To: xzins; Jim Robinson; BuckeyeTexan; P-Marlowe
Thank you very much for pinging me; you've been very kind and helpful. Here is a full-size .pdf of Professor Natelson's law review article,
Federal Land Retention and the Constitution's Property Clause: The Original Understanding. I have bookmarked the article and will try to read it in full today.
I wish I could discuss the ownership of land issues with my ConLaw professor, the late Charles Alan Wright, whose photographic memory extended beyond footnotes in amicus briefs to the writings of the founders. Had I known then what I know now, I would have clutched at every word he said and asked more questions.
Skimming the conclusion to Prof. Natelson's article, he concludes:
- The Constitution clearly authorizes federal ownership of real property outside the Enclave Clause.
- The lands are subject to a public trust and cannot be ceded to states without compensation.
- The Constitution did not permit the federal government to retain and manage land indefinitely for unenumerated purposes.
- All federal land not 'necessary and proper' to execute an enumerated power was to be disposed of impartially and for the public good.
Natelson's constant reference to "current Supreme Court doctrine" is what I've clumsily been referring to as the difference between the Constitutional Law of the Land and the post-Marbury v. Madison 'law of the land.'
3 posted on
04/29/2014 6:43:13 AM PDT by
Scoutmaster
(I'd rather be at Philmont)
To: Scoutmaster
Prof. Natelson's article = Prof. Natelson's law review article.
4 posted on
04/29/2014 6:44:08 AM PDT by
Scoutmaster
(I'd rather be at Philmont)
To: Scoutmaster
I’ve underlined in the article those portions I thought applied to Bundy’s case, in particular.
Assuming that open range, as Natelson says, should have been disposed of long ago, then that actually adds legitimacy to Bundy’s looking to the state of Nevada rather than to the federal government.
The other alternative that I see is that the Fed’s decision to accept grazing open range in the past was a provable “dispositioning” of the land that has the multiple effects of: (1) adverse utilization, and (2) control by Nevada.
5 posted on
04/29/2014 6:59:55 AM PDT by
xzins
( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
To: Scoutmaster
Thanks for the link. I’ll try to read it later today.
9 posted on
04/29/2014 7:43:44 AM PDT by
Mr Rogers
(I sooooo miss America!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson