[x]

National Monuments are off-limits to ordinary citizens.

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.

[Phlyer]

Saying that the federal government can't do the things . . .

But that's exactly the point. The federal government can't do things that are not within the enumerated powers. What is enumerated is for the federal government to obtain lands from the States - if the States consent - and if the federal government compensates them.

Since the Constitution says nothing one way or the other about withdrawing that consent, then the 10th Amendment says that the power to withdraw consent is left to the States.

I agree that unilaterally firing on Fort Sumter was not 'legal' for South Carolina to do, but the original question for this thread was on whether the States have the right to get the federal government to withdraw from specific land in their State. I maintain that the States have that right.

It is true that the federal government is part of the contract that is established by the Constitution. That's the point. The Constitution provides for the federal government to take land only with the consent of the states, and I maintain that the 10th Amendment retains for the States the right to withdraw that consent.

This is like a rental agreement. If the owner decides to stop renting an apartment, then the renter needs to find another place to live. There can be constraints on that - like allowing them to stay there until the lease is up - but eventually the renter has to leave. There is no defined term of lease for lands the federal government has obtained from the States, but there is the requirement for consent. The "voters" as you say are within the State and would need to agree to withdraw consent.

I also didn't say anything about leaving the Union. This issue was about lands the federal government obtained from the States. My example of Fort Sumter was to show how not to do it, because it started with violence instead of with an "eviction notice."

Now, if the federal government refused to abide by the eviction notice, then they have broken the agreement of the Constitution. Seceding after that is a separate question, but it is not obvious to me that seceding would be unConstitutional if they had tried to use a legal path and the federal government had refused to comply.