Posted on 12/13/2014 10:08:38 AM PST by PapaNew
Editor’s note: This column was originally published Dec.. 5. On Dec. 12, the Senate passed the National Defense Authorization Act.
Page 1,163 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) states: “The land conveyed under this subsection shall be used only as a motocross, bicycle, off-highway vehicle, or stock car racing area, or for any other public purpose consistent with uses allowed under the Act of June 14, 1926 (commonly known as the ‘Recreation and Public Purposes Act’)…”
You may ask yourself: What in the world does this have to do with defending America against the numerous threats we face? The answer is: nothing. The NDAA, however, is the last appropriations train leaving Washington before the new Congress, and it is being slathered with all sorts of things that have nothing to do with the single most important job of the federal government—defending America from all enemies, foreign and domestic. This is a job all public officials pledge to carry out, and for Congress, it should begin with taking their responsibility to exercise the power of the purse seriously. Quite simply, that means using the NDAA to fund defense.
[Senator Tom Coburn is one leader who takes that responsibility seriously and has been finishing his service in the Senate strong, opposing the business-as-usual practice of stuffing goodies into the NDAA. Coburn is championing a defense authorization bill that is what it purports to be—a defense bill. Who will stand with him is the question.]
The aptly enumerated Title XXX of the NDAA (Natural Resources and General Related Provisions) contains over 450 pages of things—almost a third of the NDAA—that have nothing to do with ensuring our Navy, Marines, Army and Air Force are the best trained, equipped and cared for military in the world.
Advocates of the provisions that have nothing to do with this most crucial mission will tell you, “That’s the way we have always done it.” This, however, is exactly the problem, and one of the reasons voters replaced many in Congress last month. This is how we just hit $18 trillion in debt and counting. Among the many things inside this section that continue the endless expansion of the federal bureaucracy and federal footprint—more land locked up in restrictive wilderness, more parks, more Wild and Scenic Rivers, more National Heritage Areas and groundwork for a National Women’s History Museum—there may be things worthy of support. That, however, is beside the point. Title XXX does not belong in this legislation. If there are parts of it that merit Americans’ hard earned tax dollars, we should fund them through the right appropriation legislation, rather smuggling them (see examples below) onto the NDAA train.
I hope you read the whole discussion. There are substantive answers to his initial post
Nothing like a government that can rip the money from the people through confiscatory taxation then turn around and “buy” their lands out from under them.
The federal government was not supposed to own ANY lands within any State outside of DC.
Art I, Sec 8, Cl 17 gives the feds the right to own certain places within states like “Forts, dock-Yards”, and “other needful buildings” if “purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State.”
If there are no constitutional grounds for the feds owning the land or the building, then HASTA LA VISTA, BABY!
I think you are confusing title with sovereignty or jurisdiction. Of course the state acquired jurisdiction over all land within its borders on statehood. However, AFAIK no state acquired title to public domain federally owned land on statehood.
In fact, I’m unaware of the question even being brought up. Just not an issue. The Federal Land Office continued to sell land in most states for decades after statehood.
The initial case was Ohio in 1804. Various others followed, following basically the same pattern. Including several under Madison, often called the Father of the Constitution.
Nobody, including Little Jimmy, seemed to see any difficulty with the federal government retaining title to public domain inside a state. If there was ever even any discussion of the point, I’m unaware of it and would be interested if you know of any.
IOW, if the Founders apparently saw no constitutional problem, I’m unclear why you do.
I agree much of what the US government does is unconstitutional by any reasonable standard.
But when the Constitution specifically gives Congress power over Territory or other Property belonging to the United States, to my mind that pretty well settles it.
BTW, I appreciate the polite disagreement. I’ve been called a paid tool of the government for disagreeing with others here. To which I can only reply that I’m not paid enough! Or at all.
I find it very odd that so many seem to be unable to get their minds around someone making a principled decision to disagree. The only possible reasons for dissent are dishonorable.
Go ahead and get a law thru Congress giving all the land in western states to them. I have no particular problem with that, though I suspect the consequences will not be what you think.
Exactly. Facilities and needed land used by the feds to be returned once not used, not, “We’re taking your entire State”.
I certainly would feel better if the states managed the land. Fed government is too big to be loved.
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Well, I think there’s a fundamental disagreement here.
You seem to think the if the Constitution doesn’t forbid federal action, then the feds are in the clear. But that is not the presumption of the Constitution as confirmed by the Tenth Amendment. The Constitution formed the federal government and is the only source of power for the federal government.
The Declaration of Independence which has persuasive authority, states the presumptions of the Constitution, that we are born with God-given rights, so that in order to establish a central government, some of those rights had to be clearly and specifically delegated away to the feds. Again, if the Constitution doesn’t delegate the specific enumerated power, it belongs to the states and the people just as the Tenth Amendment confirms.
This is the difference between living under the rule of law, which is America’s heritage with the Constitution, or living under the tyrannical rule of man, which is what you get if you slough off the Constitution.
If we disagree there, we can’t go much further IMO, becasue that’s the issue.
You also seem to think I’m for states’ rights here because it will bring a better outcome. I have no clue what the outcome would be, other that the fact there would be one less unconstitutional activity the feds would be involved in.
Lastly, if you actually do believe the feds are bound by the Constitution and you think Art IV Sec 3 gives the feds power to hold onto state lands, then we have a genuine disagreement of Constitutional interpretation that would take some digging to find contrary the original intent, but textually, the power isn’t there. Again, your interpretation of “territory” in Art IV Sec 3 is not the common, historical usage which is U.S. land that is not within a state. That clause simply gives the feds the power to allow a territory to become a state. It doesn’t address further federal power after the land is state land.
However, Art I Sec 8 Cl 17 does address federal interference with state land. It allows federal authority on state lands, but only only for legitimate defensive or “necessary” purposes after the consent of the state legislature.
Thanks for the ping!
Bumping your ping! Thanks for all you do!
Great thread and well-thought-out arguments by you patriots
and Constitutional scholars. I hope everybody reads this.
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.