Wytex look at the 1st and 2nd response from bobo. Yes the headline that Trump stole federal lands was a flat out lie.

The constitution does not state that. I'm a librarian and have researched this topic for my students. Especially during "Bundy stand-off".

The “Bundy stand-off” in Oregon at a federal wildlife refuge has triggered (or, rather, re-triggered) questions about the constitutionality of federal land ownership. Westerners in particular question why the federal government should own nearly 30% of the country. In the West, the issue is particularly important. The federal government has title to about half the territory of the eight Rocky Mountain states, the west coast states, and Alaska. The share of ownership in each of those states ranges from about 30% to about 88%.

* Under the Property Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2), land titled to the federal government and held outside state boundaries is “Territory.” Federal land held within state boundaries is “other Property.”

* If the host state agrees, the federal government can acquire an “enclave” within the state under the Enclave Clause (I-8-17). This grants governmental jurisdiction to the federal government, but the federal government has to acquire title separately. Washington, D.C. (the most important enclave), for example, is under federal jurisdiction, but much of the land is held by other parties, including individuals.

* The Property Clause gives Congress unconditional power to dispose of property and authority to regulate what is already held. It does not mention a power to acquire.

* Under the Treaty Clause (II-2-2; see also Article VI), the federal government may acquire land outside state boundaries. As long as the area is governed as a territory, the federal government may retain any land it deems best.

* As for acreage (“other Property”) within state boundaries: Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal government may acquire and retain land necessary for carrying out its enumerated powers. This includes parcels for military bases, post offices, buildings to house federal employees undertaking enumerated functions, and the like. It is not necessary to form federal enclaves for these purposes.

* But within state boundaries the Constitution grants no authority to retain acreage for unenumerated purposes, such as land for grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or parks.

* Once a state is created and is thereby no longer a territory, the federal government has a duty to dispose of tracts not used for enumerated purposes.

* In the process of disposal, the federal government must follow the rules of public trust. It would be a breach of fiduciary duty for the feds to simply grant all of its surplus property to state governments. Each tract must be disposed of in accordance with the best interest of the American people. For example, natural wonders and environmentally sensitive areas (such as those now encompassed by the national parks) might be conveyed under strict conditions to state park authorities or (as in Britain) to perpetual environmental trusts. Land useful only for grazing, mining, or agriculture should be sold or homesteaded, with or without restrictions. The restrictions might include environmental protections, public easements, and protection for hunters and anglers.

Most states were admitted to the union pursuant to treaties, agreements of cession, and/or laws passed by Congress. These are called organic laws. They include, but are not limited to, enabling acts and acts of admission. These laws cannot change the Constitution, but they have some interesting ramifications for federal land ownership. That is a topic for another posting.

To know there are millions of acres I can use free of charge, without having to ask or pay some landowner, is priceless to me.

It is a great experience

It is a great experience

To know there are millions of acres I can use free of charge, without having to ask or pay some landowner, is priceless to me.

It is a great experience

Why anyone would countenance for a second the idea of selling America’s Crown Jewels is absolutely beyond me. I’m amazed we even have to discuss it, much less fight to keep it from happening.

The $48.00 hunting&fishing combo with the $48.00 public hunting permit, "Poormans food stamps" is cheap compared ta hunting leases.
Wish they'd had a Life time WMA Permit.
Just for thought.

Anyone ever seen a check for their share of the sale of our public lands?

Seen any checks for the almost 18,000 total grazing leases or from those 63,000 O&G wells or other types of leases on our Public Lands from the beginning till today?

Nope.

Oddly enough, the state of Alaska used to mail out checks to all of their residents for their share of state land oil leases (maybe federal land too IDK). A guy I knew in college used to get one every year. IDK if they still do that or not.