AmericasVoiceNow.org | Napolitano: All Federal Land Ownership Is "UNCONSTITUTIONAL"

[linksplatinum]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyTs5OtCFC4

Published on Apr 24, 2014

AmericasVoiceNow.org | facebook.com/AmericasVoiceNow 4/24 2of4

This video MUST go Viral so America knows the depth and scope of the treason of the political elite. See the data below this.... and SHARE!

Napolitano: Outrageous Eminent Domain Cases & "All Federal Land Ownership Is UNCONSTITUTIONAL"...........
For the first time on mainstream media, Napolitano calls it right. The Constitution prohibits the federal government from the ownership and possession of land. All federal possession is unconstitutional and all land should be relinquished and returned to owners or the states.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/revisitin...

"Some Look At It As Treason", Wayne Simmons - Ex-CIA on US Gov't Weapons Deal To al-qaeda In Benghazi ......
The gov't knew from the White House to Dept of State to the Pentagon that this was a failed weapons deal. They allowed al-qaeda to gain the weapons to destroy Gaddafi. Only ones left standing in question? Congress. Since they won't call a Special Congressional Committee with subpoena power, the guilt of their foreknowledge is written all over their inaction.

[swoods_blue]

Napolitano is entitled to his own opinion. Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase and had a hand in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and seemed to have a different opinion.

[ThePythonicCow]

Napolitano is entitled to his own opinion. Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase and had a hand in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and seemed to have a different opinion.
Territories (such as the Louisiana Purchase, before states were formed from it) of the US are federal land; once statehood is granted, the sovereign owner of public lands is (according to some Supreme Court case I don't recall now) the state.

Do you more details for, or a reference for, what you are referring to with you statement that Jefferson had a different opinion?

[Lifebringer]

And WE know who's in that congress stalling and obstructing for years, since Bush. Anything for the people, tax reform, public option based upon income, jobs created for clean energy, education for the future of this country by our children and grandchildren. They've either sold our future out without our knowledge and covering it up, or they simply are classist and don't care about anyone but the bottom line.

[Lifebringer]

Paul the ptwere are changing the laws to fit their agenda, via the GOP, so we get rid of them by vote and let the democracy of the voters in those states, replace them honestly without drawing new districts/distracts. No matter the majority now in some states, the GOP rigged the game before the TP and now some of their candidates can't get the votes. That's how Ron Paul won Iowa, yet lost the nomination in other states. They don't want the truth in the GOP, hands too dirty against the people. All done behind closed doors since Bush 1 and 2.
Tying the hands of Democrats is their game to make them look weak, incompetent and obsolete. Funny thing is, that might have worked with out "sleeping parents and grandparents" but it will NOT work with US/this generation. And therein lies their problem. They don't believe we'll do it, even though we are the JUST DO IT generation. Consequences already accounted for. WE're backed against the wall, and we will fight for the future or our children, and aren't so susceptible to drunk talking out of both sides of their necks.

[Maia Gabrial]

The judge talks a good talk. But he's still a judge of the same corrupted system that belongs to the same corrupted US corporation.
I never got a response from him when I asked him if it were possible to put together a legal people's system and then try the traitors in it. At the time I wasn't even aware of that Common Law Courts existed.
This will be how The People take it back....

[swoods_blue]

Territories (such as the Louisiana Purchase, before states were formed from it) of the US are federal land; once statehood is granted, the sovereign owner of public lands is (according to some Supreme Court case I don't recall now) the state.

Do you more details for, or a reference for, what you are referring to with you statement that Jefferson had a different opinion?

You don't have a citation for a mythical Supreme Court case, and in the next sentence you want citations from me? LOL. Anyhow, the O.P. indicates that Napolitano believes this prohibition is within the U.S. Constitutuion, not a Supreme Court case.

Article Four, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution states: "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

So the federal government certainly can own land, and has since the day the United States adopted its Constitution. Fort McHenry was built starting in 1798 on the site of Fort Whetstone in Maryland, which was federally owned, as one example. Jefferson established the United States Military Academy at West Point, NY in 1802. It's federally-owned.

In fact, the Supreme Court just upheld a case this year, based on Vandenberg AFB, giving base commanders broad authority to ban protesters, even on publicly-accessible areas of bases. That obviously implies a right to own the land.

The notion that states have legal sovereignty over the land within their borders isn't really the same as arguing that the federal government can't own land there. Your ownership of land gives you certain rights, but it certainly doesn't obviate the state's sovereignty. But the Constitution specifically gives the Congress broad power to write rules and regulations over its property -- a power you or I as private landowners certainly don't have.

Here's a lot more info: Wikipedia: Federal Lands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands)

I'm not a legal expert, but it sure seems this idea that the federal government can't own land within states is pure fantasy.

More to the point at hand, Bundy has no special claim to the land he's trying to steal.

[ThePythonicCow]

So the federal government certainly can own land, and has since the day the United States adopted its Constitution. Fort McHenry was built starting in 1798 on the site of Fort Whetstone in Maryland, which was federally owned, as one example. Jefferson established the United States Military Academy at West Point, NY in 1802. It's federally-owned.

In fact, the Supreme Court just upheld a case this year, based on Vandenberg AFB, giving base commanders broad authority to ban protesters, even on publicly-accessible areas of bases. That obviously implies a right to own the land.
Yes, it is my understanding that the Federal government can own "small" properties and buildings for specific purposes, such as forts and government offices.

But they don't get to declare that 80 or 90 per-cent of the public land within a state is federal land.

Sorry about my lack of case reference :).