Originally posted by Eladar I think you are cofused. What happens if he doesn't pay his rent to yhe state of Wyoming? This rent is called property tax.
No, it isn't "rent".
As I said, you are confused about the very basis of ownership in the American system.
Originally posted by Eladar Was the region already states?
You seem to believe that territorie remain territories even after statehood.
No, I don't.
You don't seem to understand that the admission of a State doesn't change the ownership of the land within absent the owners either selling it or giving it away.
And your claim that the Federal government can't own land except for the limited purposes spelled out in Article I would make the Louisiana Purchase and all other land expansions done by the US since 1787 unconstitutional. This is preposterous as well as directly contrary to the Article IV provision.
Originally posted by Eladar If you don't pay it, the state takes your land. Anything the state can yake from you because you did not pay for the right to use it is not yours.
It is the state's.
Where in the Constitution does it describe what the Federal government has the right to own, othrr than what I quoted in the original post.
In other words, in what state is Washington DC?
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
BTW, the clause you mention doesn't say anything about "ownership". But the Article IV provision does.
Originally posted by Eladar So you believe in circular reasoning. It is claimed by the Federal government so it belongs to the federal government.
How does this trump what the Constitution alliws the Federal Government to own?
It's almost beyond belief that some city or county down there in Texas (or wherever
you are) actually hired you to work as a schoolteacher.. I pity those kids.
Originally posted by HandyAndy It's almost beyond belief that some city or county down there in Texas (or wherever
you are) actually hired you to work as a schoolteacher.. I pity those kids.
Personal attack, say it isn't so.
Here is some homework for you...
Find everything the Constitution states as specific reasons why the Federal government can buy land from the states to be owned by the government.
Originally posted by Eladar According to the Constitution they are supposed to buy the land or have it seceded to the Federal government.
Perhaps that was just for Washington DC, which is too large according to the Constitution.
Nope, just checked. The Federal government is supposed to buy all state land it uses or have the state give the land to the Federal government.
The Constitution doesn't say any such thing, so you must have checked your own a**.
The land made into National Parks was owned by the Feds prior to the Statehood of the particular States where the Parks are located. As I have pointed out, a change in status from "territory" to "State" does not affect the ownership of the land within that area no matter who owns it. That you adhere to the erroneous idea that a government entity "owns" something merely because it can tax it (by that logic, no person "owns" anything) is a problem within the confines of your skull but not a Constitutional one.
Originally posted by Eladar http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_17.html
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 ...[text shortened]... for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--
26 Mar '17 16:34
Federal Government owning State Lands
Back to Top