Quote:
Originally Posted by boardman
I did cite the authority. The Constitution and the Northwest Ordinance. Neither of which have been superseded by amendment which would be the proper way of going about things. Alabama was not an original colony. The territory that became Alabama was ceded back to the US as a territory by Georgia. It then became a state in 1819 and challenged federal authority over it's sovereignty and won. That is the authority.
|
You need to re-read the Constitution, the Northwest Ordinance, and Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, because none of them appear to say what you think they say.
You cited Article 1, Section 8. However, Article 1, Section 8, specifies some of the powers of Congress, but has nothing to do with the admission of new states.
The admission of new states is covered by Article 4, Section 3, which states:
"
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
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; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
This says pretty much the OPPOSITE of what you wrote.
That is why Congress does have the power to impose conditions on states being admitted. For example, Congress required that some state be admitted a free states or slave states prior to the Civil War, Congress required Utah to outlaw polygamy, etc.
And Pollard's Lessee applied to Alabama's sovereignty over its own land (in this case, land beneath navigable waterways). Pollard's Lessee didn't give Alabama or any other state rights
over federal lands within their borders.
To the contrary, the Supreme Court has expressly limited state powers over federal lands within a state's border.
Interpreting Article 4, the Supreme Court has ruled that "the
Federal Property and Territory Clause or
Property Clause gives the
United States Congress exclusive authority to set rules and regulations for the management of public lands. For example, pursuant to a parallel clause in
Article One, Section Eight, the Supreme Court has held that states may
not tax such federal property. In another case,
Kleppe v. New Mexico, the Court ruled that the Federal
Wild Horse and Burro Act was a constitutional exercise of congressional power under the Property Clause at least insofar as it was applied to
prohibit the New Mexico Livestock Board from entering upon the public lands of the United States and removing wild burros under the New Mexico Estray Law.
Here is the Wiki cite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...s_Constitution
And the Northwest Ordinance didn't change any of that.
