Posted on 04/14/2014 1:54:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Now here’s a question: What Constitutional authority authorizes the purchases of the Louisiana Territory, the Southwest land from Mexico, and Alaska?All of that was done via treaty. The Constitution authorizes the federal government to make treaties with other countries, with no comment on the content of those treaties, except that the treaty may not violate the Constitution. As long as the treaty is voted in by the Senate, such purchases and negotiations for land between us and foreign countries would be legitimate.
Very good. That's the one thin thread it on which it can be hung.
The Constitution authorizes the federal government to make treaties...
Not quite.
That's not the federal government, only part of it. It's not even all of Congress since the House of Representatives is excluded.
And
"Congress" includes both Houses of course. So the President with the connivance consent of the Senate could make a treaty, but if the treaty incurred a debt the House of Representatives would also have to agree...and they might not which would mean the treaty would fall apart. In other words, even though the Constitution doesn't say so, the President would need the consent of both Houses to make a treaty, a successful one anyway.
Unless of course the Founders intended to empower the President to make, with Senate consent, a treaty incurring a debt which the House of Representatives have no choice but to agree must be paid.
All this could be explained differently, but so far I see "done via treaty" as a thin thread to hang by.
One of the simple permanent solutions to the problem is a potential law that limits federal property within any state to ten percent or less (perhaps two percent even). That forces the federal gov’t to dispose of unnecessary property that they have no real use for.
As for the disposal process....I’d kindly suggest that each unit is broken up into 400-500 acres lots, and sold to individuals (not corporations or trusts), and that the individual must agree to reside on the property for five years before he can claim full ownership. This keeps the green crowd from playing any games.
When the northwest territory was surveyed, the Feds were able to sell off land and retire most of the debt built up by the revolutionary ear and immediately thereafter.
Funds should go toward paying down debt and tie a balanced budget amendment to the effort.
“Exactly what moral authority does Bundy have? He has been using public lands without compensation for his personal benefit. If he had been escrowing the grazing fees he could have at least claimed to be acting in good faith. Of course he didn’t do that because the courts have repeatedly told him that he is wrong.
Further, his arguments that since he is a member of the public he can do what he wants on public land is the same argument used by OWS when they occupied public parks. Medea Benjamin considers Congressional hearing rooms First Amendment zones, too.”
Lou, Lou, Lou. HOW, on God’s green earth can you compare what a bunch of squatting, defecating, fecal-throwing, garbage throwing, moral-lacking, sheeple did compared to a bunch of grass-eating range cows? Huh, Lou? How? lol.
Bundy and OWS both believe that they can do what they wish on public lands.
“Bundy and OWS both believe that they can do what they wish on public lands.”
Like I said, Lou...I disagree. It was a ruse that got those people there, and a distraction. Like so many other things.
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.