Posted on 08/20/2022 5:09:22 PM PDT by Jonty30
As I understand the American Constitution, the Federal Government has 18 enumerated powers, where it can exercise supremacy of its laws over the states. However, in everything else, the state is supreme within its territory including the ability of the Federal government to function in a state.
This is the absolute arrangement. WHat happens to property the feds are using in a state, like military bases or the federal courthouse or Fort Knox if a state demands the feds get out?
How does that work?
They ‘interpret’ clauses like ‘general welfare, ‘commerce’ and others to create power where it shouldn’t exist, nor meant to. The USSC has been letting them get away with it. Until Roe v Wade. Hopefully more like that to come. THIS! is why they hate Trump so vehemently. IMO 90% of the federal agencies were created under these actions.
it’s simple, in today’s USA, the fed makes an offer to a state, an offer that it can’t refuse and then the fed does what it wants in that state. You know, like in any other communist country ruled by tyranny.
I get the Commerce Claus a lot from them. To them, the Commerce Clause is key to subjugation of the states.
This is excerpted from the Nevada state constitution (sec 2). I think other states have supremacy clauses recognizing the Fed's superior power, as long as the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not violated.
To get around this, the Feds created taxes upon citizens/ businesses, and then offered it back IF the state submits to Federal rules. This is how the unemployment benefit system was created, and many others. How the Feds claimed all the Federal lands is beyond me.
“supreme Law of the Land;”
Regardless of any law passed or treaty, agreement, or international consideration, our Constitution is the governing document.
Everything not listed for The Feds, is for the states, or the people.
Interesting enough, it used to be “these United States”, individual and sovereign. Only giving over a piece of power to the group.
A civil war ensues. The Constitution also provides for federal supremacy, so trying to oust the federal government from a state is tantamount to secession, meaning a declaration that one is no longer a state under the Constitution.
Thanks for posting.
Just like any business, the federal government must either buy or rent a property which can also include local hiring, increasing local commerce.
In other words, since feds typically contribute to a local economy imo, why would a state want to get rid of feds in your opinion?
In fact, base closings have been known to hurt local economy.
Insights welcome.
It’s not a question of why.
Rights are unapproachable. If it is my right, I can do it just because I wanna.
This question is more of an academic question, because it is unlikely to actually happen unless relations between the federal government and states get really bad.
If Kentucky threw out the Federal government, what is the process to reclaiming any federal property for the state?
Article I Section 8 Clause 17:
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;The assumption is that the federal government purchased the land from the states for the buildings in your example. As such, those became the property of the federal government and the states cannot take them back or exercise control over them.
-PJ
The question is becoming inevitable, with the risk of California and the West Coast declaring secession. That was apparently one of the options being explored, if Trump had won in 2020.
Depending on if an election year, if the feds properly bought the land under either Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, or the 5th Amendment, then the feds could sell its properties in my non-expert opinion.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession 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 [emphasis added], for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And"
"5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation [emphasis added]."
As a property owner who spent considerable time until last year in Oregon and continues to own property in California, I am not aware of an inevitable question as to secession—whether or not Trump is president. There is some talk of northern CA, southern OR and Idaho forming another state. But this is nowhere near happening.
Next time you see a cop in public take a picture of him/her and find out if your government gives a crap about the Constitution.
PS, make sure you have a friend who can make bail for you.
After watching the way Russia has used secessionist movement’s in countries like Ukraine and Moldava, I’ve grown suspicious of all secessionist movements. I suspect they likely have foreign funding and influences.
Damn good point...
I still believe that secession is unconstitutional, although I know of others who do not.
I'll restate my points again here:
The Declaration of Independence was an irrevocable mutual "pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" to form a new nation. It took the Articles of Confederation, and throwing off the Articles of Confederation, before we arrived at the Constitution, our governing document.
Throwing off the Articles of Confederation was not leaving the nation, it was only changing the form of government. Our Constitution has Article V as the mechanism to change the government; throwing off the Constitution is not seceding from the country.
The only way to throw off a tyrannical government is to amend the Constitution to rein it in, eliminate the parts we don't like, and add new ones to it with the consent of the states. Individual states choosing to become "sanctuary states" vis-à-vis the Constitution is not permissible.
Secession violates the mutual pledge between the states at its founding, and is not an option.
Madison's argument here is that when the states ratified the Constitution, that conferred United States citizenship on the citizens of the several states with all the rights and powers laid out in the Constitution.It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as imbodied into the several states, who were parties to it and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. They might, by the same authority & by the same process have converted the Confederacy into a mere league or treaty; or continued it with enlarged or abridged powers; or have imbodied the people of their respective States into one people, nation or sovereignty; or as they did by a mixed form make them one people, nation, or sovereignty, for certain purposes, and not so for others.Once given, a governor or legislature does not have the right to strip its state citizens of their citizenship in the United States.The only distinctive effect, between the two modes of forming a Constitution by the authority of the people, is that if formed by them as imbodied into separate communities, as in the case of the Constitution of the U.S. a dissolution of the Constitutional Compact would replace them in the condition of separate communities, that being the Condition in which they entered into the compact; whereas if formed by the people as one community, acting as such by a numerical majority, a dissolution of the compact would reduce them to a state of nature, as so many individual persons. But whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved, it must be executed according to the forms and provisions specified in the compact.
Madison argues that the ratification of the Constitution was a compact between the states, and as such, each state has equal say in all matters. When one state declares itself to secede unilaterally, it says that its own decision is elevated above all the rest.The case of a claim in a State to secede from its union with the others, is a question among the States themselves as parties to a compact...Madison then suggests that if a state declares its own desire supreme over the others, then that right extends to all the other states too. That means that if a state has a right to secede from the others, then the others have the right to secede from it. In other words, a body of states has the right to oust a state against its wishes, which is a dangerous precedent.It surely does not follow, from the fact of the States, or rather the people embodied in them, having as parties to the Constitutional compact no tribunal above them, that, in controverted meanings of the compact, a minority of the parties can rightfully decide against the majority; still less that a single party can decide against the rest; and as little that it can at will withdraw itself altogether from its compact with the rest.
The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but among the parties creating the Government. Each of these being equal, neither can have more right to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargain. An inference from the doctrine that a single State has a right to secede at will from the rest, is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them.
Wrong. Enclave clause at Article I, Section 8 Clause 17.
It is my understanding that a state could leave, as a final measure to protect itself against a tyrannical Federal government, because there are sometimes no other options and the Union was not meant to be a backdoor way to enslaving smaller states in favour of the large states.
However, although a state could option for secession along with whatever conditions they agree to upon leaving, the feds don’t have to let back in so freely. The feds can impose all the conditions it wants to admitting a state, but it can’t keep a state that wants out.
Before 1869, that was my understanding of the arrangement to joining the Union.
Nice copy and paste. So in your estimate does that mean FedGov can do what ever the hell they damn well please?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.