National Parks-An Unconstitutional Federal Land Grab

Sons of Constitutional Liberty ^ | 12/30/16 | SCL

[Jim W N]

Reference:

Obama Celebrates His Newest Monuments by Tweeting out Pictures of the Wrong National Park http://dailysignal.com/2016/12/29/obama-celebrates-his-newest-monuments-by-tweeting-out-pictures-of-the-wrong-national-park/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=tds-fb

SCL Comment:

National parks or monuments are an unconstitutional federal land-grab from the states, regardless of how benign or benevolent such act may seem at the time. The only valid federal ownership of state land is described in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution which says:

“[Congress shall have Power…] 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;–”

National parks were not purchased upon consent by state legislatures for the use of “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”, so national parks are unconstitutional federal acts. The states can make state parks according to the consent of the people and legislature of that state.

Because national parks constitute unconstitutional federal commandeering of state land, the relevant state should exercise its constitutional sovereignty and reject and nullify such an act. Unconstitutional federal acts are by definition acts of tyranny – these are just acts of federal tyranny that start with a happy face. Tyranny almost always starts with a happy face but always ends in oppression and misery. States have the constitutional right and the moral duty to stand against such acts.

[Twotone]

I gave up on one group (American Lands Council? Can’t remember) because even though they want federal lands returned to the states, they were willing to leave the Nat’l Parks & other monuments. No, ALL lands must be returned. It’s the only way to control the Feral Gov’t.

[sphinx]

Most of the national parks were created from federal lands never ceded to the states. There are some exceptions where land was purchased, but for the most part, national park land has always been federal land.

[kindred]

[National parks were not purchased upon consent by state legislatures for the use of “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”, so national parks are unconstitutional federal acts.]

Mark Levin and many others have made these points before. The lands belong to the states, to the citizens of the states specifically as the founding fathers saw fit, and I wonder now days why so many state politicians allow the state citizens to be over run by the very evil DC politicians who have only grow government, it as if they are selling off parts of states to the feds and thereby disenfranchising American States. I wonder why state politicians would do such a thing, much as billy Clinton sold the panama canal to China and 20% Americas radium to Russia and Obama hitlery sold mineral rights like oil and gas to American states and ... . Is there a greater evil in American statehouses as the left and the rino right have banded together and put a 4 sale sign on America.

[bigbob]

Nuts

[crz]

Absolutely UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

All lands should be given over to the local COUNTIES. If the counties do not want them then to the states.

[crz]

BTW..for those uneducated on the fact...those lands, outside of natl monuments, were never “given” over to the Federal Government.

They are managed under a trust. So simply take that trust away from the feds and give it to the local counties/states since the feds have violated that trust.

[Bull Snipe]

Refresh my memory, how did Bill Clinton sell the Panama Canal to the Chinese.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Why did Jimmy Carter give the Panama Canal to General Torrez of Panama? The US government bought the land and titles back in the Teddy Roosevelt administration.

[sphinx]

No. With two major exceptions (Texas and Hawaii), all the land west of the crest of the Appalachians entered the United States as part of the federal estate. This pattern was established very early when the original 13 states ceded their various, and conflicting, western land claims to the federal government. This was followed by the Louisiana Purchase, the acquisition of Florida from Spain, the conquest of the southwest in the Mexican War, the settlement with the British regarding the Pacific Northwest, and the purchase of Alaska. ALL of this was federal land.

Texas and Hawaii were independent republics prior to joining the Union, so their story is different.

Into the 1880's, the federal government actively sold or granted most of its lands in the eastern half of the country to the states and to individuals for purposes of yeoman farming. What happened in the 1880's, however, is that settlement was spreading into the desert and mountain west, where land was not suitable for agriculture. Congress found that the little guys had been marginalized and that it was primarily big ranchers and timber and mining barons who were purchasing huge tracts of land for commercial use. This was not in the spirit of pioneering homesteaders, and Congress reconsidered. It shifted to a leasing rather than a purchase model. That worked reasonably well for a long time, as BLM and the Forest Service worked in tandem with western residents for economic development. What has changed in recent decades, however, is that environmentalists have ruptured the historic partnership, and now seek to curtail economic use of federal lands with an eye towards turning the west into a vast theme park for vacationing easterners. Hence the current western land wars.

One can certainly argue that it would have been better had Congress conveyed most federal lands to state ownership at the point of statehood. But that's water under the bridge. That is not what Congress did.

My preference would be to sell off a substantial portion of federal western lands (protecting the National Parks and Monuments, and with appropriate modern environmental safeguards) and use the proceeds for expansion of National Parks in the east, which is relatively overcrowded and underserved in terms of major parks. This should apply to the BRAC process as well. It irritates me that the military closes a base, and we give the land to local civil jurisdiction so that local politicians can play kissy-face politics with local developers. Meanwhile, we scramble for pennies to save (for example) nationally important historic sites that ought to be parks. We should connect the dots. There is a lot of federal property than can and should be sold, with the proceeds used for appropriate park maintenance, improvement, and expansion. YMMV.

[Jim W N]

That is a misconception perpetrated by the feds and the Left. The fact is when a state joins the union, constitutionally ALL of the state’s land belongs to the state and NONE belongs to the feds aside from the process outlined in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution.

Let’s get back to the Constitution guys because the Constitution is the only legal bulwark of freedom against the tyranny of the feds.

[veracious]

Wow, there are plenty of folks herein who regularly chime in with their Federal is above states obfuscations. Territories of the USA and Washington DC are Federal concerns. When a territory decides to become a state it becomes sovereign over it’s land, not DC. That is a _primary_ meaning of a state, the land, all of it’s land, that it is sovereign over.

I know the contrary folks, usually _educated_ by Babylon thought in the modern schools, can’t figure this basic and obvious thing out.

[Jim W N]

Well, it’s state land and is up to the people of the state to disposition the land as they see fit through their representatives, initiatives, or propositions.

[sphinx]

It has never worked in the way you describe going back to the organization of the Northwest Territory.

[freedomjusticeruleoflaw]

So patently blatantly true that any conservative who claims otherwise is just as bad as any “living constitution” liberal putz.

[Jim W N]

The Northwest Territory was legitimately federal land as long as it was a territory, But once a territory becomes a state of the union, the Constitution is triggered and the only legitimate federal ownership of any of that state land is by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution. I see no other constitutional allowance of the feds occupying state land.

[Jim W N]

Agreed.

Stalin (and today’s Left) called them “useful idiots”.

[SJackson]

Outdoors/Rural/wildlife/hunting/hiking/backpacking/National Parks/animals list please FR mail me to be on or off . And ping me is you see articles of interest.

[wideminded]

The only valid federal ownership of state land is described in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution which says:

“[Congress shall have Power…] 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;–”

The National Park Service bases its power on Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 (Property Clause) which says:

"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."

And Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 (Necessary and Proper Clause) which says:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Here is a discussion of the Property Clause and related Supreme Court cases from the Heritage Foundation. - link

[OIFVeteran]

Thank you for the links and sanity you provided. Threads like these bring to mind Reagans quote; “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that their ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t true.”

The sad thing is it’s not just on the liberal side. Years ago I went to a local meeting of a “freedom group” where they tried to argue the constitution only gave congress the power to write legislation for the Washington D.C. area and any other laws were null and void. I quickly discovered it was useless trying to debate them on that point and left.