There is NO reason whatsoever for the federal government to own any more land than is absolutely necessary to construct and maintain those types facilities, and only those types of facilities, enumerated in the constitution. Your argument is really nothing more than acquiescence to an unnecessary expansion of power by the federal government - and I oppose ALL unnecessary expansions of the federal government.Makes sense. I'll look to see that case made before the court and for the ownership of land given by treaty to the federal government be made unConstitutional. Let us know when that happens.
Since you did not factually address or refute anything in my statement, I’m not sure what your response is supposed to mean. Do you think the federal government should have unlimited power to own real estate?