Constitutional Question

from JoeUser Forums
I have a question for those with more knowledge than me on the constitution. With very few exceptions, "where" in the constitution does it say that the government can own land? I know about the military bases and such not. But lets take one and start with Anwar. Where does the government get off saying it can own that piece of property. The senator from Alaskatried to get an Anwar drilling bill passed yesterday and hid it in a military appropiations bill. Well per usual the dems and libs caught it and fillibustered it. Afterwards, Senator Robert "KKK" Byrd got up and said he would "defend the Constitution with his very life", but that he could not get behind the bill to drill. Do you realize that if the government were to sell off it's holdings to private individuals that they could pay off the national debt in one fell swoop? That's right! The federal holdings are equal to 10 TRILLION dollars! So it all comes back to where in the constitution does it say they can own land?
politics
10,022 views 25 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
bump
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
The constitution does not address Federal Land Ownership.
Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

The constitution does not address Federal Land Ownership.


Exactly my point. Where do they get off owning it? Answer: they shouldn't!
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Afterwards, Senator Robert "KKK" Byrd got up and said he would "defend the Constitution with his very life", but that he could not get behind the bill to drill.


So what you're really saying is where does Byrd get off making this a "constitutional issue"?
Yeah, I am at a loss too. Teddy Roosevelt started the national park program, not George Washington or the founding fathers.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
The constitution probably doesn't address government land ownership because government land ownership is a given via souvereignty.

Individuals only hold land titles issued by a government, similar to patents.

That's why government has the power to revoke such land titles.

The hole idea of individual (non-governmental) land ownership is a myth. Land was always helt by governments and granted to subjects/citizens via titles.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
The constitution probably doesn't address government land ownership because government land ownership is a given via souvereignty.

Individuals only hold land titles issued by a government, similar to patents.

That's why government has the power to revoke such land titles.

The hole idea of individual (non-governmental) land ownership is a myth. Land was always helt by governments and granted to subjects/citizens via titles.


Not here.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

Not here.


Everywhere.

Your land was owned by the King of England and then taken over by the rebel governments.

It did not magically pass to free-ruling individual princes. It passed from government to government.

"not here" is a common American response to any explanation, but it doesn't change the fact that the US are fundamentally a common law country and the basics don't change just because the form of government did.

"not here" would be a better response if the American constitution actually addressed the matter. It is the American constitution that defines the differences between American law and common law.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would be very surprised indeed to learn that land titles don't exist in the US. Such a fundamental change from common law would certainly have stood out.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would be very surprised indeed to learn that land titles don't exist in the US. Such a fundamental change from common law would certainly have stood out.


Just an fyi since you obviously do not live here. Titles do exist here. However their only function is to spell out in plain english the piece of lands boundaries! And since you don't live here maybe you should brush up on our "Bill of Rights" and our "Constitution" before you offer an opinion that does not hold water:


The right to own property is so deeply embedded in the American legal system that the Bill of Rights puts the right to property on the same level as the right to life and liberty. It declares that no one may deprive someone of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and the government may not take private property for public use without paying fairly for it. (See the section on "eminent domain" in chapter three.) The English political philosopher John Locke, whose ideas underlie the U.S. Constitution, proclaimed that "government has no other end than the preservation of property."
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Interesting question and one I've often wondered about more then once.

I learned awhile ago Reagan wanted the government to own less land and started finding ways in which to relinquish or restrict holdings by supporting the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion. It caused an uproar by calling for the selling off of public lands to vested private interests. Secretary Watt also led efforts to restrict use of the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, a 35-year-old trust account that generates $900 million annually from royalties collected on off-shore oil and natural gas development.

That all changed with the Clinton's Admin. They reversed the restrictions and implemented spending hundreds of millions of tax dollars to add to the already vast amount of public land.

Opinion polls taken back in 1999 showed Americans wanted government to protect the nation's landscapes from backyard lots to remote wilderness. Thank Secretary Babbitt for embracing the moment by crafting a lasting legacy of buy buy buy....

I would think someone has to take responsibility for miscellaneous land since it's inside the boundaries of American soil, yet legally unclaimed? That said, I am not sure the government has been the best custodian. But, if "JoeUser" isn't of the mind or able to own land, seems natural to my way of thinking some entity needs to take responsibility depending on the parcels need.


Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think the key quote from your passage is that the government just has to pay a fair price to take land; it has the right to take it as long as it pays for it. This is the natural result of sovereignty.

The theory behind the social contract and state sovereignty is fairly complex and beyond my interests but if you look up Hobbes, Rousseau or one of the other big names in State theory you should be able to find something at least. Their writings are fairly impenetrable though.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler, if you disagree with my opinion, that's fine.

But to claim that it must obviously be based on ignorance since I don't live in America and thus never read the constitution displays a level of arrogance you shouldn't be too proud of.

The text you quote does NOT say that land was regarded as private property. It merely proves what you say under the assumption that your claim was already correct.

Indeed, the real view of those who wrote the constitution can easily be determined through their writings (some of which I have read and you should too).

John Locke, to address another point of yours, did not say that land was the same kind of property as, say, produced goods. What he did say was that land can be claimed as private property IF, and only if, there was enough and as good for everyone left in common. If you had read his second treatise, you would know that.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
In short, the constitution does not have to say that the government can own land, because the definition of souvereignty already makes that clear.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Land ownership is ownership within the laws of a given country and subject to the regulations of the country.

Land ownership is not beyond the law. The property rights government has to protect are such property rights as exist within the law, not, when it comes to land, those that exist due to "natural law" or some other law that is claimed to precede or supercede government.

While it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all it is considered by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no one has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land.

Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.

Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
The text you quote does NOT say that land was regarded as private property. It merely proves what you say under the assumption that your claim was already correct.


Actually it DOES! Re-read this section and use logic when translating it:


American legal system that the Bill of Rights puts the right to property on the same level as the right to life and liberty. It declares that no one may deprive someone of life, liberty or property without due process of law


Excuse me but logic dictates that to "deprive" someone of something that someone must first own it. Correct?
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

In short, the constitution does not have to say that the government can own land, because the definition of souvereignty already makes that clear.


In short this is false. Please read amendment 10 of our Constitution.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


In other words my foriegn friend....if it ain't in the Constitution it ain't within their power. I wouldn't exactly call it arrogance. Just a better understanding of the US Constitution is all.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

It did not magically pass to free-ruling individual princes. It passed from government to government.

Doc is right.  Otherwise, why would we have an amendment that specifically addresses how it can be taken:

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.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Actually it DOES! Re-read this section and use logic when translating it:


No, it doesn't.

And stop the insults. I am obviously using logic, even when I disagree with you. If you cannot argue without insulting your opponent, don't argue.

The text you quote doesn't even mention the word "land".


Excuse me but logic dictates that to "deprive" someone of something that someone must first own it. Correct?


Yes, own it subject to the laws of the country. As I said above, when I said "Land ownership is ownership within the laws of a given country and subject to the regulations of the country.".


In other words my foriegn friend....if it ain't in the Constitution it ain't within their power.


Gosh, do you really not understand that my claim is that government land ownership was already given by the fact that the government exists?

"cactoblasta" made the same point:


This is the natural result of sovereignty.


I happen to agree with him. And our reading seems to match the facts, as the American government does own land.

Even if you disagree with my opinion, can you not at least acknowledge it and stop pretending that all you have to do to disprove my claim is to repeat that you disagree with it?

I am glad that you acknowledge that I am a foreigner. That is obviously an important part of the argument and constitutes clear evidence for your case (I am less likely to be right because I'm a foreigner, am I not?).

Now once you wake up and realise that stupidity is not the only obvious reason for why people can disagree with you and that being a foreigner does not automatically prove that somebody didn't read the American constitution or understand it, we can continue this discussion, if you like.


if it ain't in the Constitution it ain't within their power.


I am sure the existence of a government is defined in the constitution. And I'm afraid land ownership comes with that definition. This is how it is done according to common law everywhere where common law applies and the US is no different.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

Doc is right. Otherwise, why would we have an amendment that specifically addresses how it can be taken


He isn't right. If he was right, the federal government wouldn't own land.

You have the amendment addressing how land can be taken because the constitution assumed that government can own land. If it was clear that government could not legally own land, there would be no amendment specifying how the government could take land.

Doesn't that make sense at all?
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
I happen to agree with him. And our reading seems to match the facts, as the American government does own land.


Leauki,

In American tradition, that is a legal gray area. You see, ours is a citizen government "of the people, by the people, and for the people". Land that belongs to the government belongs to us corporately. So, in essence, you're BOTH right.

It was from that understanding that the homestead laws of the 19th century developed, and under which millions of acres of land are still managed under the BLM. The idea is that BLM MANAGES the land, it does not "own it". As a citizen I have certain free use rights of BLM land, with certain restrictions to ensure that my use rights don't infringe on the use rights of others.

In our nation, the government is not some esoteric entity. It is "we the people". Does that make any sense at all?
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

No, it doesn't.

And stop the insults. I am obviously using logic, even when I disagree with you. If you cannot argue without insulting your opponent, don't argue.

The text you quote doesn't even mention the word "land".


No it says "PROPERTY"! Definition of property:



property
7 entries found for property.
To select an entry, click on it.
propertycommunity property personal propertyproperty damage insurance property rightproperty taxintellectual property

Main Entry: prop·er·ty
Pronunciation: 'prä-p&r-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English proprete, from Middle French propreté, from Latin proprietat-, proprietas, from proprius own
1 a : a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing b : an effect that an object has on another object or on the senses c : VIRTUE 3 d : an attribute common to all members of a class
2 a : something owned or possessed; specifically : a piece of real estate


Gosh, do you really not understand that my claim is that government land ownership was already given by the fact that the government exists?



No I don't because no matter how many times you say it or how you try to spin it....it just ain't so. Just an fyi common law? It must be different where you live.


Actually it DOES! Re-read this section and use logic when translating it:



No, it doesn't.

And stop the insults. I am obviously using logic, even when I disagree with you. If you cannot argue without insulting your opponent, don't argue.


Insults? I have not yet insulted you. If you really want me to I can. Telling someone to use their logic in translating something is not an insult! Now if I were to call you "ignorant" or "stupid" or something like that....Now "that" would be an insult!
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top


I am sure the existence of a government is defined in the constitution. And I'm afraid land ownership comes with that definition. This is how it is done according to common law everywhere where common law applies and the US is no different.


We obviously do not use "common law" in the same way ya'll do.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

He isn't right. If he was right, the federal government wouldn't own land.

There are a lot of things the government does that is not in the constitution.  That argument does not hold in the case of the US.  While it is not in the constitution, they can always (and have) pass laws and until that law is ruled unconstitutional, it is the law of the land as well.  HOwever, the point here is Sheets Byrd injecting the constitution in what is clearly not a constitutional issue.

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
However, the point here is Sheets Byrd injecting the constitution in what is clearly not a constitutional issue.

Here's Dr. Guy trying desperately to drag us kicking and screaming back on-topic...
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dr. Miler:

You should read all that Senator Byrd said, because he clearly was not talking about ANWR being unconstitutional. He was saying that he swore an oath of office that requires him to uphold the constitution and the rules of the Senate and that those rules can not be changed at the whim and fancy of Senators, although he has great respect and admiration for the Senator from Alaska. He was specifically speaking to upholding Senate rules when he made his comment about the constitution.

I do not want to see the Senate, the forum of the States and the last exalted refuge that guarantees a voice to the minority among the din of an overwhelming majority, I do not want to see the Senate take the position that a majority of Senators are entitled to suspend the Senate rules whenever they prove inconvenient. So I urge my colleagues--please, listen, my friends on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans--I urge my colleagues to think carefully about this issue. The powerful abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner called the Senate rules the very temple, the very temple of constitutional liberty, and he was right. I plead with my colleagues to not dismantle that temple of constitutional liberty. I urge my colleagues to preserve rule XXVIII in its current form and, if raised, to oppose any motion to overturn the ruling of the Chair.
(from the Congressional Record)