[WayneS]

Yes, but by that argument the government could claim they 'need' 1,000,000 acres of land to build a 100 acre national park. That would be an unreasonable claim.

Regardless of the powers with which they have been entrusted by the People, it is reasonable to demand that our government exercise those powers in a reasonable manner.

There is NO reason whatsoever for the federal government to own any more land than is absolutely necessary to construct and maintain those types facilities, and only those types of facilities, enumerated in the constitution.

Your argument is really nothing more than acquiescence to an unnecessary expansion of power by the federal government - and I oppose ALL unnecessary expansions of the federal government.

[taxcontrol]

Well, out here in the West, the government does that. It tries to grab up thousands / millions of acres. Per the Constitution, that land has to be granted to the US by the state and must be paid for by the US Government (Article 1 section 8).

Now, should there be a constitutional limit on the holding of the US government within a state. Sure, I can support that. How about a limit of 20%. But that is a different conversation that does Bundy have the right to graze on public lands without paying the usage fees required by law?

[GAFreedom]

There is NO reason whatsoever for the federal government to own any more land than is absolutely necessary to construct and maintain those types facilities, and only those types of facilities, enumerated in the constitution. Your argument is really nothing more than acquiescence to an unnecessary expansion of power by the federal government - and I oppose ALL unnecessary expansions of the federal government.

Makes sense. I'll look to see that case made before the court and for the ownership of land given by treaty to the federal government be made unConstitutional. Let us know when that happens.