Well, that’s dumb and I’m not surprised these farts published this. But, since I’m usually inarticulate I asked the AI overlords to give me a summary of what this means in terms of congressional power.
“Congress plays no approval role in ordinary BLM land sales. Its formal role is limited, and its real power comes from passing laws.
- Under 2,500 acres: Congress has no formal role. The Secretary can sell land identified for disposal in a land use plan, at fair market value, after public notice.
- Over 2,500 acres: The Secretary must notify both chambers and wait 90 days in session. The sale goes ahead unless Congress adopts a concurrent resolution of disapproval, which needs both chambers and skips the President. That kind of veto is likely unconstitutional. NMA v. Zinke struck down the matching provision for withdrawals under §204, though no court has ruled on the sales provision in §203. In practice it's notice and wait.
- Blocking a sale: Congress would need an ordinary law, subject to a presidential veto. It can also add an appropriations rider, use the Congressional Review Act against the land use plan amendment that made the parcel eligible, or apply oversight pressure.
- Forcing a sale: Congress can pass a statute that authorizes or orders specific sales, overriding FLPMA's normal process.
A DOI strategic plan doesn't change any of this. It sets goals but gives no authority to sell.”
@Nunjagottam - I’m not as active as I once was on here (kids and chit), so I don’t know your previous username. But what makes you believe voting to advance any land sale agenda is anything that congressional Democrats would vote in favor of? Heck, even Republicans here in Montana at least pay lip service to not transferring public lands. Seems like if a big sale were to happen it’d possibly get the dual chamber veto from a Democratic Congress then challenged in a stacked district court. Or, they block a sale through an act and it gets veto’d and a buddy of the President gets all of Utah to himself or whatever they’re up to.
