The Federal Government’s Ownership of “National Parks” and the Like is Unconstitutional
QUESTION: I realize this is a bit rhetorical, but if the ‘commerce clause’ has been taken to be unrestrictive (viz. by way of common law), then why the necessity for Clause-17, i.e., “(not exceeding ten Miles square)”? Being as the federal government, as by doctrine, is preemptive over the several states that including its own possessions, territories, and holdings.
The Crux of Federal Taxation | POINTS IN SUPPORT of CFT
A good start: #Impeachment @BarackObama, @EricHolder, @DianneFeinstein, & @NancyPelosi
Countering Evilness, Hypocrisy, and Lunacy: Giving Up on Progressivism
“Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.” ― Thomas Paine
“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.” – H. L. Mencken
Dear Weston:
Good to hear from you again.
I think I see the rhetorical point of your question. Putting the question another way, "If the federal government has such broad and general legislative powers, as it claims it has under the commerce clause, why was there any felt necessity to include the specific seat of government and other government properties clause in CL. 17?" Put another way, if the commerce power is as pervasive as the supreme court claims (see http://douglassbartley.wordpress.com...thans-dragnet/), what purpose does CL. 17 serve? And isn’t mere surplusage?
Did I restate your question accurately?
Yes sir, I could not have stated that better myself.
The Crux of Federal Taxation | POINTS IN SUPPORT of CFT
A good start: #Impeachment @BarackObama, @EricHolder, @DianneFeinstein, & @NancyPelosi
Countering Evilness, Hypocrisy, and Lunacy: Giving Up on Progressivism
“Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.” ― Thomas Paine
“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.” – H. L. Mencken
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote