Constitutional Question

Published on December 22, 2005 By drmiler In Politics

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?

Comments (Page 1)

drmiler

on Dec 22, 2005

bump

Dr Guy

on Dec 22, 2005

The constitution does not address Federal Land Ownership.

drmiler

on Dec 22, 2005

The constitution does not address Federal Land Ownership.

Exactly my point. Where do they get off owning it? Answer: they shouldn't!

singrdave

on Dec 22, 2005

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.

Leauki

on Dec 22, 2005

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.

drmiler

on Dec 22, 2005

Not here.

Leauki

on Dec 22, 2005

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.

Leauki

on Dec 22, 2005

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.

drmiler

on Dec 22, 2005

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."

garsgolfer

on Dec 22, 2005

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.

cactoblasta

on Dec 22, 2005

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.

Leauki

on Dec 22, 2005

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.

Leauki

on Dec 22, 2005

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

Leauki

on Dec 22, 2005

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.

drmiler

on Dec 22, 2005

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?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!