Posted on 07/22/2020 1:36:21 PM PDT by caww
You don’t get it. Once a territory become a state it is constitutionally sovereign, joining all the other sovereign states that make up the USA. Just like in any any other state, the feds have no constitutional business owning land there except for the few exception noted in this semi-nasty exchange.
Who are you pissed at Mr. Child? Your angst is definitely misdirected unless you are just another Leftist hiding in FR land. Grow up Mr. Child.
I don’t know where you get this bizarre idea that a state that is “constitutionally sovereign” suddenly becomes a blank slate with no Federal presence once it is established. The national parks you mention are a perfect example of why this is not the case. Yellowstone National Park was established in 1872. Wyoming didn’t become a state until 1890. Why would the U.S. government buy that land with the approval of the state legislature in 1890 when it already had the title to the property for 18 years before that?
There’s a couple of things I don’t think you understand about the federal government and the states. Comes under the heading of how to learn and understand the Constitution which created a very limited United States Government by understanding it presumptions, structure, text, and perversions by the Supreme Court since around 1900.
1) The ONLY source of the federal government’s existence and authority is the Constitution. The Constitution via the states and the people delegated certain limited, enumerated powers to the federal government. If it is not a power specifically enumerated to the feds in the Constitution then it is not a valid federal power. Simply put, if it isn’t a power provided to the feds by the Constitution it isn’t a valid federal power. Outside of the Constitution, the feds have NO legitimate power (Art.VI, Cl. 2).
2) The states and the people on the other hand are presumed to have pre-existing rights based on the persuasive authority of the Declaration of Independence, the foundation and presumption of the Constitution. If it isn’t a power that has been delegated to the feds in the Constitution, then it is a state power. Simply put, if it’s not in the Constitution, it is a state power. Outside of the Constitution, states are sovereign.
This is confirmed and laid out in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. READ those amendments - maybe a few times.
NOTHING in the Constitution gives the feds your extra-constitutional power over new states. That is a Mr. Child invention, not a constitutional provision.
From your Wyoming question, the feds wanted to persevere this piece of land and as long as Wyoming was a territory, the feds had power to do so.
But when the territory became a state, constitutionally that “park” became the sole property of the state to do with as the state saw fit.
It’s called constitutionally protected freedom.
Again, you argue against your own interests for federal expediency instead of your constitutional freedom. It’s astonishing really.
The answer to that questions goes a long way to addressing some of the more ridiculous implications of the approach you're taking.
For example ...
The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that the Federal government has the authority to own and retain land in the various states. The reasons for this are obvious when you consider the details of the Federal court cases that resulted in these decisions. Two of the biggest factors here are:
1. The Federal government signed treaties with native tribes in these western states that pre-dated the existence of the states. These treaties were signed when the Federal government was in a role of managing a territorial government, and in many of these cases the current state borders do not match the original territorial boundaries. This last point was the basis of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2019 -- where it held that a member of the Crow tribe who lived in Montana still retained hunting rights in Wyoming under the terms of the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie. The notion that the establishment of statehood renders any previous legal agreements null and void would seem to be preposterous on its face -- especially for anyone who recognizes the importance of clear land titles in maintaining the rule of law in any jurisdiction.
2. In western states, the original motivation of the Federal government in holding title to land (aside from military considerations) was to protect watersheds and minimize conflicts between states and territories over water rights for agricultural uses. Folks like me who were born and raised on the East Coast take these sorts of things for granted because water has never been a problem here. Rainfall is abundant and supports every agricultural use we've had here in the last several centuries, but for western states that's a whole different story. There are hardly any natural rivers that flow within a single state, and the availability of water for ranching and mining activities was a major bone of contention in so many land disputes in the 19th century -- involving both settlers and Indians alike.
- signed treaties with native tribes:
Tribal lands were never considered part of a state. These “reservations” are land “reserved” for Indian Nations supervised by the feds, not the states. Nothing unconstitutional there, because the land belongs to the Indians, not the state.
- water rights for agricultural uses
The feds have power based on the Commerce Clause to regulate commerce between the states where necessary. It is not necessary for the feds to own the land, just to regulate where necessary, so as you say, “to protect watersheds and minimize conflicts.”
These issues may seem like a mere formality from the outside, but the sovereignty of the title holder is paramount in any of these dealings between different government jurisdictions.
In the meantime, the Constitution gives the feds NO police power.
That makes no sense whatsoever. If the Constitution establishes the authority of Congress to establish Federal courts, and lays out requirements to hold trials in those Federal courts, then how does the Federal government have “no police power?”
There you go again, defending unconstitutional totalitarian government power against your own interest.
Except for cases where a public official or a state is a party, Federal courts are appellate courts (Art. III, Sec, 2, Cl, 2). Federal police are not constitutionally authorized or required.
These are the same people who call the police to their homes because somebody is shooting off firecrackers in their neighborhood or they thought they saw a bear in their back yard. So defund the police in the cities but not in the suburbs as they will need them available at their beck and call for every "cat-up-a-tree" situation. 
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Note the bold item above. How is the United States NOT a party when a Federal building is attacked?
What a confused, incoherent non-sequitur answer, Oh, Defender of Unconstitutional Totalitarian Government Against Your Interest AKA Mr. Child.
Whatever it is you are talking about, you show not a scintilla of proof or support that the feds have constitutional police power. And you never will, because it is not there.
We’re not getting anywhere and your attempts at justifying extra-constitutional federal power will get nowhere with me. Maybe try a more gullible audience.
Yes, there are a lot of things that are not Constitutional but it's been that way for decades or even centuries. Why are you badgering Trump for using the tools put in place by Congress decades ago?
Unless you get 300+ Ron Pauls in Congress, you are not going to change fedgov back into what the founders had in mind.
The ship has sailed long ago.
The 10th Amendment confirms limited federal power and the default to sovereign state power including police power which is the enforcement of laws to protect the public's health, safety, and welfare. Nowhere is police power an enumerated authority delegated to the feds by the Constitution.
I think we're done.
Why do you defend unconstitutional federal acts against your own self interest?
It is irrelevant how long ago the feds went off the rails. The Constitution is “the Supreme Law of the Land” (Art. IV, Cl. 2). The Rule of Law of the Constitution does not change with time even though the Left would love it to be so.
You know a lot of people argue like you about how long it has been. Well, let me tell you something. Around the 1900’s the Left began to overturn case precedent that had “sailed” long previously.
How is it that the Left can override long-held constitutional case precedent with new unconstitutional acts and Court decisions, but the Patriotic Right cannot overturn such invalid acts and decisions for those that are constitutionally supported?
Armed guards at a legitimate federal building is not the same as police power. Have you bother yourself even to read, much less understand the 9th and 10th Amendments or are you actually a Leftist hiding in FR?
The 10th Amendment confirms limited federal power and the default to sovereign state power including police power which is the enforcement of laws to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. Nowhere is police power an enumerated authority delegated to the feds by the Constitution.
I think we’re done.
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.