Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sherman Logan

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.


29 posted on 12/13/2014 8:12:56 PM PST by PapaNew (The grace of God & freedom always win the debate in the forum of ideas over unjust law & government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: PapaNew; Sherman Logan; Whenifhow

Great thread and well-thought-out arguments by you patriots
and Constitutional scholars. I hope everybody reads this.


32 posted on 12/14/2014 5:13:11 AM PST by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson