Posted on 06/07/2015 10:14:54 AM PDT by redreno
But plenty of time for hacks like Pratt I see. OK, I'll play along. The generally accepted definition of federally owned, or public, land is that the government holds that property in trust for the American people. That would be for all the American people, both those residing in the state where the land is located and those residing in other states. What gives the people of Nevada more claim to public lands than the people of New York?
Regarding 4.3.2, please consider the following. Justice Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, which he published in 1833, is an excellent time capsule for learning about how the first few generations of educated Americans of that time interpreted the Constitution which went up to the 12th Amendment in 1833. And here is Justice Story’s analysis of 4.3.2.
Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2
As indicated by Story’s analysis of 4.3.2, that clause deals with Congress’s control of federal territory that the feds are holding in trust for the states imo, all bets off after the feds have disposed of such land to a new state in compliance with the Resolution of 1780.
I get the impression that you condone the idea that all land in the USA is ultimately owned by the federal government. But the Constitition’s Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I and the eminent domain clause of the 5th Amendment clearly indicate that the feds must buy any land that they want Congress to have exclusive legislative control over. In fact, both of those clauses not only limit what the feds can do with the purchased land, but Clause 17 also clarifies that Congress must have the approval of the state lawmakers that they want to buy the land from.
Would you agree that is all the states? Not just the state being created?
...imo, all bets off after the feds have disposed of such land to a new state in compliance with the Resolution of 1780.
Agreed, concerning the land the government cedes to the states, or which are controlled by Indian tribes. But nothing in the Constitution mandates that all the land must be turned over to the state in question.
Section 4 of the Nevada Enabling Act states, "That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States..." The people gave up all claims to public lands as a condition of statehood. They cannot change their minds 150 years later.
I get the impression that you condone the idea that all land in the USA is ultimately owned by the federal government.
Not all land. Just the public lands not owned by the states. Or land owned by private individuals or corporations. And I see nothing wrong with that idea.
But the Constitition’s Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I and the eminent domain clause of the 5th Amendment clearly indicate that the feds must buy any land that they want Congress to have exclusive legislative control over.
And once again you ignore Article IV, Section 3 which contains no such limitations and which, in fact, clarifies Article I, Section 8 by referring to the territory and other properties belonging to the United States. And as I pointed out earlier, your strict reading of Article I, Section 8 means that not only are things like national parks unconstitutional but so are air force bases and NASA facilities since neither are mentioned in Article I. In fact the entire U.S. Air Force in unconstitutional per Article I as well. Would you agree?
Because its in NV? What gives you claim to your neighbors land? What gives you the right to tell those in any other state what they can do with land they rely on for a living? What gives you the claim to push that demented way of thinking? OH yes, your a conservative alright.
So?
What gives you claim to your neighbors land?
I think the more accurate question is what give my neighbor claim to my land?
What gives you the right to tell those in any other state what they can do with land they rely on for a living?
Because I own it. And by "I" I mean the people of the United States.
What gives you the claim to push that demented way of thinking? OH yes, your a conservative alright.
Now you're just getting silly.
“Because I own it. And by “I” I mean the people of the United States.”
Well, why don’t you just go and try and exercise some property rights on what you think is “your” property? You know, like what the ranchers are doing? See what happens.
We've seen what happens, they break the law and the government lets them do it. I'll have to speak to the people I have managing my property.
Spoken like a true socialist you are. You need to go back to the DU and post your tripe there.
Spoken like a true socialist you are. You need to go back to the DU and post your tripe there.
Oh but dawg is a christian, and a conservative, dont you know?
I imagine DU would be pretty boring. It's so much more fun here watching people like you blabbering on and on about your odd-ball opinions.
Well, yeah they were.
They are breaking a nonsensical rule arbitrarily imposed by an out of control government agency.
A government agency that has authority for managing the property.
Law is the Constitution. Everything else is a statute or an ordinance.
The Constitution disagrees with you. Article VI: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
If so you are an idiot.
There seems to be a lot of them on this thread.
The Civil War and Nevada’s silver deposits I think.
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.