Members banned from this thread: Cigar and MisterVeritis |
Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution as written and understood by this nation's founders, and to the Republic it created, an indivisible union of sovereign States, with liberty and justice for all.
Roosevelt did not do a good thing establishing National Parks. It is not his job, nor has it ever supposed to be possible for the Federal Government to annex any land from States.
But that's exactly what they've done. What started as a few thousand acres for the Fed has turned into millions of square miles for the Fed.
Unacceptable, and a terrible abuse of power - and exactly why the Fed has granted itself authority over cattle ranchers like Bundy.
Last edited by Subdermal; 02-18-2017 at 02:54 PM.
MisterVeritis (02-18-2017)
resister (02-18-2017)
"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most — that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least."
- Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926), five-time Socialist Party candidate for U.S. President
"Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal government may acquire and retain land necessary for carrying out its enumerated powers. This includes parcels for military bases, post offices, buildings to house federal employees undertaking enumerated functions, and the like. It is not necessary to form federal enclaves for these purposes.* But within state boundaries, the Constitution grants no authority to retain acreage for unenumerated purposes, such as land for grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or parks.
* Once a state is created and is thereby no longer a territory, the federal government has a duty to dispose of tracts not used for enumerated purposes.
* In the process of disposal, the federal government must follow the rules of public trust."
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016...and-ownership/
We disagree.
Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution as written and understood by this nation's founders, and to the Republic it created, an indivisible union of sovereign States, with liberty and justice for all.
It's certainly not the first time. Your article actually agrees with me, though. I note you didn't quote that part.
That's precisely what I said. Article IV, Section 3, second clause gives the federal government the ability to control land within state boundaries. Particularly when you consider that much of this land belonged to the federal government long before a state's borders were established around it.In a nutshell, my findings were:* Under the Property Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2), land titled to the federal government and held outside state boundaries is “Territory.” Federal land held within state boundaries is “other Property.”
Of course, again, states are subservient to the federal government anyway so even if it was land within the state before it was federal government land, it's federal government land now.
"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most — that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least."
- Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926), five-time Socialist Party candidate for U.S. President
States are NOT supposed to be "subservient" to Federal Government beyond very specific enumerated roles - and those aren't roles which place States subservient; they are roles which take burdens off of States. Where the hell did you get that addled notion?
I do not find your argument compelling. You yourself should cede that point, with the millions of acres now under Federal Control.
If you cannot see that as the abuse of power that it is, there is no further point in discussing it, particularly since it isn't the Constitution which has provided your argument. You're twisting words to actually claim that land within State incorporation is still territory: you're just trying to call it "other property" without requiring that such "other property" meets the test as defined below. This line alone is definitive:
But within state boundaries, the Constitution grants no authority to retain acreage for unenumerated purposes, such as land for grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or parks.
That's horrible logic to suggest there is any valid override. You are simply a big Government leftist, regardless your packaging.
Last edited by Subdermal; 02-18-2017 at 06:33 PM.
MisterVeritis (02-18-2017)