[Question_Assumptions]

Just because the United States purchased the land does not mean they "own" it. Would you say that residents of "Louisiana" have no personal property rights because at one time the U.S. paid for the land. The U.S. bought the land and gifted it to its citizens. How the U.S. obtained the land is not relevant.

Amendment V of the Bill of Rights reads (in part):

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The clear implication of the last two clauses is that the government can deprive a person of property through due process and can take private property for public use so long as the owner is compensated justly. For the government to have those powers means that property rights are not absolute but qualified. When I own a piece of property, it is both my property and a part of my town, county, state, and country. So the land is mine and also a part of my country. I can't unilaterally decide that my property is a part of the Bahamas because I like their tax structure better, a part of the UK because I think the US is illegitimate, or a part of Syria if I decided that the Islamofascists were right. And you can't have a modern nation or a civilization if every property owner is given that sort of sovereignty.

[Texas Federalist]

Your arguments are typical Hobbesian crap. Your interpretations of Constitutional language are colored by one assumption "That the government is the keeper of rights and determines which rights the people hold." The Framers did not hold this view when they wrote the same language you are misinterpreting. Rights are qualified in that if you interfere with the rights of another your life, liberty or property may be taken. For example, if you kill someone, you may be incarcerated. If you scream like a banshee at 3am on your front lawn you may not exercise your right to free speech because you are interfering with your neighbor's property rights. It does NOT mean that you own your property so long as the government lets you. The reason the civil war happened is because you secularist, leftist Yankees didn't understand that in 1865, and you don't understand that now.

[Cobra Scott]

When I own a piece of property, it is both my property and a part of my town, county, state, and country. So the land is mine and also a part of my country. I can't unilaterally decide that my property is a part of the Bahamas because I like their tax structure better, a part of the UK because I think the US is illegitimate, or a part of Syria if I decided that the Islamofascists were right. And you can't have a modern nation or a civilization if every property owner is given that sort of sovereignty.

Oops, what about property siezed from southerners? Slaves = property until the 13th amendment.

Its long and complicated, and you cannot justify any of it except in the context of the times. You cannot justify Lincoln's "profiteering" in the Council Bluffs land issue in the context of today, because such action would surely result in impeachment.