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.
The EXEMPT plan to sell the land to foreign governments
and the ENEMY, in their usual attacks against
the Constitution and the American people.
The AGENDA 21 map is taking shape.
FYI, for Agenda 21 ping distribution.
Every state in the Union should follow suit unless the feds can show just and constitutional cause for owning the land.
With the exception of HI, which has a unique history, I'm unaware of any state where public domain land was transferred to the states.
US Constitution: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States
The Government Just Grabbed Yet More Land - The Feds Now Own Close to a Third of American Soil
Very misleading title. I seriously doubt the feds acquired any land by this "grab," the Congress simply changed the "Rules and Regulations" under which some of it operates, as specifically authorized by the Constitution.
I might disagree with their policy choices, but when the Congress makes decisions about how to use federal property, they're entirely within their authority.
STATES RECLAIM THE LAND the feds unconstitutionally possess.
Would be interested where you find this in the Constitution.
I'm unaware that land within a state that is not privately held is presumptively the feds for the taking or controlling. Your quote from the Constitution (need a cite) addresses "territories" or federal lands. How is land within a state "territory"? And if something is federal land, there should be a constitutional reason for its ownership because, as the Tenth Amendment confirms, the federal government needs a constitutional reason for anything it does because the Constitution is it's only source of authority.
STATES RECLAIM THE LAND the feds unconstitutionally possess. Would be interested where you find this in the Constitution.
States and individuals need no Constitutional authority to do something if not expressly forbidden in the Constitution, again, as confirmed by the Tenth Amendment. Unless the feds have constitutional grounds for their acts, the states and people may nullify and reverse unconstitutional federal acts.
Thanks for your post. This issue is often misunderstood.
Territory here refers to land in the possession of the United States, not "territories," the administrative divisions later set up by Congress on its Territory.
The state of OH was admitted in 1804, I believe. The vast majority of its land was at the time public domain land. Congress did not turn over that land to the new state. It allocated 5% of the proceeds of the sale of that land by the United States to individuals to Ohio, but required the state to spend the money on roads.
When other states were admitted, they generally followed this precedent, without exception I've seen. Land that hadn't been sold by the feds prior to statehood remained as property of the federal government until it was sold.
The problem is that in much of the West, primarily for location and water reasons, nobody bought the land.
Some of it was withdrawn from potential sale starting in the late 1800s to form what eventually became the National Forest System. Most of the rest was eventually administered by the BLM, but was largely still available for sale till the 50s or 70s.
The Constitution gives complete power over property owned by the United States to Congress, which can pass a law to grant it to state ownership. Or not, as it chooses.
But there simply is no constitutional issue here.
Whether Congress uses its power wisely is of course a separate question entirely.
UN Agenda 21 Ping
thanks PapaNew !
UN Agenda 21 ping
Well, it looks like we’re talking about precedent, rather than Constitutional interpretation, here. But in times past, nobody thought of the federal government as the threat it is today, so I’m not sure this issue was ever contested on Constitutional grounds.
I find your interpretation of what a “Territory” is hard to swallow. According to your interpretation, “Territory” could mean any land with a State not previously held. I don’t believe a state or land within a state is a “Territory.” The traditional use of the word “Territory” is United States’ land that is not a State. It looks like the feds sold the “public domain” land states to individuals in the Ohio case and afterwards. At the time there was probably no objection so probably no one raised an issue. But I see no constitutional justification for doing so, unless it was part of the deal the feds made with the state.
Even if it was part of the agreement for a state to become a state, unless the state or the people allowed the transactions to take place they way they did, again, there is no constitutional authority for the feds to do so. I would say that in the initial transfer of a territory into a state, the Constitution gives the feds power to negotiate the initial agreement. But after a certain point in time after the initial transfer and creation of a state, I see nothing in the Constitution that allows the feds to hold onto land within a state without constitutional justification, historical record notwithstanding.
Probably time to revisit the whole issue and clarify state’s rights vs. federal power regarding lands within a state because now there is an issue and ANYTHING the federal government does is a constitutional issue.
I have no problem revisiting the issue.
But there simply is nothing in the Constitution that can be interpreted to mean that title to land owned by the United States passes to the individual state within a given time if not sold to individuals.
The land was acquired by the money and/or blood of “the people of the United States,” not the people of Nevada or Washington state.
I see this POV fairly frequently on FR. If there is some policy we dislike, it must be “unconstitutional.” To my mind that’s a leftist viewpoint. Not all bad things are unconstitutional. Any attempt to make it be so requires some body, usually a court, to “interpret” the Constitution out of its plain meaning.
As a side issue, a lot of the rural inhabitants of these states assume, without any real evidence I can see, that state ownership would be vastly better for them than federal ownership.
Might be the case in most of the Rocky Mountain states. Really doubt it would be in the Pacific states, in which the state governments are even more liberal and enviro than the feds.
As was pointed out in the Bundy ranch confrontation, the land belongs to the people. The federal government manages a third of it for us. One of the ranchers being interviewed insisted on this, and the federal guy agreed. It’s all on the video.
Did the feds pay for this land as required by the Constitution’s Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I and / or the eminent domain provision of the 5th Amendment?
And if this land was purchased from a state, did the state legislature consent to the deal as required by Clause 17?
But there simply is nothing in the Constitution that can be interpreted to mean that title to land owned by the United States passes to the individual state within a given time if not sold to individuals.
The real question is, What in the Constitution gives the feds the power to retain title to lands within a state unless for specific constitutional purposes like the common defense?
Again, you have to start with the basic assumption of the Constitution that is confirmed in the Tenth Amendment: "Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Once a Territory becomes a State, things change. Whereas the feds have constitutional authority over a territory, it has limited and delegated powers over a state. A state and individuals, however, are free to do what they want if not prohibited by the Constitution. This would include the status of land with a state.
The constitutional presumption is if it is not specified as within the power of the feds, then it belongs to the states or the people. The Constitution didn't specify that the land within a state still belonged to the feds (seems contradictory to me anyway). Therefore, without constitutional permission for the feds to retain the land within the state, the land belongs to the state or the individuals within the state, depending on the initial setup of the transfer of land to establish of the state.
On your other point about Left or Right equivocation, although I don't call everything I don't like "unconstitutional", there are MANY things the feds are doing which are unconstitutional. They basically ignore the Constitution whenever they can. Again, if the federal act or power is not delegated and enumerated in the Constitution, then it is an invalid federal act or power. If it IS an enumerated constitutional power, then even if I don't like it, I support it becasue I believe in the Rule of Law, which in our case is the Constitution, our only legal bulwark of freedom against tyranny. The Leftist POV you speak of are those on the Right (including quite a few FReepers) who decry unconstitutional Leftist acts but equivocate unconstitutional acts the Right favors. THAT is the Rule of Man, which is tyranny. Sounds like you hate that. So do I.
Unless the feds have constitutional justification for doing so, the states needs to be managing those lands for the people of each of those states.
Good constitutionally-based questions.
My argument (like yours, I think) with another on this thread is, if it’s not delegated to the feds by the Constitution, it belongs to the states or the people of the states. Since Art IV,Sec 3,Cl 2, gives the feds power over territories, then it would seem to me the feds have power to negotiate the terms of the agreement to transfer a territory into a state, but not for unconstitutional purposes or powers not delegated. Beyond the initial agreement and transaction, I believe the feds have no right to retain lands within a state unless for specific constitutionally-allowed purposes.
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.