Best President?

[MisterVeritis]

It's certainly not the first time. Your article actually agrees with me, though. I note you didn't quote that part.

No. It doesn't.

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.

Prior to it being a state it was a territory. Once a territory becomes a state the federal government must give that land to the state.You completely missed that the property must be used to support the enumerated clauses of Article 1 section 8. Is 30% of the nation a post office?

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.

This is why we can no longer have nice things. You intentionally misunderstand federalism and the Constitution.

[Green Arrow]

States are NOT supposed to be "subservient" to Federal Government beyond very specific enumerated roles

Precisely. Glad you agree.

I do not find your argument compelling. You yourself should cede that point, with the millions of acres now under Federal Control.

I don't find that at all troubling and you've yet to provide a rational reason for me to find it troubling.

I also (and this is a minor thing so don't get your knickers in a twist) don't quite understand your habit of randomly capitalizing words that shouldn't be. Like "federal control" here.

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 have yet to actually explain just how it is an abuse of power, you've just stated repeatedly that it is. You should probably work to improve your own arguments before bashing mine. I haven't even begun to argue on this subject, this is just passive commentary.

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.

The funny thing about enumerated powers with regard to the constitution is that most of the time they are anything but explicit. Congress has fleshed out the "Property Clause" and to date I don't think there's been any successful challenge in the courts to argue that the national park system or the national park service are somehow an unconstitutional overreach. And again, you've yet to explain why it's some vast cosmic evil.

You are simply a big Government leftist, regardless your packaging.

Grasp tightly onto your label-maker, it might soon be your only defense.

[Archer0915]

The best human being in my lifetime was Carter, crap president. As far as the job, tough call. I would say Ike, Truman, Lincoln and Washington.

[Green Arrow]

Prior to it being a state it was a territory. Once a territory becomes a state the federal government must give that land to the state.You completely missed that the property must be used to support the enumerated clauses of Article 1 section 8. Is 30% of the nation a post office?

No, but it doesn't have to be in order to be a legitimate use of the land.

This is why we can no longer have nice things. You intentionally misunderstand federalism and the Constitution.

I understand it perfectly. I just happen to disagree.

[MisterVeritis]

No, but it doesn't have to be in order to be a legitimate use of the land.
I understand it perfectly. I just happen to disagree.

You subvert the Constitution.

The Constitution is clear. You did say earlier we could simply ignore it. And so you have.

[Green Arrow]

You subvert the Constitution.

I appreciate that you think I have that kind of power, but I don't.

The Constitution is clear. You did say earlier we could simply ignore it. And so you have.

I don't ignore it. I said we could, not that we should.

[Subdermal]

Precisely. Glad you agree.

Your backtrack is noted. You made an unequivocal statement: States are to be subservient to Federal Government.

Glad you now agree that they aren't.

I don't find that at all troubling and you've yet to provide a rational reason for me to find it troubling.

Land is power. Are you unaware? Do you not understand the conflicts of interest that arise as a result, such as what has been taking place with good American ranchers?

How much in denial must you be to delve a "rational reason" to find it troubling? That it is a DISTINCT Constitutional violation should be ENOUGH.

I also (and this is a minor thing so don't get your knickers in a twist) don't quite understand your habit of randomly capitalizing words that shouldn't be. Like "federal control" here.

Look. A Squirrel.

You have yet to actually explain just how it is an abuse of power, you've just stated repeatedly that it is. You should probably work to improve your own arguments before bashing mine. I haven't even begun to argue on this subject, this is just passive commentary.

Ugh. Then stop wasting our time on stupiod minutiae.

The funny thing about enumerated powers with regard to the constitution is that most of the time they are anything but explicit.

Spoken like a true leftist. The very word enumerated means specific.

Congress has fleshed out the "Property Clause" and to date I don't think there's been any successful challenge in the courts to argue that the national park system or the national park service are somehow an unconstitutional overreach. And again, you've yet to explain why it's some vast cosmic evil.

They've "fleshed out" what again? There is no 'challenge' in Court. Congress either codified such a "fleshing out" (to which you offer zero cite) without an Amendment. It is not the Court's role to challenge the Constitution, only to obey it.

Chalk it up to yet another thing about which you are confused.

Grasp tightly onto your label-maker, it might soon be your only defense.

Who needs any defense? You've yet to get about an offense.

[MisterVeritis]

I appreciate that you think I have that kind of power, but I don't.

You lend your willing support to those who have and who do subvert the Constitution. Is that more to your liking? Why be a pedant?
The Constitution is clear. You did say earlier we could simply ignore it. And so you have.

I don't ignore it. I said we could, not that we should.

And yet the stance you took is the unconstitutional one. You chose to ignore the Constitution's plain language.

[Green Arrow]

Your backtrack is noted. You made an unequivocal statement: States are to be subservient to Federal Government.

Glad you now agree that they aren't.

I never said they weren't. I stand by my original comment.
Also, it's not a backtrack. As per usual, you read into my statement and now want to play the gotcha game when I obviously don't go along with what you added. I said states are subservient to the federal government. This is a statement of fact. The supremacy clause of the constitution, among other things, agrees with my opinion. You can choose to define subservient to somehow mean I'm suggesting the states are slavishly obligated to kiss the federal emperor's ring but that's not what I said. I go with Merriam-Webster, specifically the first option:

useful in an inferior capacity : subordinate

It's quite simple.

Land is power. Are you unaware? Do you not understand the conflicts of interest that arise as a result, such as what has been taking place with good American ranchers?

I suppose if you view the states as separate countries from the federal government that would be relevant, but considering the states are effectively divisions within the country run by the federal government that doesn't apply. We're not talking about Russia and China quibbling over resources. That land is under the jurisdiction of the National Parks Service precisely to protect it from any kind of conflicts and misuse.

How much in denial must you be to delve a "rational reason" to find it troubling? That it is a DISTINCT Constitutional violation should be ENOUGH.

Everything must have a rational reason to exist, you don't want to live in a world devoid of rationality.

Look. A Squirrel.

Yes, of course. I've addressed every single point you've made (even painstakingly separating each point for clarity) but this is absolutely my attempt to avoid the discussion
Seriously, though, why do you do it? It makes no sense.

Ugh. Then stop wasting our time on stupiod minutiae.

Such as...what, exactly? The only argument you've given me to reply to is that you believe the federal government shouldn't control the land it controls because the constitution doesn't explicitly give it a lease on parts of Nevada. The rest of your posts have been the rather rude implication that I am dishonest and unintelligent.
Give me something valuable to respond to and I will do so. If you're going to offer bad-faith rudeness I'll respond in kind. We might get somewhere with the former option and we'll most assuredly get nowhere on the second.

Spoken like a true leftist. The very word enumerated means specific.

Right. So tell me how the "General Welfare" clause is specific.

They've "fleshed out" what again? There is no 'challenge' in Court. Congress either codified such a "fleshing out" (to which you offer zero cite) without an Amendment. It is not the Court's role to challenge the Constitution, only to obey it.

Don't be obtuse. Congress decided that specific part of the constitution gave them the authority to establish the national parks system and the National Parks Service. If states are that offended by it they could have, at any point in the last hundred years, challenged that interpretation of the constitution in the courts, at which point the courts could have upheld the constitution and struck it down.

There's literally zero reason to get out of my statement that the courts are the ones challenging the constitution. This is, again, a real problem of yours. You don't ever just read the words someone writes, you read all kinds of nonsense into what people say so you can distort it to fit your agenda. That's not good faith discussion etiquette, good sir.

Chalk it up to yet another thing about which you are confused.

Hey, another unnecessary and unprovoked insult. Would you cry foul if I reciprocated?

Who needs any defense? You've yet to get about an offense.

Why is an offense necessary? This is a discussion, not a war. I've presented my perspective on yours and Veritis's posts.

[Green Arrow]

You lend your willing support to those who have and who do subvert the Constitution. Is that more to your liking? Why be a pedant?

Who have I supported in subverting the constitution? Name some names.

And yet the stance you took is the unconstitutional one. You chose to ignore the Constitution's plain language.

First of all, I disagree that my stance is unconstitutional. Second, there is almost no real "plain language" in the constitution. Rather fitting that Madison was educated in law school, because the constitution is very much a lawyer's document.