Why Is The N S A 'S Data Center In Utah?

[thesometimesaint]

TSS , you will note from the map posted by Stargazer , that there is a quite clear dividing line on the north/south border between Montana and North Dakota , where the Feds got very penny-pinching about releasing lands to the States from the Federal land holdings .

I like maps. But that one doesn't prove the idea that individual states own federal property. IE; Whether or not I lease part of my poperty to you. I still own that property.

[thesometimesaint]

Article 1 Section 8 gives rights and restrictions of the Federal gov't. The part that seems to limit the area and type of uses of Federal lands is in paragraph 17.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Not a word about federal lands being property of the individual states.

[thesometimesaint]

Back to the original post.

[Anijen]

Utah has a good history of the FEDs building there, Topaz comes to mind.

[Stargazer]

I like maps. But that one doesn't prove the idea that individual states own federal property. IE; Whether or not I lease part of my poperty to you. I still own that property.

You couldn't possibly have been reading what I wrote, because at no time did I say that the states owned federal property. Let me expand upon what I said, and that is early in the Republic, especially so when there were only 13 states, there was NO federal property because the federal government did not yet exist. Once the Constitution was ratified, which document gave the federal government the right to own property, some small parcels outside of the District of Columbia were ceded by the various states for federal purposes, and these parcels were then no longer state, but federal land, owned and controlled by the federal government.

Subsequent states were largely created out of originally federal land, yet nevertheless the federal government retained only small portions of the new states's land for their purposes, but for the most recent states in the West the federal government retained the lion's share of the the land in those states, including Utah, Nevada, and Alaska, among others. Nobody said that these states owned any of this federally-retained land!

The thing to remark upon is this: that contrary to former practice, the federal government now apparently has decided that it will retain vastly more territory in its ownership than would seem to be Constitutionally implied.

Article I Section 8 states:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings...

Which does make it seem that the federal government has gone way overboard in the case of federally-overrun states such as Utah, Nevada, and Alaska. Did these states consent to the vast majority of their lands being federal? I have no idea, and it's none of my concern, actually. But it does seem excessive. And the purposes set forth in this section does not seem to authorize the federal government to own land for the purpose of national parks, national forests, and national monuments. Unless you want to call Old Faithful a "needful building." Yet I do believe these things have been challenged and the Supreme Court has confirmed the federal government can own all this, so it's OK.

It just seems, I repeat, a bit excessive.

[strappinglad]

The Federal gov't 'owns' land in the same way that the banks get interest on money that they don't really have. The territory bought through the Louisiana Purchase used money that came from whom? The blood and treasure that was expended to seize the Mexican territories came from whom? The People not the Feds.According to the constitution, the people have all rights except those ceded to the government for specific purpose.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I heard because Utah has lots of water and they need water to cool all of the computers.

Utah has lots of water. Ha.

[Gervin]

Which does make it seem that the federal government has gone way overboard in the case of federally-overrun states such as Utah, Nevada, and Alaska. Did these states consent to the vast majority of their lands being federal?

I've seen photos of Nevada that look like the moon as a result of all the nuclear testing (much of it underground). There probably aren't many states where you could do that ... Did they consent to that activity? I don't know.

[thesometimesaint]

You couldn't possibly have been reading what I wrote, because at no time did I say that the states owned federal property. Let me expand upon what I said, and that is early in the Republic, especially so when there were only 13 states, there was NO federal property because the federal government did not yet exist. Once the Constitution was ratified, which document gave the federal government the right to own property, some small parcels outside of the District of Columbia were ceded by the various states for federal purposes, and these parcels were then no longer state, but federal land, owned and controlled by the federal government.

Subsequent states were largely created out of originally federal land, yet nevertheless the federal government retained only small portions of the new states's land for their purposes, but for the most recent states in the West the federal government retained the lion's share of the the land in those states, including Utah, Nevada, and Alaska, among others. Nobody said that these states owned any of this federally-retained land!

The thing to remark upon is this: that contrary to former practice, the federal government now apparently has decided that it will retain vastly more territory in its ownership than would seem to be Constitutionally implied.

Article I Section 8 states:

Which does make it seem that the federal government has gone way overboard in the case of federally-overrun states such as Utah, Nevada, and Alaska. Did these states consent to the vast majority of their lands being federal? I have no idea, and it's none of my concern, actually. But it does seem excessive. And the purposes set forth in this section does not seem to authorize the federal government to own land for the purpose of national parks, national forests, and national monuments. Unless you want to call Old Faithful a "needful building." Yet I do believe these things have been challenged and the Supreme Court has confirmed the federal government can own all this, so it's OK.

It just seems, I repeat, a bit excessive.

During the American Revolutionary War we were governed by the Articles of Confederation. So we did exist as a government, albeit not in the form that we do now.

[emarkp]

It's helps to have a colder climate for data centers to cut down on cooling costs.

Which is why they picked a desert....

Seriously: cheap land + compliant population. nuff said.