The recent standoff between Nevada
Rancher Cliven Bundy and the BLM has stirred a lot of controversy
over federal lands, but it is not the only case. BLM is planning on
seizing 90,000 acres along the Red
River between Texas and Oklahoma. Then we have environmental and
animal welfare groups filing
litigation to stop grazing on federal lands. Despite all of the
talking heads on the radio, and numerous interviews with Senators,
Congressmen, and attorneys, not one person has touched on the fact
that the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government very limited
reasons by which they may own land within the individual states.
Article
1, Section 8, clause 17 of the constitution describes reasons
which the federal government may hold land within the individual
states, as well as the conditions by which they may acquire the land.
This is extremely simple and straight forward language, which I have
broken down and explained below.
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,
This portion of Section 8, clause 17 is
describing the formation of Washington D.C. As a gift from the
surrounding states to form a Capitol for the fledgling country.
and to exercise like Authority over
all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State
in which the Same shall be,
As this line states clearly, for the
federal government to control lands for any reason in any state, the
land must be purchased with the consent of the legislature of that
state. Keep in mind that when any territory east of the Mississippi
River became a state, the new state held title to ALL of the
lands within the new state, other than existing military
installations. For some reason, when the territories west of the
Mississippi River became states, the federal government forced the
territories to cede vast amounts of lands to the federal government
as a condition of statehood.
for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings
Here we come to the core of the issue.
The ONLY uses for land within the individual states (as laid out in
the Constitution) are for defense. Recreation, mining, petroleum,
grazing, and timber uses are not among the uses described under
Article I, Section 8, clause 17. As this is the only part of the
Constitution describing the conditions and uses for which the federal
government my control lands within the individual states, these uses
are in violation of the Constitution. This would mean the Department
of the Interior, as well as all of its various branches are in
violation of the Constitution and have no jurisdiction within the
individual states.
Taking this case to the Supreme Court
and winning would be fairly simple. First there is the precedence
that ceding land to the federal government was not a condition of
acquiring statehood for territories east of the Mississippi River.
Second, there is actually precedence to the federal government being
challenged to their right to control land under this portion of the
constitution, and the federal government lost in every incidence.
It is time for the states of the west
to come together and take their land and resources back from the
federal government!
