Public Lands video
- Thread starter NVBighorn
- Start date
Vanilla
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 4,584
"The people inhabiting this State do affirm and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries hereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, 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 said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States."
Straight out of the Utah constitution.
http://le.utah.gov/xcode/ArticleIII/Article_III.html
Straight out of the Utah constitution.
http://le.utah.gov/xcode/ArticleIII/Article_III.html
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,859
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
That's straight out of the U.S. constitution. Doesn't mean it was right and no one corrected it.
That's straight out of the U.S. constitution. Doesn't mean it was right and no one corrected it.
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,014
The difference is Tri's quote from the US Constitution has since been amended by the 14th and 16th Amendments. In contrast, the language quoted by Vanilla in Article III of the Utah Constitution has not been amended and is binding law.
In addition, people of Utah included similar langauge in the Utah Enabling Act - "That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; 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."
-Hawkeye-
In addition, people of Utah included similar langauge in the Utah Enabling Act - "That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; 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."
-Hawkeye-
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,596
Just because the 3/5 compromise was wrong (and later amended to no longer be the law of the land) doesn't mean the "forever disclaim" language was wrong (and thus it is still the law of the land).
That argument is a red herring and would be as valid as me posting...
--"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"--
...as proof that the Utah Constitution was correct in regards to Federal lands within the State of Utah.
Your argument is a selective argument that can be destroyed with more forcefulness and justification than it can be defended.
Grizzly
That argument is a red herring and would be as valid as me posting...
--"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"--
...as proof that the Utah Constitution was correct in regards to Federal lands within the State of Utah.
Your argument is a selective argument that can be destroyed with more forcefulness and justification than it can be defended.
Grizzly
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,859
Actually Grizzly,
I spoke in exact context to Vanilla's post. SO this isn't a red herring but instead an inconvenient fact for this childish argument that Federal land can not become state land.
If you want to use big boy words go learn the meaning first Grizzly.
Vanilla,
Yes constitutions can and do get changed. They are called amendments. Is the current US constitution the same as what it was in 1787? It isn't easy for the US constitution. I am unsure of the requirements to alter the Utah state constitution.
What's even funnier is not only can it change but interpretation of these amendments can also change. If it wasn't for this the foundation of the NACM never would have happened.
I spoke in exact context to Vanilla's post. SO this isn't a red herring but instead an inconvenient fact for this childish argument that Federal land can not become state land.
If you want to use big boy words go learn the meaning first Grizzly.
Vanilla,
Yes constitutions can and do get changed. They are called amendments. Is the current US constitution the same as what it was in 1787? It isn't easy for the US constitution. I am unsure of the requirements to alter the Utah state constitution.
What's even funnier is not only can it change but interpretation of these amendments can also change. If it wasn't for this the foundation of the NACM never would have happened.
Vanilla
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 4,584
All these years, and I thought each of the amendments were just sunset provisions in the original constitution to take place years, decades, or more down the road?
Wow, I wish they'd teach this stuff in school so I wouldn't look so foolish on a hunting forum. Again, who knew this stuff? Amazing...
Wow, I wish they'd teach this stuff in school so I wouldn't look so foolish on a hunting forum. Again, who knew this stuff? Amazing...
