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?
Any judge would agree with that. You can't have a state suddenly deciding to take over all courthouses, post offices, and military bases with its borders. As it is, though, some closed military bases have been turned over to states and cities.
He wrote about the Declaration of Independence being a compact between the states (and as Jefferson put it, a "mutual pledge"). As I've written during the Article V Convention of States threads, there is a difference between "throwing off" a tyrannical government and seceding from the union altogether. One can change the government without leaving the nation. The former was the intent, not the latter.
The "backdoor enslaving of smaller states" is more a function of a runaway federal government that has been allowed to govern beyond its enumerated powers. I blame the 17th amendment for this, which is why the solution is for the states to call an Article V convention to propose structural changes to take back what Congress will not willingly give back.
The problems that all states face (and not just the small states), is that the federal government no longer respects the states as the controlling entities they once were; the party blocs are now the controlling force in the United States and all the states are their subjects. It was supposed to be the other way around.
The solution is not to take their marbles and leave. No state can survive as its own independent nation. If one state tries this, I believe it will balkanize the entire continent and we will become like Europe.
-PJ
At this point it isn’t a right, it is a duty.
Until there is a war.
You say that like it would be a bad thing.
Your blind rage at an excerpt of the Constitution is quite puzzling? Why do those words from Article VI make you so angry? You are supposed to support the Constitution, which includes those words.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the federal government doing, in your words, “whatever it pleases.”
I’m sorry you don’t like the Constitution.
Oh, please. Blind rage? Angry?
I support the constitution. I asked you a question you failed to address. The current government respects NO limits on their power. I wondered if you do. Perhaps I got your answer.
Federal buildings like courthouses and offices are built on land they purchased.
Lands for military bases were most likely acquired by eminent domain.
I’m not sure how they got the rest of it.
Yes. Blind rage.
No one ever suggested that the Constitution authorizes the federal
Government to do “whatever it wants.”
That was your strawman.
It DOES authorize raising and supporting Armies, maintaining a Navy and the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings, which is what this thread was all about.
All treaties need a sever review.
Bingo!
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
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.
New States are legitimized by an Enabling Act. For States formed from Territory owned by "The United States", this act may or may not transfer ownership to the new State of all the land within the boundaries of the new State. Ownership of some land may be retained by "The United States".
and the Acceptance of Congress
That will never happen, because they are not compelled to accept it. 🙂
Article I Legislative Branch
Section 8 Enumerated Powers
Clause 17 Enclave Clause
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 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;–And
ArtI.S8.C17.1 The Capitol
ArtI.S8.C17.1.1 Seat of Government Clause
Historical Background
ArtI.S8.C17.1.2 Seat of Government Doctrine
and Practice
ArtI.S8.C17.2 Places Puerchased ArtI.S8.C17.2.1 Places Purchased Clause
Overview
ArtI.S8.C17.2.2 Federal Jurisdiction
ArtI.S8.C17.2.3 Reservation of Jurisdiction by States
How so? The Statue of Liberty is a National Monument and hundreds of thousands of people go there every year.
Nothing in my post said that the states could 'suddenly decide to take over . . ." anything. They formally deliver notice (requiring an act of the State legislature - never a 'sudden' thing) that they no longer consent to the occupation, and then pay compensation (requiring money from the State - never a sudden thing).
It's nice to offer to pay money, but unless the federal government agrees, that is indeed "taking over." Saying that the federal government can't do the things you have been contracted to do by the Congress, the voters, and the Constitution is essentially leaving the union unconstitutionally.
The Constitution is our contract with ourselves and I always look to see what it says, particularly with the view of finding a non-violent way to resolve issues.
The federal government is part of that contract and state governments are bound by the contract.
My understanding is that the Federal government is allowed to have monuments which was originally meant to be military installations and such but was then usurped into being millions of acres of Federal preserves etc. So I think military installations in states are constitutional. DHS and FBI offices I’d say not so much.
David Nicola Cicilline:
A member of the Democratic Party, he was the 36th mayor of Providence from 2003 to 2011, the first openly gay mayor of a U.S. state capital.. Another faggot.
Commie is good enough for my disgust.
I don’t see how Federal troops, FBI/CIA/BATF and more can come into your home and serve a Federal warrant. As far as I read the Constitution, the Federal government is not legally able to do these things. They can inform local officials, and local officials MUST comply in only certain areas. Like Immigration, crimes committed on Federal Lands et al. The policing force though should be State, Sheriff or City cops.
The US government is an entity unto itself, for it to reach into a State is akin to Canadian forces coming to my house IMHO.
It DOES authorize raising and supporting Armies, maintaining a Navy and the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings, which is what this thread was all about.
It does do that. How about the FBI, DOEnergy, DOEducation, BLM and other three letter agencies?
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.