[imabadboy99]

I’m sure an Obama judge would quickly rule that the Constitution does not say what it actually says. So, in effect, it does not matter what the Constitution says.

[freefdny]

See Fort Sumter.

[clashfan]

Gee I don’t know, but it didn’t work out well for South Carolina when they tried to kick the feds out of Ft. Sumter.

[TexasGurl24]

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

[Robert DeLong]

Not addressed in Constitution. Last time it resulted in a Civil War.

[Howie66]

In case you hadn’t noticed, our Constitution was symbolically shredded by Nancy Pelosi during the 2020 State of The Union Address by President Trump.

The real shredding took place in the early morning hours of 4 November, 2020.

This point was driven home by Democrat Representative David Cicilline explains his party’s position on Second Amendment rights: “Spare me the bullshit about constitutional rights.”

Any questions?

[verum ago]

Federal Enclave

It's complicated, but per a series of Supreme Court rulings an [over]simplified summary is that such Federal installations are subject to State law and authority unless that conflicts with Federal law/authority, in which case the the Feds have supremacy. Simply put, when push comes to shove such an installation is along the lines of Washington, D.C.- Federal jurisdiction trumps until they cede it.

A state can't just evict an Air Force base- but official Fed policy is that they can, for instance, prosecute a murder on that base under state criminal law.

[Jim Noble]

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?

[bigbob]

It’s not a constitutional issue, the states don’t have any more right to kick the feudal government out than they do a private property owner.

[M Kehoe]

Hi.

I appreciate your question.

I might have been able to answer it, but we are no longer a Constitutional Republic.

My apologies to Mr. Franklin.

5.56mm

[Nifster]

It is still federally owned property.

[one guy in new jersey]

“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.”

Gentlemanly behavior and appropriate deference is the time-honored negotiated settlement whenever situations like this arise.

DeSantis may push the issue a bit fir the next two years but in general governors are loathe to prick the federal leviathan.

[Safrguns]

It depends upon whether or not the executive branch would heed the ruling of the Judicial branch (supreme court)

I think we already know the answer to that question.

This is why Biden is hell bent on war... it takes care of all those pesky constitutional issues in one simple declaration of martial law.

[TBP]

“The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” – James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794

[Phlyer]

. . .Federal Government has 18 enumerated powers, where it can exercise supremacy of its laws over the states.

Yes, and one of those enumerated powers is "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, . . ."

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?

Listed within that enumerated power is that the State needs to consent (at some point, perhaps well in the past), and that the land used must be purchased from the States. There is a question on whether that consent can be withdrawn - and on the basis of that ambiguity the statist judges would surely rule that any attempt to regain that land would be illegal unless the Federal government consented to release it.

And since it was purchased, I think it is reasonable that the Federal government would expect compensation. But I think there is a very credible Constitutional process where South Carolina could have informed the Federal government that they no longer consented to Federal troops in Fort Sumter and were returning the purchase price. After that, it would have been the Federal troops who were in violation of the Constitution, not the Confederate forces.

A similar process would apply to any other Federal land. Of course, in many cases the Federal government just seizes the land (claiming it is for some noble purpose like a National Monument).

[plain talk]

Academic question as the probability of that occurring is almost nil.

[liberalh8ter]

This is a really good article about Fedzilla’s land…..

What Does the Constitution Say About Federal Land Ownership

[Gaffer]

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.

[drypowder]

how does that work?

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.

[PerConPat]

The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existance [existence], and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

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.