Article I Section 8: 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;
Article IV, Section 3: "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."
See post #55.
Yes, and all of these were presumed to be necessary. Is cattle land in Nevada necessary? Read the Federalist were it explicitly discusses the need to keep the geographic size of the federal government to a minimum.
No one is arguing jurisdiction where it is appropriate. And copying and pasting doesn’t prove scholarship. The Feds have no NEED for cattle land, so they should have relinquished it long ago.
funny aint it?
You list the reasons that the Constitution gives the fed gov the right to own particular land, forts, etc... of which this particular piece of land is not any one of those things. Then, in Art 4, Sec 3, paste in where the Constitution gives the fed gov authority to manage those particular purposed lands, which this area under contest is not, and claim that gives the fed gov legal right to that land, which it doesn’t.