Editor:
In the June 14 paper, Tom Sykes took issue with my guest commentary regarding public lands being in federal title as unconstitutional. He alleges that Article IV, Sec. 3 trumps Article 1, Sec. 8. Simply not true.
Article 1 identifies what the federal government can own and Article IV gives them the authority to regulate what they may legitimately own as specified in Article 1, Sec. 8. They each must be read and applied in their full context.
The references to two court cases in 1877 and 1911 simply dealt with the stewardship authority to protect them, not establishing the constitutionality of the government ownership. The Northwest Ordinance was declared to not apply once a state was formed out of a at territory. The fact remains that the state was formed out of a territory with specific identified boundaries to include all the land within the boundary. The land then was no longer territory but state land. The state was admitted into the Union “upon an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatsoever. This included full ownership and control of all lands and resources in the states!
However, the feds said they wanted to keep all unappropriated public lands for their own disposition. That is contrary to the Constitution, clear and simple! The only legal actions for those lands would have been to sell them as promised, or to return them to state ownership. Any other and subsequent actions were and are in violation of the Constitution.
The problem is that an increasing number of people and Congress simply do not like what the Constitution says, so try to justify making it say something it does not. John Adams stated, “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” How we try to distort, ignore and circumvent our rule book, the Constitution, tells the world what kind of people we are!
Dexter Gill
Lewis
