Thread: Constitutional Issues (Moved Posts)

MODERATOR NOTE: These posts were moved from the "Great Analogy of the US National Debt" thread as they were taking the thread off topic. They were moved with the consent of those involved in the discussion.

Shiva_TD
Site Moderator
****************************** ****************************** ****************************** ***************************

Originally Posted by unrealist42

The US should not have made the Louisiana Purchase, or bought Alaska for that matter, all that government money wasted on totally non-productive nothing.

An interesting historical point in that the US purchased Louisiana and Alaska from political entities that didn't own either but we'll put that aside for now. Of course the US didn't actually purchase the land but instead purchased the "authority to govern" those territories.

We can also refer to the US Constitution as to what "land" the federal government is allowed to own.

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;

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...ion/article01/

When a territory becomes a State all of the land within the territorial bounderies become a part of the State and the federal government forfeits any authority over those lands except as provided for under Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution. Excluding the ten miles set aside by cession for our federal government (i.e. Washington DC) the only lands the US government is authorized to possess and control are lands sold to it by the States, approved by the State legislature, "for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings" which makes BLM lands and National Parks unconstitutional. BLM lands and National Parks are unrelated to Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful buildings and they were not purchased from the States with the approval of the State legislatures in compliance with Article I Section 8.

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

An interesting historical point in that the US purchased Louisiana and Alaska from political entities that didn't own either but we'll put that aside for now. Of course the US didn't actually purchase the land but instead purchased the "authority to govern" those territories.

We can also refer to the US Constitution as to what "land" the federal government is allowed to own.



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...ion/article01/

When a territory becomes a State all of the land within the territorial bounderies become a part of the State and the federal government forfeits any authority over those lands except as provided for under Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution. Excluding the ten miles set aside by cession for our federal government (i.e. Washington DC) the only lands the US government is authorized to possess and control are lands sold to it by the States, approved by the State legislature, "for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings" which makes BLM lands and National Parks unconstitutional. BLM lands and National Parks are unrelated to Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful buildings and they were not purchased from the States with the approval of the State legislatures in compliance with Article I Section 8.

You see there is an operative phrase, "the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be."

You see this sentence is just that, one sentence in law, with a semicolon before it and at the end:

"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;--And"

"Same shall be" does not apply to every State, only the District that is NOT a State for a reason; such that no State legislature can control Congresspeople by intimidation. Please NOTE, in "Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, the word "State" is no plural.

If there was a semicolon between "become the Seat of the Government of the United States" and "and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State," and no phrase "in which the Same shall be," then you would be correct, but as it is the sentence only applies to the creation of the District ("in which the Same shall be") and has no force in law outside of that specific initial transaction.

This is how it would have to be worded for you to be correct:

"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;

To exercise Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the Particular States, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;--And"

So, no insult intended, you need to go back and take English 101 and Government 101.

Lets go further:

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The State does not own private property, so they do not have to be compensated and they are respresented, so the US government, and the State's gubermints through their Senate representation, still have the power of eminent domain.

It is "UNITED" States, not a State has exclusive eminent domain and the States do not.

PS. Are you getting this crap from Ron Pods?

Two separate issued are being addressed in Article I Section 8 related to the ownership of land by the US government and they are clearly separated by the word "and" in this 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;

The first, highlighted in blue, is the seat of government which is Washington DC. The second, highlighted in purple, are the other lands that must be purchased from a State (not "States" as "States" don't own common real estate) and those purchases must be approved the "Legislature of the State in which the Same (real estate) shall be" and that these land purchases are expressly limited to the "Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings" of the federal government. BLM lands and National Parks are not lands being used for Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings" nor were they purchased from the State in which these BLM lands and National Parks exist.

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

Two separate issued are being addressed in Article I Section 8 related to the ownership of land by the US government and they are clearly separated by the word "and" in this clause.

There are no two separate issues in the sentence, due to the "and," as it is one sentence dealing with one issue.

The Subject of the sentence is the "District," also the "Same."

The capitalized word "Same" refers to the State the "District" is in, not any other States. The word "Same" is a noun, that is why it has a big letter in front, it is the "District."

Simply English 101.

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

BLM lands and National Parks are not lands being used for Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings" nor were they purchased from the State in which these BLM lands and National Parks exist.

"Section 8" deals with the powers of Congress, and "Section 9" would be where you would find the prohibitions to have National Parks...

If you were correct, there would be a "No" this and "No" that to back you up.

Originally Posted by DivineComedy

The capitalized word "Same" refers to the State the "District" is in, not any other States. The word "Same" is a noun, that is why it has a big letter in front, it is the "District."

In other words you cannot defend ten square miles without "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings" around it. It is a unique situation, and it would be all cluttered up if the "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings" had to be within the District.

A rewording:

"and to exercise like Authority ["To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever"], 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;"

It is a unique situation, which requires "like Authority," and obviously if there was no "Consent of the Legislature of the State" they could have taken the entire State for a massive military camp.

Originally Posted by Divine
Comedy;1061290968

A rewording:

"and to exercise like Authority ["To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever"], 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;"

It is a unique situation, which requires "like Authority," and obviously if there was no "Consent of the Legislature of the State" they could have taken the entire State for a massive military camp.

Once again we can also highlight "purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be" as it relates to all federal lands excluding Washington DC which was not purchase but instead ceeded by the States for the seat of the federal government. All other lands have to be purchased by the Federal government from the States with the consent of the Legislature of those States and those lands can only be used for the specified purposes.

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

Once again we can also highlight "purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be" as it relates to all federal lands excluding Washington DC which was not purchase but instead ceeded by the States for the seat of the federal government. All other lands have to be purchased by the Federal government from the States with the consent of the Legislature of those States and those lands can only be used for the specified purposes.

The Sentence is dealing with ONE SUBJECT, the District, and what is related to that District, there is no prohibition in Section 9 prohibiting Congress from buying land or from States ceding more land.

It was a unique sentence dealing only with the Subject of the District.

This is simply bull:

"only lands the US government is authorized to possess and control are lands sold to it by the States,"

National Geographic "America's Federal Lands" September 1982, Map:

"Most of these regions became part of a vast public domain that grew to encompass nearly two billion acres. Over the years the federal government gave away or sold more than half of this land, primarily to states as they joined the Union, to railroads reaching westward, and to homesteaders settling the broad frontier."

It was done, because nothing whatsoever in the Constitution prohibits the Federal Government's exclusivity on treaty.

All other lands, dealing with the District, I repeat dealing with the District, have to be purchased by the Federal government from the States with the consent of the Legislature of those States, because those lands can only be used for the specified purposes of the District, and they specified that in those lands Congress has power "to exercise like Authority ["To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever"]."

All lands not in those States were fair game only for the Federal Government, TO DO WITH AS WE (*)(*)(*)(*) WELL PLEASE, because since "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation," therefore, the States could not expand into other territory. The States could not purchase or accept land from France or Russia or the Indians, or no illegal Washington State squatter, as that would require "treaty." Feel free to look the word "treaty" up if you feel it only applies to wars.

Thank God and old fart founders who were educated to read the real English language, because if the "only lands the US government is authorized to possess and control are lands sold to it by the States" was true, this country would have 13 States and Washington State would be flying a Soviet flag...

You sure you are not a Commie agent of a foreign power, or maybe a double agent for the Obamanation hoping to be more flexible in returning the Russian colonies after your third party elects him?

According to your argument Washington State is not able to exist; what was it, part of New York?

Originally Posted by DivineComedy

It was done, because nothing whatsoever in the Constitution prohibits the Federal Government's.................. .

Herein lies the fundamental problem that the Federalists said didn't exist and which the anti-Federalists warned against.

The US Constitution is a contract drawn up and approved by the original 13 colonies/states and it follows contract law. A contract must enumerate that which it covers, authorizes and the conditions of the contract. Contracts are inherently limited by that which the address through enumeration.

Article I Section 8 enumerates the needs of land ownership for the federal government and how those lands are to be acquire. It specifically enumerates that the US government requires land for a central location of the government (i.e. Washington DC) as well as land for "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings" and those are the only lands that are enumerated as being necessary for the Federal government. It didn't, for example, state that the federal government required a tropical island for pleasure vacations. The federal govenrment has no need of a tropical island for pleasure vacations in providing for the other roles and responsibilities enumerated in the US Constitution.

Article I Section 8 also has the following provision:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...ion/article01/

I won't list all of the "foregoing Powers" or "all other Powers" vested in the US Constitution but instead will ask where in the US Constitution is it required for the US goverment to own tropical island solely intend for pleasure or of a national park solely intended for pleasure or for BLM lands that it uses for commerical purposes. Show me where in the US Constitution there is any need for the US government to have National Parks or BLM lands.

http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/