[xzins]

(from page 369) For example in a lengthy letter written on May 17, 1788, to another influential Virginia federalist, Madison discussed what he saw as the many benefits adoption of the Constitution would bring to the West.196 Madison made no mention of the federal government retaining ownership of land, except perhaps for military purposes. 197 His focus was exclusively on how “the establishment of the new Govt. will thus promote the sale of the public lands”198 and “(t)he protection and security which the new Government promise to purchasers of the federal lands,”199 and the many other benefits that would flow from privatization. The universal desire was the land should be disposed of in accordance with the standards of public trust”

[ForYourChildren]

This article discusses original intent, “As understood at the time of ratification, the Constitution did not permit the federal government to retain and manage land indefinitely for unenumerated purposes.” And, “Generally, though, the Constitution’s original meaning was that lands not dedicated to enumerated functions were to be privatized or otherwise devolved on terns that best served the general interest. “

Pretty simple.

But the progressive, liberal, communists, Marxist, evilones, want to reinterpret the constitution.

No problem. If a person or entity wants to change the authority as stated and originally intended in the Constitution, then pass and amendment - and good luck with that.

[dontreadthis]

what would the Framers think of collateralizing public debt with public lands to foreign countries? just curious

[P-Marlowe]

Good find.

Clearly the Constitution would never have been ratified if the States had any idea that the document they were signing onto gave the federal government the power to seize and/or own huge swaths of real property within a sovereign state.

That is why the specific instances in which the federal government may own land are specifically enumerated.

Under the current scheme the federal government has assumed non compensable seizure power through unconstitutional and onerous regulations and they have effectively claimed ownership rights not only to 80% of Nevada, but 100% of the land within all 50 states.

You can’t dig a hole in your back yard without getting some kind of federal permit. And the requirement for any kind of permit is a recognition of ownership rights.

Americans must assert these rights or we will lose them. In regard to private and state ownership rights, we have already lost them. It is time we took them back!

Cliven Bundy will someday be recognized as a true American Hero.

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of Cliven Bundy!

[Iron Munro]

liberals are correct in that the Constitution – not just arguably, but clearly – authorizes permanent property ownership outside the Enclave Clause.

Which constitution?

The one that means what it says?

Or the one that means what liberal judges say it means?

[BuckeyeTexan]

This is OUTSTANDING!

[crz]

“nonprofit environmental trusts.”

You see..these people wouldnt want that. Why? Because then, they would have to pay taxes to the local areas on it.

You all wonder why they do what they do? Because they plan to use that land for their own personal satisfaction and let us pay for it.

[Portcall24]

What’s really amazing is that in Oregon the federal government gave huge amounts of land to the Oregon & California railroad in exchange for building a railroad. When the railroad didn’t build the track, the land came back to the federal government. They said it could be used by the state for the schools. Ha. Eventually that stopped and that is now BLM land.

[MamaTexan]

First, I'd like to note the references given at the beginning are not from the original Library of Congress documents, but from books ranging from 1937 on.

The next questionable factor is on page 332, last sentence of the first paragraph.

Yet the Equal Footing Doctrine, while found in the Northwest ordinance is unmentioned in the Constitution and thus rarely is a factor in Constitutional adjudication.

That's really weird. Especially considering all the entries Congress left in the Library that say things like- Bills and Resolutions, House of Representatives, 38th Congress, 2nd Session, Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. An Act Supplementary to an act entitled ''An act to enable the people of Nevada to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem_BUtJ::

There are also entries for other States, all with the same wording
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query

.....on an equal footing with the original states.

[dsc]

“On the other hand, the conservatives are correct about another aspect of original meaning. As understood at the time of ratification, the Constitution did not permit the federal government to retain and manage land indefinitely for unenumerated purposes. Massive, permanent federal land ownership would have been seen as subversive of the constitutional scheme. The federal government’s authority to dispose was unlimited (except for trust standards), but its authority to acquire, retain, and manage was not: all the latter functions could be exercised only to serve enumerated powers.”

And that’s why Cliven Bundy is right, no matter how statists may natter about “unpaid fees.”

[COUNTrecount]

Bookmark

[HMS Surprise]

To all of those “copy and paste” scholars here who have argued this issue with me... Time to get on the right side and join the fight.

[Carry_Okie]

to other public entities or to nonprofit environmental trusts.

Just what the hell is wrong with for-profit environmental businesses in principle?