I’d like some of the LGF members to lend their opinions on this one article I came across in my searching for more info on the Cliven Bundy vs. BLM land rights standoff.

There seems to be quite a lot of debate over who controls Federal Land in a state under the Constitution and that is where this article comes in. On the surface it seems legit, but I am not a federal land rights historian. So, if anyone wants to read this article and comment on its overall accuracy I’d appreciate it. The article seems to be one of the best that goes to the original Federal land once the US took control from Mexico and then what happens when a state is declared and who controls what from that point.

Also…if anyone has any other links that go to the actual law and state versus federal control of land I’d appreciate them.

Here is the main thrust of the linked article:

In America’s infancy, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Founding Fathers’ understanding of federal control over land. Justice Stephen J. Field wrote for the majority opinion in Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1855) that federal authority over territorial land was “necessarily paramount.” However, once the territory was organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal ground, the state government assumes sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government retains only the rights of an “individual proprietor.” This means that the federal government could only exercise general sovereignty over state property if the state legislature formally granted the federal government the power to do so under the Enclave Clause with the exception of federal buildings (post offices) and military installations. This understanding was reaffirmed in Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan (1845), Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the city of New Orleans (1845) and Strader v. Graham (1850).

However, it did not take long for the Supreme Court to begin redefining the Constitution and legislating from the bench under the guise of interpretation. Case by case, the Court slowly redefined the Property Clause, which had always been understood to regard exclusively the transferring of federal to state sovereignty through statehood, to the conservation of unconstitutional federal supremacy.

Link: Who actually “owns” America’s land? A deeper look at the Bundy Ranch crisis

By the way, I have no idea of the legitimacy of the linked site. It came up in a Google search