Posted on 04/10/2014 10:48:03 PM PDT by ponygirl
Article I, Section 8:
“The Congress shall have the Power…
…To exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings…”
The first portion of this pertains to the establishment of the District of Columbia (not to exceed 10 Miles square). The second portion gives the U.S. Government the authority over military installations established with consent of the legislating body within said state. So your repetition of this particular clause in the Constitution is a moot point, as it is referring to military installations and does not apply in this scenario.
That leaves other Legislation that has been enacted post-Constitution that has enabled agencies such as the BLM, the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Park Service to obtain huge amounts of property within Sovereign states (and to “own” approximately 80% of the entire state of Nevada). If you would like to debate over the merits of this additional legislation, feel free to do so, but to continue claiming that you are defending the Constitution in this particular instance is nothing but stuff and nonsense. What you are defending is the tangled web of bureaucracy that has enabled the actions the government is currently taking, which includes utilizing armed, militarized SWAT forces to run a family business off property that they have had preemptive rights to for over 100 years.
No, that is NOT what is said in the second portion. The EXACT LANGUAGE is: " ... exercise like Authority over all Places ..." All places is NOT limited to military installations.
They aren’t playing me for anything. Some of us have been paying attention for some time now.
Well I would like to see a Constitutional Amendment that limits Federal ownership of lands within a state to no more than 20% of the total land mass.
So you’re not one of us. Good to know.
I have been researching this since last night, and in every instance it is accepted that this language is referring specifically to military installations.
You are not defending the words of the Constitution. You are defending those who have twisted and manipulated the meaning of those words.
I’ll bet you were one of the cool kids in high school!
I’m an individual before I’m anything else.
Well here’s the thing the Enclave clause of the Constitution directly addresses the govt ownership of land says that the govt can own and use public land in the states for the purpose of forts, armories, magazines and other needful buildings. That’s it end of reasons.
The US govt does not have a specific right to commandeer millions of acres of land in the states. They certainly have no right to take and hold it for oil leases, tortoises, grazing fees or even just keeping it as a wilderness area. The states need to stand up and take back their property. We don’t need to amend the Constitution. We just need to force the US govt to abide by it.
It's trivially easy for a noble Horatius or two to divert attention from the grievously Despotic actions of the tyrannical Police State and over to the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
No, we have a situation where swarms of officers are harassing Cliven Bundy and other citizens, and eating out all of our substance paying million-dollar contracts to government mercenaries, ala the Hessians, and where the King's Men are setting up "First Amendment areas", and beating up and arresting people for "resisting arrest".
See my post #331 on the thread Nevada rancher's son freed, BLM collecting cattle for an in-depth analysis of the actions of these "Constitutional" Horatios-at-the-Bridge:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3142500/posts?page=331#331
These Horatios are all over the Cliven Bundy threads arguing for "Federal property".
You’re definitely not Madame Cleo. You want to be on your own? You’re on your own.
The first portion of this pertains to the establishment of the District of Columbia (not to exceed 10 Miles square). The second portion gives the U.S. Government the authority over all places established with consent of the legislating body within said state. So your repetition of this particular clause in the Constitution is a moot point, as it is referring to all places and does not apply in this scenario.
Glad I got your permission. That’s a big relief.
1) The US government did not “commandeer millions of acres of land in the states”. The US government already owned the land PRIOR to the creation of the State of Nevada. And when the State of Nevada decided to join the Union, they agreed to not make claim to that land. In fact, it is the State of Nevada Constitution that they make no claim to that land.
2) Article 1 Section 8 (Enclave clause) allows for “... other needful buildings”. The Hover Dam is most certainly a needful building. The land in question is part of the Lake Mead National Recreational Area which includes the Hover Dam, Lake Mead, several docks, repair facilities, a Coast Guard Auxiliary. Further, the enclave clause does not limit the Congress to only military installations as some others have asserted. The fact is that the clause says “all places”.
3) In this case, the government has been abiding by the constitution. The land belongs to the US government and congress has the right to administer that land as they see fits.
and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be,
Wonder why he left the bolded part out?
No matter. The Declaration applies, and Despotism will out.
LOL!
"It all depends on what the meaning of "is", is..."
"My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead they began using these money’s against the ranchers. They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with their own grazing fees.You are an uninformed fool and a mouthpiece for corruption. What the HELL are you doing on FreeRepublic spreading these falsehoods?When they offered to buy my dad out for a penence he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job. He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down. So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes."
~ Shiree Bundy Cox, 4/9/2014
How nice.
Ok, so what is your definition of “all places”?
Declarationists could give two rips how many Federal angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Whatever you say, Private Individual.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.