[xzins]

(12) Non-enclave federal property within states is subject to state law. Contrary to current Supreme Court doctrine, when the federal government owns non-enclave land, the federal government usually should be treated like any other landowner, so long as the state respects the discharge of legitimate federal functions.

I suppose this means that the state and local can be taxing the Fed just like they tax other property holders.

[Scoutmaster]

Thank you very much for pinging me; you've been very kind and helpful. Here is a full-size .pdf of Professor Natelson's law review article, Federal Land Retention and the Constitution's Property Clause: The Original Understanding. I have bookmarked the article and will try to read it in full today.

I wish I could discuss the ownership of land issues with my ConLaw professor, the late Charles Alan Wright, whose photographic memory extended beyond footnotes in amicus briefs to the writings of the founders. Had I known then what I know now, I would have clutched at every word he said and asked more questions.

Skimming the conclusion to Prof. Natelson's article, he concludes:

• The Constitution clearly authorizes federal ownership of real property outside the Enclave Clause.
• The lands are subject to a public trust and cannot be ceded to states without compensation.
• The Constitution did not permit the federal government to retain and manage land indefinitely for unenumerated purposes.
• All federal land not 'necessary and proper' to execute an enumerated power was to be disposed of impartially and for the public good.

Natelson's constant reference to "current Supreme Court doctrine" is what I've clumsily been referring to as the difference between the Constitutional Law of the Land and the post-Marbury v. Madison 'law of the land.'

[B4Ranch]

ping