Post by TomLine on Jun 2, 2017 4:47:26 GMT -5
PRIVATE PROPERTY
by Tom Lineaweaver
by Tom Lineaweaver
There is a Constitutional principle that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. 5th Amendment.
The Constitution allows for the Federal control of land under the narrowest of circumstances...
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 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;
SOURCE: www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
SOURCE: www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
First, the land must be purchased. The purpose of the land must be to build what amounts to bases for the military. Nowhere does the Constitution allow for National Parks within States. Even if it was land was a territory before it became a State, "Once a state is created and is thereby no longer a territory, the federal government has a duty to dispose of tracts not used for enumerated purposes." www.i2i.org/what-does-the-constitution-say-about-federal-land-ownership/ Therefore Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 controls. There is no reason for any Federal land outside of Washington D.C. except for military bases and other needful buildings.
See this article - Napolitano: Washington lacks constitutional right to own land in Western states... www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/28/andrew-napolitano/napolitano-washington-lacks-constitutional-right-o/
Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox News did lend his weight to the general argument that Washington is in the wrong. Napolitano was talking on Fox’s Hannity when the host pointed out Washington’s extensive holdings in the West.
"Look at the percentage they own in Nevada, 81 percent. Utah, 66 percent. Idaho, 61 percent," Hannity said. "Why does the government own all of this land anyway?"
"Sean, I'm going to make a statement that the government will consider outrageous," Napolitano warned. "The Constitution simply does not authorize the federal government to own any of this land. All of it is being held unconstitutionally and all of it should be returned to the private property owners from which it was taken or to the states in which it exists, period."
"Look at the percentage they own in Nevada, 81 percent. Utah, 66 percent. Idaho, 61 percent," Hannity said. "Why does the government own all of this land anyway?"
"Sean, I'm going to make a statement that the government will consider outrageous," Napolitano warned. "The Constitution simply does not authorize the federal government to own any of this land. All of it is being held unconstitutionally and all of it should be returned to the private property owners from which it was taken or to the states in which it exists, period."
"The Property Clause gives Congress authority over federal property generally, and the Supreme Court has described Congress’ power to legislate under this Clause as ‘without limitation,’ " the researcher wrote.
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank and activist organization in Washington, D.C., says much the same thing on its online guide to the Constitution. It provides the key text from Article IV of the 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 accompanying essay, by Columbia Law School professor Thomas Merrill, noted that many people have debated the scope of this clause. The most narrow interpretation, Merrill wrote, "simply allows Congress to act as an ordinary owner of land. It can set policy regarding whether such lands will be sold or retained and, if they are retained, who may enter these lands and for what purposes." www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/28/andrew-napolitano/napolitano-washington-lacks-constitutional-right-o/
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank and activist organization in Washington, D.C., says much the same thing on its online guide to the Constitution. It provides the key text from Article IV of the 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 accompanying essay, by Columbia Law School professor Thomas Merrill, noted that many people have debated the scope of this clause. The most narrow interpretation, Merrill wrote, "simply allows Congress to act as an ordinary owner of land. It can set policy regarding whether such lands will be sold or retained and, if they are retained, who may enter these lands and for what purposes." www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/28/andrew-napolitano/napolitano-washington-lacks-constitutional-right-o/
The problem I have with this is that one part of the Constitution can not be use to circumvent other parts of the Constitution. Therefore the interpretation most limiting is the correct one, and Judge Napolitano is right.
The article above concluded...
Napolitano said the federal government has no constitutional authority to own land in many Western states. The underlying legal argument rests on a tenuous interpretation of constitutional language and the rejection of about 125 years of Supreme Court decisions. The legal scholars we reached, regardless of any political leanings they might have, agreed that the Constitution clearly grants Washington the power to own land and that arguments to the contrary are baseless. www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/28/andrew-napolitano/napolitano-washington-lacks-constitutional-right-o/
Judge Napolitano is absolutely correct. The government has taken that land unconstitutionally. In order for Government to own that land they would have had to purchase that land and use it for limited usage as prescribed in the Constitution. That did not happen. So they have no Constitutional right to that land whatsoever. And if 125 years of Supreme Court decisions go beyond the Constitution, those decisions must be ignored.
The question is, will the Trump Administration do the right thing. We are 4 plus months into the Trump Presidency and last I heard Mel Bundy is still in prison because he dared to protect his land against a tyrannical Federal Government.
When I am President, that land will go back to the private property owners or to the States. The Bureau of Land Management will be done away with.
LET US TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK TOGETHER
Come join the team: line2016.freeforums.net/thread/364/join-team
TOM LINEAWEAVER, DEMOCRAT FOR PRESIDENT 2020
Come join the team: line2016.freeforums.net/thread/364/join-team
TOM LINEAWEAVER, DEMOCRAT FOR PRESIDENT 2020