OK, folks, I’d like to spark a discussion of the intent of the framers when they added this article in the constitution:
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 :
“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.”
Was their intent in this clause for the Federal Government to own vast amounts of land for conservation and management? If not, what was the purpose of this article?
A quick background as to why the BLM should not be harassing Cliven Bundy. This issue goes all the way back to the Confederation Papers, prior to the writing of our US Constitution.
Please remember that the Supreme Court has reversed more than 150 of earlier Supreme Court decisions on natural law. Is that what you would consider as someone being consistent and reliable in interpreting the Constitution?
The Resolution of 1780, "the federal trust respecting public lands obligated the united States to extinguish both their governmental jurisdiction and their title to land that achieved statehood."
In the Constitutional Convention of 1787, The Charter of Liberty contained these words, "The new Federal Government is an agent serving the states.", "The delegated powers are few and defined", "All powers not listed are retained by the states or the people", "The Resolution of 1780 formed the basis upon which Congress was required to dispose of territorial and public lands", "All laws shall be made by the Congress of the United States". (not agency bureaucrats!)
That should be sufficient for you to determine who all public lands belong to, hint - NOT the Federal Government!
"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, it's meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted. it means now". So said the Supreme Court in South Carolina v United States in 1905
Articles of Confederation, Article VI, clause 1 All engagements entered into before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. In Article IX "... no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States."
Formation of a "more perfect union" does not absolve that union of prior engagements, including those obligations establish by the resolution of 1780 and the Articles of Confederation.
Our government system is established by compact, not between the Government and the State Governments but between the States as Sovereign Communities. By James Madison 1821 (This is what make the County Sheriffs the highest law enforcement officer in that County and gives him/her the authority to tell the BLM, the FBI or any other Federal Agency to get out of the County or they will be arrested and jailed.)
What I have written here is but a short piece of the process that the Founder went through to establish our Constitution and system of government.
Please view these videos and see if they don't change your mind about whether or not Cliven Bundy is in the wrong by defying the BLM.
1of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference
2of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference
3of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference
Here's one that shows why the Sheriff of Clark County is duty bound to keep the BLM and all Federal agents from arresting Cliven Bundy.
But on the whole, once a geographical area becomes a state, then the land is owned and controlled by the state government and not by the federal government.
Where this will get interesting is in the Indian Reservations, and the National Parks. The Constitution doesn't provide for such things, and the Feds aren't likely to want to change the current arrangement. And then there's the broader issue of BLM turf. It's hard to weaken the Fed.
But I would say that if the states just moved in, put stakes in the ground and said, "This is ours", then it seems to me unlikely that the Federal Government would move in with guns blazing. It's not a civil war. It's not a rebellious rancher. It's not weird religious cult. It's just a state government saying, "This is land is my land."
Property belonging to the U-N-I-T-E-D S-T-A-T-E-S.
Now comes Art 1 Sec 8 which spells specifically out what they are allowed to do. ..AND they have to be uniform throughout these United States.
The the 17th enumerated power, or 17th clause if you will, where it list specifically the lands allowed the federal government to hold.
The answer is implicit in the question.
To answer your first question, no it was not. The framers did not invision the federal government owning land within the states, they saw states as sovereign entities. The only land the feds owned was “unclaimed” land, meaning unclaimed by a state - not within the borders of any state. This clause was put in to allow the federal government to prevent massive annexation by states as the western expansion continued.
I am confident the states can manage it better than the feds. I wish the folks working this conference all the best, and will support them politically in any way I can. But we shouldn't pretend that the federal government ended up owning this land out of greed. They just could not give much of it away because in many places, land without water rights is nothing.
“Was their intent in this clause for the Federal Government to own...”
I haven’t seen evidence that the Federal Government is the owner. The owner is, or owners are, the United States. Each of the sovereign states has an ownership interest as far as I can tell. The Federal Government is just an (out of control) agent for the States.
Article III, Section 3, second clause says: “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.”
I’m not sure how the second half plays, but the first half certainly shows that the United States (not the Federal Government) retains “Territory or other Property belonging to the United States”.
At the time that was mostly the Northwest Territory won from England as a result of the Revolutionary War, but later on other territory came to belong to the United States through the Louisiana Purchase, the purchase of territory from Mexico after the Mexican-American War, and the Alaska purchase.
When States were created from all that territory, Congress just didn’t dispose of all the land to the newly created States.
Now here are some things to think about:
How can a state or group of States take as their own territory within their state boundaries with out permission of the fifty United States if said territory is owned by the United States?
How do property rights play in this?
What Constitutional authority authorizes the purchases of the Louisiana Territory, the Southwest land from Mexico, and Alaska?
According to Article I (comes before yours) Section 8 Clause 17....
The Feds only have authority over
“Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”
So they DO NOT have the authority.
The Feds know this, and this is why they originally tried to say it was about the Tortoise.. Which they quickly backed away from once it was revealed the Feds killed over 1000 of the endangered Tortoise last August.
What they did in 1993 was highly illegal and unconstitutional. Possibly High Treason? Anyway, they basically said U.N. Agenda 21 Trumps the U.S. Constitution and State Law.
Which IMO consider it a violation of oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
No
-----
If not, what was the purpose of this article?
To pay off the public debt. At least, that's what the legal treatise written not long before the 'official' start of the Mexican/American War said.
§ 1320. As if it were not possible to confer a single power upon the national government, which ought not to be a source of jealousy, the present has not been without objection. It has been suggested, that the sale and disposal of the Western territory may become a source of such immense revenue to the national government, as to make it independent of, and formidable to, the people. To amass immense riches (it has been said) to defray the expenses of ambition, when occasion may prompt, without seeming to oppress the people, has uniformly been the policy of tyrants. Should such a policy creep into our government, and the sales of the public lands, instead of being appropriated to the discharge of the public debt, be converted to a treasure in a bank, those, who, at any time, can command it, may be tempted to apply it to the most nefarious purposes.
Joseph Story Commentaries on the Constitution
And HE was quoting the first legal treatise written after Constitutional Ratification
To amass immense riches to defray the expences of ambition when occasion may prompt, without seeming to oppress the people, has uniformly been the policy of tyrants. Should such a policy creep into our government, and the sales of land, instead of being appropriated to the discharge of former debts, be converted to a treasure in a bank, those who can at any time command it, may be tempted to apply it to the most nefarious purposes.
St. George Tucker View of the Constitution of the United States
---------
I'd like to note I'd posted Story's quote a few days ago on another thread and attributed it to Tucker. Apologies to anyone who might have been confused by the error.