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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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!

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.

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.

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...

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)