Trump Pardons Terrorists

[Tanngrisnir]

The Constitution does not require any of what you posted here. The Federal Government can constitutionally own land designated as national forests/parks. There is no restriction made on this by the US Constitution.

This is has been explained in depth several times already.

Some people are simply immune to reason, facts and rational thought.

Sad, but what are you going to do?

 

[apdst]

And not related to this thread since that federal land that certain people are trying to unlawfully gain/buy/own/use is not in any sort of government debate or talks to be used for food production. It is simply wanted for commercial/monetary gain by certain small groups of people who already have plenty of land for their needs.

To raise cattle, to use for food. Of course they want to make money. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[roguenuke]

To raise cattle, to use for food. Of course they want to make money. There's nothing wrong with that.

There is no need, so then there is no justification for them to get land already designated for other purposes simply for their own greed, commercial gain.

 

[apdst]

There is no need, so then there is no justification for them to get land already designated for other purposes simply for their own greed, commercial gain.

That's your opinion. I know you are proposing a communist system, but The United States doesn't work like that. If a citizen wants to raise cattle, to sell, that's his right.

 

[Tennyson]

Post exactly what the Constitution says and show that your interpretation is supported by previous SCOTUS decisions.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17:

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.​

The Supreme Court is irrelevant to discussing the Constitution in this context.

 

[roguenuke]

That's your opinion. I know you are proposing a communist system, but The United States doesn't work like that. If a citizen wants to raise cattle, to sell, that's his right.

No, I'm not. Our system has established that we can have federally protected property put aside for preservation of natural resources, national parks, and national forests. There is no right to use federal property for personal gain.

 

[roguenuke]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17:

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.​

The Supreme Court is irrelevant to discussing the Constitution.

You are wrong. Not only is the SCOTUS very relevant to the Constitution, regardless of your personal feelings here, but you are very wrong on that particular clause, which does not restrict the Federal Government from owning property in the other states. That relates only to property owned by the Federal Government within the Capitol itself, within Washington DC (now). The Necessary and Proper Clause/Elastic Clause is the relevant clause here. Without this Clause, we would have far less land than we currently do have because the Federal Government would not constitutionally have been allowed to make the Louisiana Purchase.

 

[Tennyson]

You are wrong. Not only is the SCOTUS very relevant to the Constitution, regardless of your personal feelings here, but you are very wrong on that particular clause, which does not restrict the Federal Government from owning property in the other states. That relates only to property owned by the Federal Government within the Capitol itself, within Washington DC (now). The Necessary and Proper Clause/Elastic Clause is the relevant clause here. Without this Clause, we would have far less land than we currently do have because the Federal Government would not constitutionally have been allowed to make the Louisiana Purchase.

It is not limited to D.C. Two seperate clauses and two seperate meanings. The clause accommodates prior fortifications under the Articles of Confederation and future fortifications for national defense.

The necessarily and proper clause was limited to actions to implement Article I powers. If you do not believe me, read what the author of the clause, James Wilson, stated it meant.

If you want to rely on the Supreme Court, then pick a case and defend the constitutionality of the opinion using the debates and intent of the men who wrote and ratified the Constitution.

 

[roguenuke]

It is not limited to D.C. Two seperate clauses and two seperate meanings. The clause accommodates prior fortifications under the Articles of Confederation and future fortifications for national defense.

The necessarily and proper clause was limited to actions to implement Article I powers. If you do not believe me, read what the author of the clause, James Wilson, stated it meant.

If you want to rely on the Supreme Court, then pick a case and defend the constitutionality of the opinion using the debates and intent of the men who wrote and ratified the Constitution.

I already gave you two of them. Your opinion on them means nothing to actual law. You support states rights, others don't. I support having the federal lands, which is supported by current law. Don't like it, too bad. That is established law as of now. Until/unless you get a SCOTUS decision overturning that, we will have federal lands outside of DC and used for those things that are not listed under what you believe to be the controlling clause (case law/precedent disagrees with you and has been posted).

 

[Tennyson]

I already gave you two of them. Your opinion on them means nothing to actual law. You support states rights, others don't. I support having the federal lands, which is supported by current law. Don't like it, too bad. That is established law as of now. Until/unless you get a SCOTUS decision overturning that, we will have federal lands outside of DC and used for those things that are not listed under what you believe to be the controlling clause (case law/precedent disagrees with you and has been posted).

You gave me two that you cannot defend constitutionaly.

What did the man who wrote the necessary and proper clause say it meant?

 

[roguenuke]

You gave me two that you cannot defend constitutionaly.

What did the man who wrote the necessary and proper clause say it meant?

Doesn't matter what it meant to him alone. Other people who voted it in and still live by it, have based decisions on it, have interpreted it to mean more than what you claim he meant.

 

[Tennyson]

Doesn't matter what it meant to him alone. Other people who voted it in and still live by it, have based decisions on it, have interpreted it to mean more than what you claim he meant.

The "other people voted it in" because it was limited to what Wilson said it meant.

Again, defend the constitutional basis of those who have interpreted it.

I did not claim anything. All I did was give you the meaning of what it meant by the man who wrote it and what it meant to the men who ratified it.

I assume no opinion of yours means what you think it means. It only means what someone wants it to mean.

 

[roguenuke]

The "other people voted it in" because it was limited to what Wilson said it meant.

Again, defend the constitutional basis of those who have interpreted it.

I did not claim anything. All I did was give you the meaning of what it meant by the man who wrote it and what it meant to the men who ratified it.

I assume no opinion of yours means what you think it means. It only means what someone wants it to mean.

You cannot prove that this is why each of them voted as they did or even that they were truly informed of what it "meant". Again, you are basing it on your opinion and assumptions.

 

[Tennyson]

You cannot prove that this is why each of them voted as they did or even that they were truly informed of what it "meant". Again, you are basing it on your opinion and assumptions.

Yes I can. The majority of the states' ratifying conventions revolved around federal power, abuse of federal power, and unenumerated powers, which was why the states proposed the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

I am basing my opinion on documented history, which you eschew.

 

[apdst]

No, I'm not. Our system has established that we can have federally protected property put aside for preservation of natural resources, national parks, and national forests. There is no right to use federal property for personal gain.

Yes, there is. This is a government of the people, for the people and by the people. The United States isn't a communist country.

 

[Tennyson]

Yes, there is. This is a government of the people, for the people and by the people. The United States isn't a communist country.

That quote is from Abraham Lincoln, who ignored the Constitution, not the Constitution.

 

[Fishking]

The Constitution does not require any of what you posted here. The Federal Government can constitutionally own land designated as national forests/parks. There is no restriction made on this by the US Constitution.

Sorry, but that's not "needed". That's "wanted".

 

[roguenuke]

Sorry, but that's not "needed". That's "wanted".

And still not relevant to what is being argued. As well as subjective. Conservation of resources is very much a needed thing, not just wanted. Needed even more than "additional" land for food production or other resources required by US citizens.