Sorry for the double post, but the "no edit" timer expired while I was editing the first one.
piscator wrote:Seth wrote:
Pointing out the inequities involved in Congress severing mineral rights in the west when it did not do so in the east is a demonstration of the principle of "unequal footing." This means that the states in the West that were formed well after the eastern states, which were supposed to be admitted to the Union on an "equal footing" with the original 13 colonies, which was largely the case east of the Mississippi, were not.
Don't know where you get these notions, but this is completely incorrect.
Not.
The enormous reservations of federal lands, some 60 percent or more, along with severing of mineral rights was extracted from the people of the states against their wishes by Congress, which demanded that the occupants of the new states surrender ALL right and title to unappropriated lands to the federal government as a condition of statehood, something that was not done in the eastern United States.
This is bullshit. If the lands were "unappropriated" no private individuals had title. Nothing was taken from anyone. States aren't people. The 13 original colonies actually gave up lands to the west of their present borders before the end of the Revolutionary War!
Didn't say private individuals owned it, I said that unappropriated lands of the western territories should have gone to the STATES, not the federal government, under the 10th Amendment because Congress does not have authority to acquire or possess for its use any property other than that specified in the Constitution. Congress is the representatives of the people and the states, particularly before the 17th Amendment was ratified when Senators were elected by the state legislatures themselves
precisely in order to give the states themselves direct representation in the Congress. And the 13 colonies didn't have the authority to give up the entire western United States against the interests of states newly admitted to the union. The original 13 colonies were NOT required to surrender all lands WITHIN THEIR BORDERS as a condition of statehood, which is why most federal lands in the east were indeed purchased by the federal government. The Equal Footing doctrine says that newly-admitted states have the right to enter the Union on an equal footing with the original 13 colonies, which should include the state taking title to the unappropriated lands within its boundaries, as occurred in the original 13 colonies.
Everything that was done to facilitate continuing federal ownership of lands within the boundaries of a state is in violation of the original intent of the Founders and the Constitution and constitutes nothing more than politically-motivated subornation of the Constitution, particularly after 1911, with the start of the Progressive period of government.
The United States is a confederation of STATES, not a single nation ruled by a single central federal government. The federal government exists as a SERVANT to the states and the people, not their master or sovereign. That's a Progressive and Marxist conceit. The states are co-equal and exercise ALL powers not delegated to the Congress by the Constitution itself, other than those powers reserved by the People themselves, within their respective boundaries.
The central federal government has no right or authority to own any lands beyond what it buys from the states, all of them, with their consent, for and ONLY for the enumerated purposes in the Constitution itself. You can say that's not the way it is, but that doesn't change the fact that the plain reading of the Constitution renders that exact interpretation, and everything else is subornation of the intent of the Founders, who deliberately built a limited and small central government, reserving most of the regulatory authority to the states themselves, which are closer to the inhabitants and therefore better reflect their will.
This is why, for example, the federal government "owns" more than 80% of the state of Nevada, and therefore pays no taxes to the state of Nevada, putting Nevada at a substantial disadvantage economically from other states where the lands within the state's boundaries that are not privately owned largely belong to the STATE, not the federal government.
Another fucking ridiculous claim loaded with wingnut hyperbole. 90+% of The lands of the 13 Colonies is privately held, and most of the Federal holdings in those states was voluntarily sold to the federal gov by private individuals.
I was not aware that Nevada was one of the 13 Colonies. Perhaps you live in an alternate universe or something.
One of the solutions to the budget deficit and national debt is for the federal government to do as it has done before and sell off vast amounts of federal lands to private individuals. There is another movement that claims that most federal lands, like National Forests and BLM lands do not legitimately belong to the federal government at all, but belong to the State, under the Equal Footing Doctrine. The federal government has no business owning ANY land at all except for those purposes explicitly authorized in the Constitution, which explicitly limits what the federal government may own: "and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings."
.
Perhaps you're unaware of the Property Clause, Article IV, § 3, Clause 2 of the 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."
Nothing in that clause says that the federal government has the power or authority to own anything other than what it buys from the states with their consent. Yes, Congress controls what HAS been properly purchased, like the District of Columbia. But that doesn't apply to the territories to the west of the 13 Colonies
when those territories were granted statehood. But for the political shenanigans of Congress each of those states would have been admitted on an equal footing with the original colonies and territorial lands within the boundaries of those states would have gone directly to the states upon statehood.
This is you just cherry picking what parts of your Holy Constitution you wish to abide by, because
"This provision [the Property Clause] provides broad authority for Congress to govern the lands
acquired by the federal government as it sees fit, and to exercise exclusive authority
to decide on whether or not to dispose of those lands. The U.S. Supreme Court has
described this power as “without limitation,” stating that:
while Congress can acquire exclusive or partial jurisdiction over lands within a
State by the State’s consent or cession, the presence or absence of such
jurisdiction has nothing to do with Congress’ powers under the Property Clause.
Absent consent or cession a State undoubtedly retains jurisdiction over federal
lands within its territory, but Congress equally surely retains the power to enact
legislation respecting those lands pursuant to the Property Clause.... And when
Congress so acts, the federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state
laws under the Supremacy Clause.
One authoritative commentary noted that:
No appropriation of public lands may be made for any purpose except by
authority of Congress.... Congress may limit the disposition of the public domain
to a manner consistent with its views of public policy.... It [the Property Clause]
empowers Congress to act as both proprietor and legislature over the public
domain; Congress has complete power to make those “needful rules” which in
its discretion it determines are necessary. When Congress acts with respect to
those lands covered by the [Property] clause, its legislation overrides conflicting
state laws. Absent action by Congress, however, states may in some instances
exercise some jurisdiction over activities on federal lands."
As I said, political expediencies suborning the Constitution, even when they are supported by the Supreme Court, do not change the fact that the interpretation you cite above has anything to do with the original intent of the Founders, who expressed their intent quite clearly and unmistakably by providing a specific list of things that the Congress is authorized to purchase land for the use of. The legal maxim "
expressio unius est exclusio alterius" which has been recognized by courts for thousands of years, means that where a piece of legislation mentions one thing, or a list of things that are to be included or authorized under the law, the proper interpretation of that law is as EXCLUDING anything and everything not mentioned in that list. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 says, "...and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;..."
This is directly after the granting of authority to acquire a district NOT MORE THAN 10 MILES SQUARE to be the seat of the government, ie: the District of Columbia.
So the
exclusio alterius maxim says that the specific list of "places" Congress is permitted to purchase, with the consent of the states, is limited to a) a single district not larger than 10 square miles; b) land for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other
needful buildings.
Nothing in that list grants Congress the authority to retain title against the states to vast swathes of unimproved and/or uninhabited territory it may have acquired from other sovereigns
as a steward of the People and for their eventual use and enjoyment as citizens of a new state or states to be formed from those lands.
It beggars the imagination to think that the intent of the Founders in so carefully
restricting in the Constitution itself precisely what the federal government has authority to own by way of lands specifically to a single districts of explicitly limited size and a carefully enumerated list of other specific uses for which Congress may
acquire land from the states by purchasing it was some sort of general and unlimited grant of authority for the federal government to own and control whatever it wishes within the boundaries of a state. Only by threatening to refuse to grant statehood was the Congress able to coerce the western states into giving up their Equal Footing right to all unappropriated lands within their respective boundaries. And that directly violates the original intent of the Founders, notwithstanding the machinations and byzantine fallacious logic used by the Supreme Court to facilitate that despotic act.
If the Congress were intended to have complete, plenary and absolute control over all lands, whether within a state or not, then the Constitution would have to have granted that express authority by using a phrase in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 that enunciated that plenary power and control over such unappropriated lands. It doesn't. And the Supreme Court's assertion that Congress' control is "without limitation" is quite simply and plainly gross political legal malfeasance, because the Constitution expressly limits Congress in that regard.
Please note that the Constitution REQUIRES that the Congress, only with the CONSENT of the state involved, is allowed to PURCHASE lands within a state for government structures, including post offices and post roads, from the states. The obvious implication is that the title to the lands within the boundaries of a state are the property of the STATE, not the federal government. The coerced surrender of these lands by states in the west is a direct violation of the Equal Footing Doctrine, and a direct violation of the constitutional LIMITATIONS on the acquisition and ownership of property.
Completely incorrect. Willfully so for someone who claims to cherish the US Constitution. Someone sold you a bum steer, Seth, and you never bothered to check it out.
This is why that modern day attempted land grab by the western wealthy known as, "The Sagebrush Rebellion" failed so miserably - right minded people enforced the US Constitution.
Don't like it? Eat a bag of dicks.
Go fuck yourself.
The WHOLE Constitution applies. The Property Clause prevails.
Would that it actually did, because the actual Property Clause says nothing whatever remotely like anything you think it does, as I've demonstrated in detail above.
Excuse me while I exercise my right to take a walk on Chugach National Forest, which abuts my private property...
Fallacious appeal to common practice again. Just because the Sagebrush Rebellion failed doesn't mean that the principles upon which it was begun are incorrect, it just means that powerful political interests suborned the Constitution yet again in order to preserve their political and economic interests. As for the forest, it actually is, and should be, Chugach STATE Forest, and your authority to walk on it is based in the 10th Amendment and the powers of the State, so go right ahead.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
