Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GregNH
That cannot be interpreted as the Federal government taking over land belonging to a state of the Untied States.

I don't think it means that the federal governent can take over land belonging to a state either. But it does not preclude the government owning land and other proptery within the borders of a state.

30 posted on 04/14/2014 12:09:28 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: DoodleDawg
the government owning land and other proptery within the borders of a state.

Well I have a problem with that. Did the government purchase that land? Was that purchase approved first by the state and then by the peoples representatives?

31 posted on 04/14/2014 12:14:19 PM PDT by GregNH (If you can't fight, please find a good place to hide!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

To: DoodleDawg

DoodleDawg - Article 1 section 8 is the relevant section here and yes, the government can own the land. Also relevant is how the government obtained the land as Nevada was not even a state at the time.

The land came to the use as a result of the end of the US Mexico war in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo where Mexico ceded the land to the US Government. That means the treaty clause under Article II section 2 comes into play as well.


35 posted on 04/14/2014 12:25:14 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson