Posted on 12/04/2014 12:37:49 PM PST by george76
What about land bought in the Louisiana Purchase, purchased from France in 1803 for US $15 million? Rhode Island? and I'm sure there are others.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States' Constitution declares that the Congress has the right:
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.
All of the uses you cite are covered and arguably allowed by this except National Parks.
Why should Utah be forced to pay the federal government more than your State? Why should people in the West be denied the same economic opportunities as in your State? Have you looked at a map of just how much land the federal government owns and mismanages in the West?
Do you agree that our federal government's powers are enumerated and not plenary?
The Constitution tells the federal government what it can do, not what it can't. Those powers not granted the federal government are reserved to the States and to the People. Where is the power enumerated in the Constitution that allows it to hold vast amounts of land and for what purposes it may use that land?
The founders were very specific as to what the land could be used for " for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings" I see no language that expands this to control mineral rights or stop logging, etc. Put up a needful building or a military base, no problem. To own most of the land in a state "just because" I don't think so. There is no "just because" authority given.
False see above.
This claim has yet to be refuted. How is a National Park a "needful building?" Remember enumerated powers.
I agree with you that the land should end up being sold to private individuals. Getting it out of the federal governments greedy hands and into the State’s is a good first step in that direction.
Article IV, Section 3 says that 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. It does not restrict ownership to what is mentioned in Article I. If it did then the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional, the Gadsden Purchase was unconstitutional, the Alaska Purchas was unconstitutional, and the acquisition of land from the Mexican war was unconstitutional.
All of the uses you cite are covered and arguably allowed by this except National Parks.
By your narrow definition of was the government can legally own none of them are covered since I do not see anything in Clause I, or any other clause in the Constitution, authorizing highways, air traffic control, lighthouses, or a branch of the military called an 'air force'.
Why should Utah be forced to pay the federal government more than your State.
If I had to guess it's because the Missouri enabling act the federal government did not retain ownership of all unappropriated public lands while in the Utah enabling act they did.
Highways are not under the exclusive control of the federal government. Air traffic control is an interesting anomaly. Lighthouses are certainly needful buildings. How is an air base excluded from "Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals"
Article IV, Section 3 says that 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. It does not restrict ownership to what is mentioned in Article I.
Why would they list what can be owned yet again? That would be redundant. Once again, the Constitution does not restrict what the federal government can do. The federal government can only do that which the Constitution enumerates.
By your narrow definition of was the government can legally own none of them are covered since I do not see anything in Clause I, or any other clause in the Constitution
Now we're getting somewhere. If you don't see it in the Constitution, what makes you think that it's Constitutional? Do you believe that everything the federal government has ever done is Constitutional? This is not a rhetorical question. Please answer it if you answer no other.
If I had to guess it's because the Missouri enabling act the federal government did not retain ownership of all unappropriated public lands while in the Utah enabling act they did.
At the time of Statehood lands could still be acquired by patent from the United States for settling and mineral extraction. That has changed and those lands have been closed. That at least leveled the playing field at the time. Why do you think that States should not have an equal footing? Again, not a rhetorical question
Kinda of an old thread, but I think we agree. You need to read the posts I was responding to, which claimed the Feds could own no land in a State.
Some will argue what is a “needful building”. I suspect on that topic we will mostly agree.
Cheers!
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.