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.Not trying to cause a fight, just for your information.
Article IV, Section 3.
This means against foreign powers.
“Not trying to cause a fight, just for your information.”
Just because it’s in writing doesn’t make it right or honest.
However....read further in the article....
” On Jan. 29, 2002, Judge Loren Smith ruled in a similar case that Wayne Hage “submitted an exhaustive “CHAIN OF TITLE” which showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had title to the fee lands”.... which the federal government had claimed to be federal land.
Wayne Hage lost his cattle, but now the court has ruled that a “takings” has occurred, for which the government must pay “just compensation.”
The Hage decision has sent ranchers across the West rushing to courthouses, searching for and documenting the “chain of title,” to the land, grazing and water rights.
Kit Laney has completed his search, and recorded the “exhaustive chain of title” in each of the county courthouses where his land lies. He may not be able to stop the removal of his cattle, even with the help of the local sheriff. But Laney has served notice that he does not intend to roll over and let the government simply take what his family has worked for generations to build.
He says he will fight as long as he has breath. The Forest Service, and the other federal agencies now know they can no longer pick off a single rancher, and move on to the next. The Hage decision, and the determination of Kit Laney has inspired thousands of ranchers to resist the government’s squeezing and to push back.
Lsnd inside state boundaries which can be owned by DC is spelled out in the enclave clause of the Constitution.
Huge swaths of land cannot be held indefinitely by the Feds for non enumerated purposes. That issue is addressed clearly and concisely and is integral to the entire constitutional scheme of state sovereignty. The Feds are constutionally hamstrung in this regard if the states want to take control back of their lands.
Congress has that right...but do executive branch dept’s have the right to make regs that go way beyond their mandated missions without backing votes of Congress on such bills signed by the President?
Congress needs to do their jobs!
Study the context of that clause - it doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.
Read it a little closer. It refers to Territories and other land that the Fed can Constitutionally own. States are not Territories anymore and what the Feds can Constitutionally own within a State is spelled out in Art. 1 Section 8, Paragraph 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, dockyards, and other needful buildings;”
So, the one you cited is limited to covering territories, “ten miles square” for DC and land “for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.”
Not trying to cause a fight, just for your information.
No land lying within the boundaries of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago is “Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”
The treaty was a transfer of governmental authority, not a deed to any land.
Not trying to cause a fight, just for your information.
.
Elsewhere, there is quite a lot of evidence that the Feds have violated the original intent of the constitution by ignoring the state's rights to the land; and equal footing doctrines.
Legitimate Federal ownership and use-age of a state's lands is limited, and it certainly isn't supposed to be up to unelected bureaucrats to proclaim the laws, Congress is the only part of government that can pass laws.
Clear Case Guy did a great explanation of it - Before States had been established, there was a lot of territory that needed to be spoken for. It also needed to have an entity that could keep a State from annexing land from Ohio to the California coast.
He explains far better than my short paraphrase.