The Great Republican Land Heist
harpers.org
harpers.org
The fact the people involved in this are self described as "anti-government" and small-government, plus the entire issue is reducing federal control back into state law seems to only be an inconvenience... Trying to frame it outside of the scope of left vs right, rather than local vs federal control, doesn't seem to fit well into mainstream political discourse.
Side note: single page article http://harpers.org/archive/2015/02/the-great-republican-land... (admins?)
Bundy is from Oregon. Further more:
>> One of ALEC’s model bills is the Eminent Domain Authority for Federal Lands Act, which, like Bundy, cites Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution to justify state seizure of federal land. (A spokesperson for ALEC disavowed Bundy and his actions.)
The laws they are fighting are federal and mostly from the 1930s, enacted under the Hoover government, which was republican.
This is about state vs federal rights, not left vs right. It should be framed as such.
Correct, that's the issue and the proposed solution is abolishing federal land control, transferring rights to state control, and therefore preventing federal intervention in grazing.
>> 'But the stockmen’s ambition went further: they wanted the federal government to transfer control of all federal land, including the national parks, to the states.'
The state legislators would still be free to enforce their own laws in that respect - technically they could themselves limit externalities or even enhance conservation. The parties involved (ie, ranchers) believe that they would be better served at the state level, a belief which was also held by many of those who were behind the constitution - whom they spare no time trumpeting.
> "The issue is whether federal land should be used for conservation versus grazing."
The real problem IMO is whether states would be better at managing these laws than the federal level.
This is what they are proposing... even if they do achieve this, there is no guaruntee that it would instantly turn into a free-for-all for ranchers.
There is no clear answer to this question. What if Oregon green-activists acquire similar power, embraces this idea, and do a far better job than the feds at conservation? A model for other states to follow.
This is an interesting thought experiment, lost in hyper-political handwaving.
I've never heard Ranchers request the opportunity to purchase the land. They just want to use it as if they owned it.
But surely the state government, rather than the federal government?
Eventually the feds decide to organize a state in that area. The day Congress passes the bill of statehood, who owns the land? The new state? Only if the bill of statehood said that the land transferred.
I think you are talking about the fluidity of borders and lands worldwide. In reality, country borders are based on if land can be defended from other claimants (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AivEQmfPpk). This is the final arbitration, even after exploring existing treaties (which arent always followed, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbKNlFcg02c). The idea that the US federal government owns land until it's disseminated is one of those american myths that the US Govt tries REALLY hard to let alone, despite most federal lands being originally acquired by fiat and in the last 200 years by eminent domain (sometimes a front for private parties like the railway barons). Almost any private vs federal case can raise issues that can be elevated to the supreme court where the USG has a lot more to lose, regardless of the outcome. So they make lots of small steps, wisely. When they run into a case, even if they lose, the USG will simply work around the small setback.
Creating a state is also a one-way transition in the United States; incorporating a territory as a state is a way to ensure that the territory will never be traded away or declared independent.
there is no right or wrong here. The current situation is just the result of the most recent applications of force on that issue - with Indians in particular loosing in those "applications of force", and until bigger force gets involved it will stay about the same. That is how human race has so far been managing the surface of this planet, or any other resource...
Your point is specious. Governments control arbitrary boundaries. You want "state" control over lands where it suits you, but the point could work in reverse too: why not county control? Someone's got to own it, and in this particular case that was land managed by the federal government before Nevada was a state, and in fact before "Nevadans" even existed as a meaningful population.
This is in other contexts known as "imperialism".
How much of that 86% have always been public (federal) lands, and how much of that was "seized?"
What's good for the environment and wildlife is typically also good for humanity.