Editorial showed skewed view of history
The editorial in the May 13 Journal was quite distressing.
Good journalism has been used to educate the people, which is what our society needs in these increasingly difficult times. Good journalism prints truth and facts. The editorial contained little, if any, of those critical points.
What it did point out is the gross lack of knowledge and understanding of American history and the Constitution that was to be the rule book for the development and operation of the country, helping to make us a civil society.
The Journal does not understand that the federal government has no constitutional authority to hold permanent title to BLM and national forest lands within any state.
Those are not federal lands, but lands of the states that were held in escrow, at the time of statehood, pending disposal.
To be able to dispose of the lands, the government had to have the physical title to be able to consummate the transaction.
Along the way, the feds decided to forget the Constitution rule book and agreed-upon statehood terms, and just keep the lands. That was an unconstitutional act!
The lands do not belong to all the people of the country, but to the individual states. Why do we not own the lands of the other 15 states in the Louisiana Purchase, such as Iowa, or Nebraska, or Louisiana, or Oklahoma, etc.? What happened to the lands in the Indiana Territory? Or Spanish Territory in Florida, Georgia and Mississippi?
The attack on our good neighbors in Utah, saying their action was a “political stunt to advance a skewed and selfish view,” is completely irresponsible journalism, and clearly reflects the Journal as expressing the very attitude you are accusing the Utah citizens of: a “political, skewed and selfish view.” That is not journalism, education or truth! It does very well to continue the misconceptions and ignorance of our Constitution and history.