Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

He said he thinks we have forgotten the Clause. I supposed that it is going to go before the Supreme Court at some point.

Two issues:
*The individual State Charters included provisions for the Feds to own portions of their territories in exchange for the rights and benefits of statehood within the USA (protection, infrastructure support, etc),
**The Clause in question does not do away with the Imminent Domain doctrine. There is sound logic in protecting land for the sake of national parks abd preserving nature.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeBukaroo

Two issues:
*The individual State Charters included provisions for the Feds to own portions of their territories in exchange for the rights and benefits of statehood within the USA (protection, infrastructure support, etc),
**The Clause in question does not do away with the Imminent Domain doctrine. There is sound logic in protecting land for the sake of national parks abd preserving nature.

Years ago, I read or heard the discussion about this subject on the Western land issue. The point made was that, legally, if the US Government impeded the financial production ( believe concerning mineral rights) of a state by owning too much land, they had to give it back to the state. I never could find that information again, but it makes sense. Utah needs the government to return their land.

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Years ago, I read or heard the discussion about this subject on the Western land issue. The point made was that, legally, if the US Government impeded the financial production ( believe concerning mineral rights) of a state by owning too much land, they had to give it back to the state. I never could find that information again, but it makes sense. Utah needs the government to return their land.

Still, Imminent Domain mandates the Feds to properly reimburse the states for land, property seized in the name of the greater good or whatever. If it is really an income issue for Utah (or Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon, or whichever former western territory you name), then the better argument would be for financial reparations. The land issue is written in to the each individual state's charter. Their very existence as a state in the USA hinges on this issue (or I imagine I did back when these territories became states). It wouldn't be honest to try to renege on the deals now. It would be like you selling me property and 100 years later my great grandchildren find oil on that land, but your great grandchildren are not doing so well financially and they try to demand something from my great grandchildren.