“I’m not even sure why you would write it like that,” he added. “If the feds won’t enter into (a memorandum of understanding) because of the way it’s drafted, what good does the bill do?”

The bill, as written, has several issues, Kalen said. The bill’s language doesn’t explicitly say the governor needs a memorandum with the federal government to seize control of federal land — only that he or she could if the government were to shut down. Another provision in the bill, Kalen said, that mentions an agreement between the governor and the federal government doesn’t actually require them to enter the agreement, only saying that they “may” do so.

When asked if he had any concern if the bill might be unconstitutional or if he had reached out to the state’s attorney general for their opinion, Scott shrugged it off, saying the intent of the bill was clear: giving Wyoming an option to respond in the case of a federal shutdown.

“That didn’t bother me,” Scott said. “We’re not trying to do anything long-term that’s unconstitutional or will do any harm to anything. We’re trying to help out the federal government and help out the citizens — including our citizens — and the tourism industry. I don’t see any fundamental problems with the bill.”