It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The US Constitution Prohibits The Federal Government From Owning Vast Tracts Of Land

page: 3
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: unicornholiday




Agreeing with you that it is not included but now with things like imminent domain, they can take your land with no questions asked if it's within something they deem appropriate to their needs.

Correct, the government (state, county, or federa) cannot take your land. They have to buy it (even if you don't want to sell it). That's in the Fifth amendment.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.



Regarding the OP,

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; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Would seem to contradict your claim.


So the public use of land that is not open to the public would not apply. Fences and threatening signs do not make an inviting welcome.




posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: usernameconspiracy


No, that is exactly how it works. I should know.

Now I can;t tell you how it worked in the 1800's or even in the 1950's, but I know how it works today.


Please. Because you are personally involved in and have intimate details of every single solitary transaction conducted by every agency of the federal government? Of course not. Did you mean to just throw your credibility in the gutter? Or are you really that ignorant and arrogant as to think you can speak in such absolute terms with any credibility? Or did you think I was just too stupid to know???

Whatever. Taking you at your word, that you "should know," then you must also know better and that your words are a blatant lie.


Further, there is very little land being purchased by the United States at this point. It really only comes into play with new construction plans, or the expansion of wildlife reserve areas. We sell off a hundred times more land per year that we acquire.


Which is exactly the land we're talking about!!!

Yes, I will take you at your word that you should and do know better... thanks for the heads up.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

First of all, very few agencies have the delegation of authority to acquire or dispose of Federally owned property, especially land. BLM happens to have a broad authority to do both, as does GSA. Other agencies most often go through BLM or GSA when they can demonstrate a need to acquire or dispose of land or buildings.

Further, these acquisitions and sales don't happen overnight. They are quite public, and can take a year or more to complete, depending on the scope of work, complexities of the project, etc.

Quite legitimately, the United States acquires very little land in any given year, especially when compared to the number of disposals completed each year. Much of what is owned federally in the western U.S. has been owned federally for quite some time.

You can take it or leave it, I don't much care. I don't think I questioned your intelligence, I merely gave the facts. If you don't like them, that's fine. I have absolutely nothing to gain by lying. You want to discount my inserting fact into a thread full of false information, have at it. I still love you.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   
I'm not going to try and argue law with anyone but I do agree with the notion that the founding fathers never would have intended the federal government to own so much land. For a country founded on the concepts of freedom and independence, and built up from nothing by homesteading pilgrims it's shocking how the government can own over 90% of Nevada, or over 80% of Utah. Most of these lands should be available to the people.

I do think the government should be able to buy land for federal purposes, as long as it's put to use. We should have military bases with comfortable buffer zones around them. But the Feds don't need to own the vast majority of an entire state to have these.

IMO most of current federal lands should be handed over to state ownership, and the BLM should be dissolved. State governors should be able to zone and sell state lands as they see fit, and since they are directly elected by popular vote the citizens of each state would have more say in how these lands would be used. The same for national parks - they should be state parks. Land management should be a state by state concern, and not something directed by the Feds. Whatever land the federal government does own needs to have an established use. No owning vast swaths of countryside just because.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: usernameconspiracy


You can take it or leave it, I don't much care. I don't think I questioned your intelligence, I merely gave the facts. If you don't like them, that's fine. I have absolutely nothing to gain by lying. You want to discount my inserting fact into a thread full of false information, have at it.


I care very much, because real people with real needs and real feelings are being hurt by our government using our hard-earned dollars. This issue of abuse by the federal agencies, including the acquisition of privately owned property, is at the very heart of the problem!!! And if you know how it should be done, then you should also know that process is being abused. If you truly don't, and you are giving others too much credit, please -- PLEASE!!! -- do your own due diligence and see for yourself what is happening.


I still love you.


Thank you for putting this -- and me -- back into its proper perspective. I love you too... and will do better to speak not just from my heart, but with the love in my heart. Thank you!



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
This is utter BS.

Nothing you've quoted from the Constitution precludes the federal government from owning land. Nothing of the sort exists.

Disagree.

Here's a few points to consider:

1. Right there in Article 4, Section 3, the "Property Clause":


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; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.


Oh look, "Territory or other Property belonging to the United States."

Territory refers specifically to territories. Property is narrowly defined in 1.8.17. This section does empower congress to dispose of the land, and to make needful rules and regulations concerning authorized Property holdings.


2. Treaty and War Powers (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 — the "Treaty Clause" and Article VI)

When all of the additional territory was amassed through purchase, wars, treaty and forcible "relocation" of indigenous people, who do you think assumed ownership of that land? The federal government, that's who.

3. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, the "Enclave Clause"


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;


Not only does this show that the federal government can in fact, own land, but specifically that it can purchase said lands from states. Where you're seeing this as limiting the federal government because examples are enumerated, it doesn't actually say that the federal government can't purchase other lands at all, simply that this specific authority is specifically reserved.


Disagree. It says 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. That section clearly defines what those property holdings will be limited to. You could make a case that our biospheres are 'other needful buildings' unenvisioned by the founders, and I might agree with you, but authorized property is narrowly defined here as limited to those few needful holdings.


EDIT:

Let me also introduce you to the State of Utah's Enabling Act (1894):


Second. That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States; that the lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without the said State shall never be taxed at a higher rate than the lands belonging to residents thereof; that no taxes shall be imposed by the State on lands or property therein belonging to or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States or reserved for its use; but nothing herein, or in the ordinance herein provided for, shall preclude the said State from taxing, as other lands are taxed, any lands owned or held by any Indian who has severed his tribal relations and has obtained from the United States or from any person a title thereto by patent or other grant, save and except such lands as have been or may be granted to any Indian or Indians under any act of Congress containing a provision exempting the lands thus granted from taxation; but said ordinance shall provide that all such lands shall be exempt from taxation by said State so long and to such extent as such act of Congress may prescribe.


Looks like an unconstitutional land grab written into law there. Pretty lame if you ask me.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   
As if something as trivial as the Constitution would stop government...



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

It would seem as though that is the mental approach that has led us to where we are now.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: usernameconspiracy

One of your arguments here then is that this idea of the BLM or US Gov gobbling up vast tracts of land is a misconception, that they actually sell more than they acquire pretty consistently? That's interesting. Tell me more, please. I'd like to see numbers supporting that too, if you have them handy. I'm sure we'd all like to see the raw data on that kind of stuff, or at least a suggestion as to where to look.

It sounds like you have some extra experience to bring to the table. Tell us more then, please, if you would like to. We may not all agree with you, but we're interested to hear what you have to say.

Also, in your opinion, is the argument I made in this post here the point of contention that is usually raised in this sort of land use debate? Strict interpretation of the implicit proper definition of Property, etc.? That seems to be it, as I understand it.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The main argument that supports this point of view lies I think in my response to the antedeluvian here. I may try to modify or add to it later but that's what I've got right now.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Thanks to everyone who has responded so far. To be clear on my point of view I'm not entirely sure that I agree with my OP argument. I've been trying to understand the specifics of this argument, which is why I created this thread.

The arguments I've presented so far seem to be the point of view that the Bundy's and friends were adhering to. It looks as though the constitution agrees with them.

Kris Anne Hall is arguing the same legal position that I have presented here I think. The courts do not agree with this point of view.

Legalities aside, I wish homesteading were still an option for Americans. We are largly a nation of renters and mortgage holders, six months of unemployment away from homelessness. Much less empowered than a nation full of people who owned their homes outright would be.




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join