I didn't expect many to actually read the link, it is a little long for most. I mainly posted it for RobJordan who was inclined to research the issue after I had found a cogent starting place.
There really is two issue that get lumped together. Whether the federal government has a right to own land, and whether "use rights" such as grazing rights rise to property rights. Water law is a similar "use right".
As noted by the article as to whether the federal government can own land- "The U.S. Constitution addresses the relationship of the federal government to lands. The Property Clause, Article IV, § 3, Clause 2, gives Congress authority over the lands, territories, or other property of the United States. It reads: 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."
I'll certainly read it. Thanks for posting.
The articles of all that land within western states was addressed when the territories became states. They had to agree to rescind control of the land to the federales or they would not be given statehood.
So, under such duress, any contract nowadays is null and void.
This particular case has not been tested much.
That is an interesting point to consider.
However, would a voluntary application for statehood and a condition placed upon it that was voluntarily accepted would be a difficult argument to make as far as "duress". Hawaii's case for duress (literal occupation by an invading military, capture of the ruling family, subjugation by them, and then a forced "deal" for statehood) would be an argument for duress, but I'm not seeing how a territorial government petitioning for statehood and agreeing to terms set forth by the U.S. for acceptance as a state could be considered "duress".
Please explain, and you know I'm legitimately interested in your answer.
