What about 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.” That doesn’t limit it to the D.C. area.
I read that as the Federal government protecting the territory of the “United “STATES”” That cannot be interpreted as the Federal government taking over land belonging to a state of the Untied States.
This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the gratuitous possession of land that is not needed for the federal government to function. If the Feds don’t need it, why do they have it? And likewise, why would any constitutionalist argue for a larger federal power when it is not necessary?
.....good post but it doesn’t seem to notice that what millions of people are pissed off about is not the damn cattle OR FEDERAL LANDS or Article 3 but the exact phenomenon your post Seeks to address. Namely, the power of the federal government is derived not from the government but from the CONSENT of the people! The federal government has lost that consent therefore it’s power. So, now what?! Does your Article 3 even matter, at this point?!
George Will said it pretty good last Sunday when he said he believes the American people are about to dispose of this government, one way or another.
Read the Enclaves clause. Don’t see anything in there about the Feds owning a whole state.