Federal Government owning State Lands

Originally posted by Eladar
This is from the Constitution.

Maybe this will wake up a few brain cells:

http://www.snopes.com/article-1-section-8-clause-17/

Originally posted by Eladar
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_17.html

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by ...[text shortened]... n argue that a National Park is a needful building. It seems to me that it is Unconstitutional.

Read what the Constitution does say.

Originally posted by Eladar
This is from the Constitution.

So it is. It refers only to the subjects mentioned while Article IV, sec 3 specifically refers to "territory or other property belonging to the United States" .

Your absurd reading would make Article IV, section 3 superfluous when, in fact, the provisions deal with different subjects i.e. IF the only "territory and property" the United States could own was the seat of government or forts, magazines, etc. then the authority given in Article I would be all that was needed. But, in fact, the Framers added a specific provision in Article IV, section 3 covering all territory and property belonging to the United States.

I know some right wing kooks like the ones who took over the bird sanctuary have made the same silly argument, but one really needs to read the Constitution in its entirety rather than trying to shoehorn their ideological biases into one clause while ignoring pertinent other sections.

Originally posted by Eladar
Read what the Constitution does say.

Yes do so.

Originally posted by Eladar
Read what the Constitution does say.

See Snopes. For true meaning, case law is vital.

Originally posted by no1marauder
So it is. It refers only to the subjects mentioned while Article IV, sec 3 specifically refers to "territory or other [b]property belonging to the United States" .

Your absurd reading would make Article IV, section 3 superfluous when, in fact, the provisions deal with different subjects i.e. IF the only "territory and property" the United States ...[text shortened]... ng to shoehorn their ideological biases into one clause while ignoring pertinent other sections.[/b]

Does the secondary article describe what the government can own or does is simply state its rights once it is owned?

Originally posted by HandyAndy
See Snopes. For true meaning, case law is vital.

Case law is vital, not what the Constitution says. Case law trumps Constitution.

Originally posted by Eladar
Does the secondary article describe what the government can own or does is simply state its rights once it is owned?

There are no "secondary articles" in the Constitution.

Will you concede that the Constitution gives the power to make treaties to the United States (and bars it from the States)?

Will you concede that treaties often result in the exchange of territory between nations?

Once you concede both of those points, the result is that the United States came into possession of a lot of territory and property by Constitutional means. Once it did, it is under no obligation to cede that territory and property to any State that it may admit in the future. And even if it admits a State within who's borders it owns territory and property, it can retain such ownership if it pleases, as can any other property owner in that State.

Originally posted by Eladar
Case law is vital, not what the Constitution says. Case law trumps Constitution.

Case law shapes the Constitution.

Originally posted by no1marauder
There are no "secondary articles" in the Constitution.

Will you concede that the Constitution gives the power to make treaties to the United States (and bars it from the States)?

Will you concede that treaties often result in the exchange of territory between nations?

Once you concede both of those points, the result is that the United States c ...[text shortened]... erty, it can retain such ownership if it pleases, as can any other property owner in that State.

Will you concede that once a territory becomes a state, it is not longer a territory and has equal footing as any other state?

Originally posted by HandyAndy
Case law shapes the Constitution.

If by shape you mean redefines, I can see your point.

I do not believe courts should redefine the Constitution. Bad decisions are bad decisions and those should be reversed. But as long as you have 5 politically pointed judges making the decisions, the Constitution means nothing.

Originally posted by Eladar
If by shape you mean redefines, I can see your point.

I do not believe courts should redefine the Constitution. Bad decisions are bad decisions and those should be reversed. But as long as you have 5 politically pointed judges making the decisions, the Constitution means nothing.

Define "bad decision."

Originally posted by Eladar
Will you concede that once a territory becomes a state, it is not longer a territory and has equal footing as any other state?

First part: sure.

Second part: "Equal footing" as far as its legal status vis a vis the other States and Feds, sure. That does not imply the Federal government has to hand over its property to it.

Originally posted by Eladar
If by shape you mean redefines, I can see your point.

I do not believe courts should redefine the Constitution. Bad decisions are bad decisions and those should be reversed. But as long as you have 5 politically pointed judges making the decisions, the Constitution means nothing.

If so, the Constitution has "meant nothing" since ratification.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If so, the Constitution has "meant nothing" since ratification.

Not true at all. The longer we go, the more the Constitution gets ignored.

The Federal government is allowed to own/control land for defined reasons.

Once a territory becomes a state, the state is a state. It is no longer a territory.