I have read with interest recent Capital Press opinion pieces and the article “Public lands clashes have a long history.” I feel compelled to add my voice in opposition to federal government actions and the opinions of the editorial staff and instead support the constitutionally supreme “rule of law” rather than “regulatory” or “case” law that others would have us give obeisance.

Having lived in Southern Nevada for many years I am quite familiar with the abuses of the federal government regarding control of the so-called federal lands. Would it shock anyone to know that Harry Reid plays a significant role in deciding which big developer gets the next section of BLM ground that land-locks Las Vegas? Is anyone so naive to think the little people would be invited to this party? How about that he hand-picked the recently appointed 35-year-old director of the Bureau of Land Management that worked in his office? That is a subject for another day, as is the authority of the federal government to take up arms against its own citizens.

My point today is the blatant unconstitutionality of the federal government’s usurpation of land. The federal government controls 84 percent of Nevada. This de facto condition would never be tolerated nationally if all states had to function under this same life-squeezing burden.

Our Constitution is clear that the federal government must “purchase” lands from the states and with “the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be.” No consent (nor payment) for the majority of lands retained by the federal government has occurred. The article referenced, nowhere mentions this fact and the legal case cited has nothing to do with federal land ownership but rather the regulations administering them. I invite the Capital Press to correct its mistake.

Jay Clemens

Portland, Ore.