THE BUNDY OR FIASCO - Well Funded but the theoretical foundation is faulty

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/247905-ivorys-tower-built-on-faulty-foundation

The idea that states can compel the federal government to return ownership and control of federal lands may seem far-fetched, but there are some in Western states who claim it is possible.  Founded on convoluted and inaccurate interpretations of the Constitution and state Enabling Acts, the laws that paved the way for Western states to join the union, the movement advocating for state laws that transfer public lands to the states has been gaining traction in Western states such as Utah, which passed such a bill in 2012.

Now U.S. Reps. Bob Bishop (R-Utah) and Chris Stewart (R-Utah) are giving the effort congressional support with the launch of the Federal Land Action Group, a new initiative aimed at developing a legislative framework for transferring public lands to local governments.  This follows an amendment introduced by U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chair Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and passed by a vote of 51 to 40 to fund state efforts to seize and sell America’s public lands. 

The movement’s recent surge in support is due largely to its self-proclaimed leader – Utah State Representative Ken Ivory (R).  Ivory has spent the past few years fast-talking rural and poor Western counties into paying thousands of dollars they can ill afford to join an organization he founded called the American Lands Council (ALC).  Ivory’s spiel is deceptively simple: when Western states agreed to join the United States, they retained the right to the return of federal lands.  He also argues states would benefit financially from the return, and that contributions to the American Lands Council will help move legislation requiring this land transfer forward. 

But Ivory omits any mention of the fact that he and his wife collectively pocket more than half of the funds the American Lands Council takes in.  He also never tells the local government officials from whom he seeks donations that his legal theories have been roundly debunked and his promises of economic prosperity are illusionary.  The legal scholarship is clear.  Under the Enabling Acts, states expressly renounced claims to federal lands forever.  Further, the Constitution’s Property Clause, which the Supreme Court has interpreted very broadly, grants the federal government a virtually unchecked right to retain and manage public lands.  Even in Utah, the only state to have passed such ill-founded legislation, the state’s Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel said the law has “a high probability of being declared unconstitutional.”