The second to final clause in Article I, Section 8 explains that the Congress may exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) [that would be the District of Columbia. . . Washington, D.C.] as may, by Cession of particular States [States would give up their portion of the land to never get it back. Those States were Virginia and Maryland], and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States [which means Washington, D.C. was intended only to be the Seat of the Government, and not have a resident population], and to exercise like Authority [and will have the same authority over] over all Places purchased [paid for] by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be [approval of the State Legislature], for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-yards and other needful Buildings...
Did you catch that? In order to own land, the federal government must purchase it, do so with the consent [approval] of the State Legislature, and it must be for the purpose of buildings that are "needful" for the federal government. Needful, as in "necessary to the functioning of the federal government as it seeks to fulfill its function to protect, promote, and preserve the union through constitutionally authorized legislation."
Were National Parks paid for with the approval of the State Legislatures in which they reside? How much of Bureau of Land Management land for the purpose of "needful buildings?" How much of it was "purchased?" This is one of the reasons that Jefferson's "Louisiana Purchase" was so contested by many who felt it was unconstitutional to do what Jefferson did. He admitted to have concerns over the Constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase, but argued it was constitutional because it was negotiated by treaty (in Article VI., treaties are considered to be the law of the land as much as the Constitution is, and as much as laws of the United States made in pursuance to the Constitution are).
Land inside a State is State land. Federal authority can "only" extend over that property if it belongs to the federal government, which can only be achieved if the land was "purchased," through the "approval of the State Legislature," and for the purpose of erecting "needful buildings," such as the ones listed in this clause.
Let's take this a step further.
That would mean that all land not purchased, by the consent of the State Legislature, for the purpose of needful buildings do not fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government. That land is none of the federal government's business. So, with that in mind, why is the federal government dictating to States on whether or not they can drill for oil on their land, or dictating to the States on if they can have the Keystone Pipeline going through their State? Yes, I understand their arguments, such as the Commerce Clause, but even then federal authority is not granted. Remember, the Commerce Clause, regardless of what a bunch of agenda-minded judges have said in their "opinion" of the law in rulings, was not supposed to allow the federal government to dictate the movement of commerce between the States, but to mediate conflicts between the States regarding the movement of commerce, should such a conflict arise.
Want to learn more? Attend the Constitution Classes taught by Douglas V. Gibbs. Tonight's is in Lake Elsinore at C.H.O.B., 119 W. Peck Street, in Lake Elsinore, California near Historic Main Street.
Tuesdays we are in Corona at AllStar Collision, 522 Railroad Street near the 91 Freeway and Main Street.
Thursdays we are in Temecula. This week's class in Temecula has been cancelled so that I may attend the Republican Party of Riverside County Liberty Dinner at Casino Morongo in Cabazon. We will return to Faith Armory, 41669 Winchester Road just west of Jefferson Avenue in Temecula the following Thursday evening.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary