of
most federal lands in the state.
•
The act has been challenged with arguments
that the state gave up its public lands upon
statehood, and that it is unconstitutional to
demand the federal government dispose of
these lands.
What's at stake?
•
The federal government owns about two-
thirds of Utah’s land, including lands with
significant economic potential from respon
-
sible development and tax revenues.
•
Many of these lands that are eligible for de
-
velopment – excluding parks, wilderness
areas, etc. – are being effectively cut off as
economic resources by federal policies.
•
Utah’s public programs, including education,
health and safety, and more, are unable to
benefit from the economic and tax revenues
these lands have the potential to provide.
What's next?
•
Ultimately the courts will decide the fate
of the TPLA, but the public will play a vital
role through their elected representatives
in whether the state is allowed access to
its lands.
•
Other Western states with significant federal
lands holdings are considering similar legis
-
lation and closely watching the Utah battle
to regain sovereignty over its lands.
KEY POINTS
"The 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
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.
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
Learn the basics of the Transfer of Public Lands! This presentation will help answer questions such as: why transfer lands? Has this been done before? And Can we afford to transfer the lands? You will also learn what you can do to help American Lands Council move this important effort forward.
Alaska is more than 67% federally controlled lands. Hawaii has less than 20% and was granted land by the federal government. Why the difference? The Transfer of Public Lands is the Only Solution Big Enough to 1) fund education, 2) better care for our lands and forests, 3) protect access, 4) create jobs, and 5) grow our local, state, and national economies and tax base.
Idaho HCR 22 2013 - Demanding Feds to Extinguish Title to Public LandsAmerican Lands Council
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION STATING LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND DEMANDING THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXTINGUISH TITLE TO IDAHO'S PUBLIC LANDS AND TRANSFER TITLE TO THOSE LANDS TO THE STATE OF IDAHO.
Workshop 2 - Indian Treaties - History and Context - 2019 December 11Anna Naruta-Moya
From the workshop at the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center 2019 December 11. Workshop 2 of 3 for the Treaties Explorer project of the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture's Indigenous Digital Archive, in a sponsored partnership with the US National Archives Office of Innovation. This training session was created and presented by Professor Sherri Thomas (Taos Pueblo and Black), Professor of Law Librarianship of University of New Mexico Law School, for the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture. Video, slides, curriculum, and more resources are available at DigiTreaties.org
Recent legislation passed in the state of Utah has
demanded that the federal government extinguish title
to certain public lands that the federal government
currently holds. The state of Utah claims that the
federal government made promises to it (at statehood
when the federal government obtained the lands) that
the federal ownership would be of limited duration and
that the bulk of those lands would be timely disposed
of by the federal government into private ownership
or otherwise returned to the state. This White Paper
provides a legal overview of these claims.
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
Documents of United States Indian Policy (Third Edition) FraDustiBuckner14
Documents of United States Indian Policy (Third Edition)
Francis Paul Prucha
Published by University of Nebraska Press
Prucha, Paul.
Documents of United States Indian Policy (Third Edition).
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000.
Project MUSE., https://muse.jhu.edu/.
For additional information about this book
Access provided at 25 Aug 2019 22:38 GMT from University of California @ Berkeley
https://muse.jhu.edu/book/11623
57
the consent of the President of the U.S. but
should any prefer it, or omit to take a reser-
vation for the quantity he may be entitled
to, the U.S. will on his removing pay fifty
cents an acre, after reaching their new homes,
provided that before the first of January next
they shall adduce to the Agent, or some other
authorized person to be appointed, proof of
his claim and the quantity of it. Sixth; like-
wise children of the Choctaw Nation resid-
ing in the Nation, who have neither father
nor mother a list of which, with satisfactory
proof of Parentage and orphanage being filed
with Agent in six months to be forwarded to
the War Department, shall be entitled to a
quarter section of Land, to be located under
the direction of the President, and with his
consent the same may be sold and the pro-
ceeds applied to some beneficial purpose for
the benefit of said orphans.
Article XX. The U.S. agree and stipulate
as follows, that for the benefit and advantage
of the Choctaw people, and to improve their
condition, there shall be educated under the
direction of the President and at the expense
of the U.S. forty Choctaw youths for twenty
years. This number shall be kept at school,
and as they finish their education others, to
supply their places shall be received for the
period stated. The U.S. agree also to erect
a Council House for the Nation at some
convenient central point, after their people
shall be settled; and a House for each Chief,
also a Church for each of the three Districts,
to be used also as school houses, until the
Nation may conclude to build others; and for
these purposes ten thousand dollars shall be
appropriated; also fifty thousand dollars (viz.)
twenty-five hundred dollars annually shall be
given for the support of three teachers of
schools for twenty years. Likewise there shall
be furnished to the Nation, three Blacksmiths
one for each district for sixteen years, and
a qualified Mill Wright for five years; Also
there shall be furnished the following articles,
twenty-one hundred blankets, to each war-
rior who emigrates a rifle, moulds, wipers and
ammunition. One thousand axes, ploughs,
hoes, wheels and cards each; and four hun-
dred looms. There shall also be furnished,
one ton of iron and two hundred weight of
steel annually to each District for sixteen
years.
Article XXI. A few Choctaw Warriors
yet survive who marched and fought in the
army with General Wayne, the whole num-
ber stated not to exceed twenty.
These it is agreed shall hereafter, while
they live, receive twenty-five dollar ...
Documents of United States Indian Policy (Third Edition) Fra.docxpetehbailey729071
Documents of United States Indian Policy (Third Edition)
Francis Paul Prucha
Published by University of Nebraska Press
Prucha, Paul.
Documents of United States Indian Policy (Third Edition).
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000.
Project MUSE., https://muse.jhu.edu/.
For additional information about this book
Access provided at 25 Aug 2019 22:38 GMT from University of California @ Berkeley
https://muse.jhu.edu/book/11623
https://muse.jhu.edu
https://muse.jhu.edu/book/11623
57
the consent of the President of the U.S. but
should any prefer it, or omit to take a reser-
vation for the quantity he may be entitled
to, the U.S. will on his removing pay fifty
cents an acre, after reaching their new homes,
provided that before the first of January next
they shall adduce to the Agent, or some other
authorized person to be appointed, proof of
his claim and the quantity of it. Sixth; like-
wise children of the Choctaw Nation resid-
ing in the Nation, who have neither father
nor mother a list of which, with satisfactory
proof of Parentage and orphanage being filed
with Agent in six months to be forwarded to
the War Department, shall be entitled to a
quarter section of Land, to be located under
the direction of the President, and with his
consent the same may be sold and the pro-
ceeds applied to some beneficial purpose for
the benefit of said orphans.
Article XX. The U.S. agree and stipulate
as follows, that for the benefit and advantage
of the Choctaw people, and to improve their
condition, there shall be educated under the
direction of the President and at the expense
of the U.S. forty Choctaw youths for twenty
years. This number shall be kept at school,
and as they finish their education others, to
supply their places shall be received for the
period stated. The U.S. agree also to erect
a Council House for the Nation at some
convenient central point, after their people
shall be settled; and a House for each Chief,
also a Church for each of the three Districts,
to be used also as school houses, until the
Nation may conclude to build others; and for
these purposes ten thousand dollars shall be
appropriated; also fifty thousand dollars (viz.)
twenty-five hundred dollars annually shall be
given for the support of three teachers of
schools for twenty years. Likewise there shall
befurnishedtotheNation,threeBlacksmiths
one for each district for sixteen years, and
a qualified Mill Wright for five years; Also
thereshallbefurnishedthefollowingarticles,
twenty-one hundred blankets, to each war-
rior who emigrates a rifle, moulds, wipers and
ammunition. One thousand axes, ploughs,
hoes, wheels and cards each; and four hun-
dred looms. There shall also be furnished,
one ton of iron and two hundred weight of
steel annually to each District for sixteen
years.
Article XXI. A few Choctaw Warriors
yet survive who marched and fought in the
army with General Wayne, the whole num-
ber stated not to exceed twenty.
These it is agreed shall hereafter, wh.
National Bar Association / American Bar Association ICJ-ICC
Offences Against Law of Nations, Genocide, Slavery, War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, Treason, Discrimination, Racketeering Influence Corruption Organized Crime, Breach of Trust, Breach of Contract and Fraud Against the Black, Brown, Coppertone Aboriginals of The United States of North America.
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.
Jennifer Schaus and Associates hosts a complimentary webinar series on The FAR in 2024. Join the webinars on Wednesdays and Fridays at noon, eastern.
Recordings are on YouTube and the company website.
https://www.youtube.com/@jenniferschaus/videos
Many ways to support street children.pptxSERUDS INDIA
By raising awareness, providing support, advocating for change, and offering assistance to children in need, individuals can play a crucial role in improving the lives of street children and helping them realize their full potential
Donate Us
https://serudsindia.org/how-individuals-can-support-street-children-in-india/
#donatefororphan, #donateforhomelesschildren, #childeducation, #ngochildeducation, #donateforeducation, #donationforchildeducation, #sponsorforpoorchild, #sponsororphanage #sponsororphanchild, #donation, #education, #charity, #educationforchild, #seruds, #kurnool, #joyhome
ZGB - The Role of Generative AI in Government transformation.pdfSaeed Al Dhaheri
This keynote was presented during the the 7th edition of the UAE Hackathon 2024. It highlights the role of AI and Generative AI in addressing government transformation to achieve zero government bureaucracy
Jennifer Schaus and Associates hosts a complimentary webinar series on The FAR in 2024. Join the webinars on Wednesdays and Fridays at noon, eastern.
Recordings are on YouTube and the company website.
https://www.youtube.com/@jenniferschaus/videos
Up the Ratios Bylaws - a Comprehensive Process of Our Organizationuptheratios
Up the Ratios is a non-profit organization dedicated to bridging the gap in STEM education for underprivileged students by providing free, high-quality learning opportunities in robotics and other STEM fields. Our mission is to empower the next generation of innovators, thinkers, and problem-solvers by offering a range of educational programs that foster curiosity, creativity, and critical thinking.
At Up the Ratios, we believe that every student, regardless of their socio-economic background, should have access to the tools and knowledge needed to succeed in today's technology-driven world. To achieve this, we host a variety of free classes, workshops, summer camps, and live lectures tailored to students from underserved communities. Our programs are designed to be engaging and hands-on, allowing students to explore the exciting world of robotics and STEM through practical, real-world applications.
Our free classes cover fundamental concepts in robotics, coding, and engineering, providing students with a strong foundation in these critical areas. Through our interactive workshops, students can dive deeper into specific topics, working on projects that challenge them to apply what they've learned and think creatively. Our summer camps offer an immersive experience where students can collaborate on larger projects, develop their teamwork skills, and gain confidence in their abilities.
In addition to our local programs, Up the Ratios is committed to making a global impact. We take donations of new and gently used robotics parts, which we then distribute to students and educational institutions in other countries. These donations help ensure that young learners worldwide have the resources they need to explore and excel in STEM fields. By supporting education in this way, we aim to nurture a global community of future leaders and innovators.
Our live lectures feature guest speakers from various STEM disciplines, including engineers, scientists, and industry professionals who share their knowledge and experiences with our students. These lectures provide valuable insights into potential career paths and inspire students to pursue their passions in STEM.
Up the Ratios relies on the generosity of donors and volunteers to continue our work. Contributions of time, expertise, and financial support are crucial to sustaining our programs and expanding our reach. Whether you're an individual passionate about education, a professional in the STEM field, or a company looking to give back to the community, there are many ways to get involved and make a difference.
We are proud of the positive impact we've had on the lives of countless students, many of whom have gone on to pursue higher education and careers in STEM. By providing these young minds with the tools and opportunities they need to succeed, we are not only changing their futures but also contributing to the advancement of technology and innovation on a broader scale.
Understanding the Challenges of Street ChildrenSERUDS INDIA
By raising awareness, providing support, advocating for change, and offering assistance to children in need, individuals can play a crucial role in improving the lives of street children and helping them realize their full potential
Donate Us
https://serudsindia.org/how-individuals-can-support-street-children-in-india/
#donatefororphan, #donateforhomelesschildren, #childeducation, #ngochildeducation, #donateforeducation, #donationforchildeducation, #sponsorforpoorchild, #sponsororphanage #sponsororphanchild, #donation, #education, #charity, #educationforchild, #seruds, #kurnool, #joyhome
Russian anarchist and anti-war movement in the third year of full-scale warAntti Rautiainen
Anarchist group ANA Regensburg hosted my online-presentation on 16th of May 2024, in which I discussed tactics of anti-war activism in Russia, and reasons why the anti-war movement has not been able to make an impact to change the course of events yet. Cases of anarchists repressed for anti-war activities are presented, as well as strategies of support for political prisoners, and modest successes in supporting their struggles.
Thumbnail picture is by MediaZona, you may read their report on anti-war arson attacks in Russia here: https://en.zona.media/article/2022/10/13/burn-map
Links:
Autonomous Action
http://Avtonom.org
Anarchist Black Cross Moscow
http://Avtonom.org/abc
Solidarity Zone
https://t.me/solidarity_zone
Memorial
https://memopzk.org/, https://t.me/pzk_memorial
OVD-Info
https://en.ovdinfo.org/antiwar-ovd-info-guide
RosUznik
https://rosuznik.org/
Uznik Online
http://uznikonline.tilda.ws/
Russian Reader
https://therussianreader.com/
ABC Irkutsk
https://abc38.noblogs.org/
Send mail to prisoners from abroad:
http://Prisonmail.online
YouTube: https://youtu.be/c5nSOdU48O8
Spotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/libertarianlifecoach/episodes/Russian-anarchist-and-anti-war-movement-in-the-third-year-of-full-scale-war-e2k8ai4
This session provides a comprehensive overview of the latest updates to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (commonly known as the Uniform Guidance) outlined in the 2 CFR 200.
With a focus on the 2024 revisions issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), participants will gain insight into the key changes affecting federal grant recipients. The session will delve into critical regulatory updates, providing attendees with the knowledge and tools necessary to navigate and comply with the evolving landscape of federal grant management.
Learning Objectives:
- Understand the rationale behind the 2024 updates to the Uniform Guidance outlined in 2 CFR 200, and their implications for federal grant recipients.
- Identify the key changes and revisions introduced by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the 2024 edition of 2 CFR 200.
- Gain proficiency in applying the updated regulations to ensure compliance with federal grant requirements and avoid potential audit findings.
- Develop strategies for effectively implementing the new guidelines within the grant management processes of their respective organizations, fostering efficiency and accountability in federal grant administration.
Presentation by Jared Jageler, David Adler, Noelia Duchovny, and Evan Herrnstadt, analysts in CBO’s Microeconomic Studies and Health Analysis Divisions, at the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Summer Conference.
10. 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.
11. Article IV
Power to Create “States”
“The power of Congress in respect
to the admission of new states is
found in the 3d section of the 4th
article of the Constitution. That
provision is that, ‘new States may
be admitted by the Congress into
this Union.’” Coyle v. Smith, 221
U.S. 559 (1911)
12. Article IV
Power to Create “States”
“But what is this power? It is not
to admit political organizations
which are less or greater, or
different in dignity or power, from
those political entities which
constitute the Union. It is a
‘power to admit states.’”
Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911)
13. Equal Sovereignty is Fundamental
“Not only do States retain sovereignty
under the Constitution, there is also a
‘fundamental principle
of equal sovereignty’ among the
States.” … “Over a hundred years ago,
this Court explained that our Nation
‘was and is a union of States, equal in
power, dignity and authority.’”
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. ___ (2013)
14. Unequal Treatment of States
“Indeed, ‘the constitutional equality of
the States is essential to the
harmonious operation of the scheme
upon which the Republic was
organized.’ …the fundamental principle
of equal sovereignty remains highly
pertinent in assessing subsequent
disparate treatment of States.”
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. ___ (2013)
16. Why The Difference?
— Myth #1 - “Your Land Is Arid”
— Myth #2 - “You Gave Up Your Land At
Statehood”
— Myth #3 - “Congress Changed Its
‘Policy’”
— Myth #4 - “Because of Polygamy” ???
— Myth #5 - “You Can’t Manage These
Lands”
20. Myth #2
“You Didn’t Want Your Lands”
(“forever disclaim all right and title”)
21. Forever Disclaim All Right and Title ...?
“that the people inhabiting the said territory, do agree
and declare that they forever disclaim all right and
title to the waste or unappropriated lands lying within
the said territory; and that the same shall be and remain
at the sole and entire disposition of the United
States...”
ALABAMA
2.7% PUBLIC LANDS
22. Forever Disclaim All Right and Title ...?
“that the people inhabiting the said territory do agree
and declare that they forever disclaim all right or
title to the waste or unappropriated lands lying within
the said territory, and that the same shall be and remain
at the sole and entire disposition of the United
States...”
LOUISIANA
4.6% PUBLIC LANDS
23. 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, ....”
NEBRASKA
1% PUBLIC LANDS
24. 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
25. 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
26. 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
27. The Promises are the Same!
“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
28.
29.
30.
31. “Basic rules of construction require
harmonization of Section 3 with Section 9. By
reading the two together, one can see that they
generate a ‘duty to dispose.’ If the federal
government could retain the property, the State
would never get any benefit from Section 9. …
This interpretation is further strengthened by the
words in Section 9 proclaiming that the lands
ceded in Section 3 ‘shall be sold.’ This
commanding language indicates that disposal
was not only anticipated but also demanded and
expected as a condition of the agreement.”
Kochan, Public Lands and the Federal Government’s Compact-Based Duty to
Dispose, BYU L.R. Volume 2013, No. 5.
32. "The State of Wyoming
will, after the date of
admission, receive 5% of
the net receipts from all
sales of US Lands within
its borders, which will
continue until all such
lands are sold.”
Governor Francis E. Warren, Inaugural
Address, 1889
33.
34. 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, …, and 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.”
37. “Rights Acquired by a New State
On Equal Footing with the Old States
The right of every new State to exercise all
the powers of government which belong to
and may be exercised by the original
States of the Union must be admitted and
remain unquestioned except so far as
they are temporarily deprived of control
over the public lands.”
Sixty-Eighth Congress, First Session, Senate
Document No. 154, The Constitution of the
United States of America (Annotated), 1924
38.
39. Quoting the 1832 Public Land Committee of the U.S.:
“The public debt being now paid, the public lands are
entirely released from the pledge they were under
to that object and are free to receive a new and liberal
destination for the relief of the States in which they lie.
The speedy extinction of the Federal title within
their limits is necessary to the independence of the
new States, to their equality with the older States,
to the development of their resources, to the
subjection of their soil to taxation, cultivation, and
settlement, and to the proper enjoyment of their
jurisdiction and sovereignty.” As quoted in the remarks of
Thomas Maddock, AZ
40.
41. 1976 - Federal Land Policy and Management Act (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)
42. 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.”
!
43. Myth #4
“Utah Had To Give Up It’s Lands
Because of Polygamy”
59. U.S. House of Representatives - Natural Resources Committee
State Forests Management Superior to Federal Forests
for Job Creation, Revenue Production, Local Economies and Fire Prevention
February 26, 2103
71. 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, that the price of these lands shall be
reduced and graduated, and that after they have
been offered for a certain number of years the
refuse remaining unsold shall be abandoned
to the States and the machinery of our land
system entirely withdrawn. It can not be
supposed the compacts intended that the
United States should retain forever a title to
lands within the States which are of no value,
and no doubt is entertained that the general
interest would be best promoted by
surrendering such lands to the States.”
72. “... 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)
73. “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)
74. Teddy Roosevelt
“During [John Quincy] Adam’s term Benton
began his fight for disposing of the
public lands to actual settlers at a small
cost. It was a move of enormous
importance to the whole West; and
Benton’s long and sturdy contest for it …
entitle him to the greatest credit. He never
gave up the struggle, although repulsed again
and again … he had to encounter much
opposition, especially from the short-sighted
selfishness of many of the Northeasterners …
As a whole, his theory of a liberal system of
land distribution was undoubtedly the correct
one, and he deserves credit for having
pushed it as he did.”
Thomas H. Benton, Theodore Roosevelt 1896
77. 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.
78. Madison Constitutional Debates
Tuesday, August 30, 1787
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, ...."
79. Why Did the Federal Government Ever Own Any
Public Lands in the First Place?
80. 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.”
81. 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 …”
82. An Ordinance for the Government of the Territory
of the United States, North-West of the River Ohio
(Northwest Ordinance) July 13, 1787
“… 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 …”
83. 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.
84. 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, that the price of these lands shall be
reduced and graduated, and that after they have
been offered for a certain number of years the
refuse remaining unsold shall be abandoned
to the States and the machinery of our land
system entirely withdrawn. It can not be
supposed the compacts intended that the
United States should retain forever a title to
lands within the States which are of no value,
and no doubt is entertained that the general
interest would be best promoted by
surrendering such lands to the States.”
85. 20th Congress, 1st Session, House of Reps., Rep. No. 125, Graduate Price of Public Lands,
February 5, 1828
The Committee on the Public Lands 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.
86. 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.
87. A Union of States
“‘This Union’ was and is a union of
States, equal in power, dignity and
authority, each competent to exert
that residuum of sovereignty not
delegated to the United States by
the Constitution itself.” Coyle v.
Smith, 221 U.S. 559, 565 (1911)
88. Article IV
Power to Create “States”
“The power of Congress in respect
to the admission of new states is
found in the 3d section of the 4th
article of the Constitution. That
provision is that, ‘new States may
be admitted by the Congress into
this Union.’” Coyle v. Smith, 221
U.S. 559 (1911)
89. Article IV
Power to Create “States”
“But what is this power? It is not
to admit political organizations
which are less or greater, or
different in dignity or power, from
those political entities which
constitute the Union. It is a
‘power to admit states.’”
Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911)
90. Article IV
Power to Create “States”
“The definition of ‘a state’ is found
in the powers possessed by the
original states which adopted
the Constitution, -- a definition
emphasized by the terms employed
in all subsequent acts of Congress
admitting new states into the
Union.” Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S.
559 (1911)
91. Article IV
Power to Create “States”
“The first two [new] states admitted into
the Union [under the Constitution] were the
states of Vermont and Kentucky ... No
terms or conditions were exacted
from either. Each act declares that
the state is admitted ‘as a new and
entire member of the United
States of America....’” Coyle v. Smith,
221 U.S. 559 (1911)
92. Article IV
Power to Create “States”
“Emphatic and significant as is the phrase: admitted
as ‘an entire member,’ even stronger was the
declaration upon the admission of Tennessee … it
being declared to be ‘one of the United
States of America,’ ‘on an equal footing
with the original states in all respects
whatsoever,’ -- phraseology which has ever since
been substantially followed in admission acts,
concluding with the Oklahoma act [of 16 November
1907]...” Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911)
93. Federal Government Holds
Public Lands “In Trust” for the
States
The federal government holds territorial
lands “in trust for the several states to be
ultimately created out of the
territory." (Shively v. Bowlby, 1894)
94. Federal Govt is Duty-Bound to
“Execute These Trusts”
"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.” Pollard
v. Hagan, (1845)
95. Federal Govt Holds Public Lands for
“Temporary Purposes” to “Execute
The Trusts”
“. . . 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)
96. “Public Lands”
"[t]he words ‘public lands’
are habitually used in our
legislation to describe such
as are subject to sale or
other disposal under general
laws." Barker v. Harvey, 181
U.S. 481, 490 (1901).
97. Enabling Acts are
“Solemn Compacts”
Enabling Acts are "solemn compacts"
and "bi-lateral [two-way] agreements"
that are to be performed "in a timely
fashion" (Andrus v. Utah, 1980)