|
“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,
dockyards, and other needful Buildings;” Article One, Section 8, United States Constitution
Once again, the Constitution is written so clearly that it takes a liar
to say that it authorizes the federal government to take and/or manage
property within the United States for reasons other than “Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dockyards, and other needful Buildings”. Of
course, “other needful Buildings” is not specific. However, any sane
person will understand that the Constitution is talking about either
military uses, e.g., bases, or the buildings necessary to fulfill the
other federal duties, e.g., post offices.
Neither the United State Constitution nor The Federalist Papers
mention national parks, national monuments, Bureau of Land Management,
national forests, "protected land" or national land regulations.
However, we can infer from the Papers and the ratification
debate that the States would not have ratified the Constitution if it
gave the federal government the power to come into a State and take
control of land.
“The size of this federal district is limited.
The State ceding the land for this use must consent. The State will
make a compact with the federal government, assuring the rights of the
citizens of the district. The inhabitants will have enough inducements
to become willing parties to the cession. An elected municipal
legislature will exercise authority over them. The legislature of the
State and the people who live in the ceded part will agree to the
cession and ratify the Constitution. Therefore, this seems to cover
every objection.
“The federal government must have authority
over forts, military depots, arsenals, dockyards, etc. Public money
will be spent on such places. The property and equipment stored there
should not be under State authority. These are important to the
security of the entire Union and shouldn’t depend on one State.
However, each State where they are located must agree.” Federalist
Paper # 43 [paragraphs 5-6]
Except for the small amount of land
listed in the Constitution, it is clear that the federal government is
not supposed to own property within the United States. The Constitution
cannot be faulted for the federal land grab that has been detrimental
to the economy and well-being of the States. The States have allowed
this invasion of unconstitutional federal power.
To further
highlight how out of kilter the federal government’s role has become, it
is doing a better job keeping United States citizens off federally
owned land than protecting our borders from illegal entry.
I
live in Oregon. The federal government bribed Oregon with “federal
timber funds” to not cut down trees on federally owned land that, of
course, pays no property taxes. The consequences of this policy has had
many negative ramifications. Since the federally owned forests are not
managed, forest fires have been devastating. Now, the federal timber
funds are running out. Sheriff offices and jails are closing because
they were funded with federal timber money. And paved highways are
reverting back to gravel roads because there are no funds to fix them.
The only solution is for the States to use their Constitutional power
to reclaim their land. Oregon could cut timber, which would mean more
jobs and more money for county budgets. Alaska could drill for oil,
with the same results. The economic benefit of States reclaiming their
land is enormous, not just for the States but for the citizens within
each State.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment