Posted on 04/26/2016 1:33:30 PM PDT by Nextrush
“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.” - Article IV, Section 3.
The constitution allows for no conflicts. Your argument removes a specific limitation. Not saying our activist courts will not buy it, but it does negate a part.
So I went and double checked just to ensure I wasn’t mistaken and I found that we both were correct actually. As it turns out during and after the Nevada primary Trump wanted to practically shut the BLM down. Before however, (and I’m talking 2 or 3 weeks before) Trump stated “I don’t like the idea, because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do,”... moral of the story, (as in most of his opinions, stances, or moral beliefs) flip a coin on this one. Thanks.
You're right. Article IV is pretty clear. And if you read the Oregon Statehood Act you would see that Oregon gave up any and all claims to property the federal government retained when they were admitted as a state. It's all pretty cut-and-dried.
So you think an act is above the Constitution...
I don't think your interpretation of the Constitution is correct. Nor do the courts.
I don't understand how the US government can "return" something to a state that the state never owned.
Maybe, I have contempt for Courts that ignore the plain language of the Constitution and fail at their Constitutional duty. Obamacare is Constitutional? Really?
The language is plain in Article IV as it is in Article I.
Article one says what they are allowed to own it for. Artical 4 does not negate that, only says they are allowed to own what the Constitution says they can own. Art 4 is general not specific. Art 1 is specific. Thus Art 1 is one that limits Art 4. To say otherwise negates the plain language of Art 1 specifying what the Federal Government can own land within a state for for.
Article I makes it clear who exercises exclusive control over land and property obtained from the states by act of the state legislature. Article IV makes it clear who exercises exclusive control over land and property belonging to the federal government after a state is admitted. The two are not mutually exclusive.
To say otherwise negates the plain language of Art 1 specifying what the Federal Government can own land within a state for for.
Since you fixate on specifics then why are you ignoring the "purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be" modifier in Article I? The land in question was not purchased from the states. It belonged to the government before Oregon was admitted and it belonged to the federal government after Oregon became a state.
Because Art one states specifically the reasons for the federal government to own land. Its A specific clause which modifies any general clause. You argument boils down to negating the specific in favor of the general.
Like Arguing the enabling clause for General Welfare negates the specific limitations of the enumerated powers.
It specifies reasons why the federal government may obtain land from the states with the consent of the state legislatures. But there is nothing in the language that limits it to that. For example, there would be nothing preventing the federal government from obtaining land for a federal park or an interstate highway or a weather radar site. What that section does make clear is that any property obtained from the states in controlled by Congress alone.
You argument boils down to negating the specific in favor of the general.
Because there is nothing that limits it to specific terms.
Like Arguing the enabling clause for General Welfare negates the specific limitations of the enumerated powers.
Is it your opinion that the Air Force, NASA, the U.S. Weather Service, the Air Traffic Control system, the Food Safety inspectors of the Ag Department are all illegal organizations as well?
Now you are arguing silly. I made my point you look bad, its over.
You made your claim, expected me to swallow it unquestioningly, and are peeved that I didn't. Then you declare victory and say it's over. If Bundy uses that kind of logic in his defense case then he isn't going to see the outside of a prison cell for a long, long time.
We must move on to the next phase of or winning strategy in Indiana. </s>
And whose fault is that?
Bookmark
But, but, but can't a good conservative constitutional lawyer fix that?
Ours, collectively, for voting into office the collection of kleptocrats we’ve been enduring, for the last 180+ years.
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.