Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: magellan

This is a nuanced issue. Some lands should be federal. Should we give Mount Rushmore National Park over to South Dakota? When South Dakota goes broke, is everyone going to be happy when Starbucks pays to carve their logo on it?

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution gives the fedgov the right to own land.

I do think that 33% of the country is excessive, which is what they currently own, so I disagree with Trump’s blanket statement here.

Then again, if I never voted for someone I didn’t agree with on 100% of everything, I’d never vote.

Bottom line is, you can disagree with how much land the government owns, but them owning land isn’t some kind of egregious violation of the Constitution, it’s in there in black and white.

The Heritage Foundation has a mixed view of the Property Clause as well. I guess they’re paid liberal plants, too. :/


39 posted on 02/22/2016 10:42:04 AM PST by 20yearsofinternet (Border: Close it. Illegals: Deport. Muslims: Ban 'em. Economy: Liberate it. PC: Kill it. Trump 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: 20yearsofinternet
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution gives the fedgov the right to own land.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution states: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State." (Emphasis added.)

The FedGov is not the United States.

76 posted on 02/22/2016 10:58:07 AM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: 20yearsofinternet

Good for someone here to cite the Constitution on the issue. The late Justice Scalia, may he RIP, would be proud.


119 posted on 02/22/2016 11:21:20 AM PST by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: 20yearsofinternet
You have confirmed the inanity of many posters here. May I suggest if you are not familiar with the issue just to move on, please?

This has been a raging issue with the West for decades and has nothing to do with National Parks. The issue is how they are managed and the federal government has mismanaged the land for decades. There have been tons of articles about this issue for decades. This issue has been on the cover of Time and numerous other publications. And I live in the East.

Please research and get back to me. Thank you.

239 posted on 02/22/2016 2:17:14 PM PST by Dave W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: 20yearsofinternet
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution gives the fedgov the right to own land.

Nope. That's about Territories, not states.

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17:

To exercise 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 the 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

In other words the Fed gets 10 sq miles in DC and has to ask states permission to use land for Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

307 posted on 02/23/2016 12:31:20 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson