Term Limits Isn’t Enough

November 4, 2016 Frank Kuchar

Thanks to their corruption and lack of identity with those they represent, a vast majority of Americans want to have term limits imposed upon members of Congress. We have, as a people, reached the point described by the Baron Charles de Montesquieu in his monumental work The Spirit of the Laws, written in 1748:

“…if the legislative body were continuously convened,…if the legislative body were once corrupted, the ill would be without remedy. When various legislative bodies follow each other, the people, holding a poor opinion of the current legislative body, put their hopes, reasonably enough, in the one that will follow; but if the legislative were always the same, the people, seeing it corrupted, would expect nothing further from its laws; they would become furious or would sink into indolence” (Book 10, Part II, chapter 6).

The Anti-Federalists, during the debates over the ratification of the Constitution in 1787-1788, had picked up on this warning and asserted that in time, without limitation on members of the House and Senate, America would evolve into the corrupt government we have today. The Federalists, led by Madison’s defense of the Constitution’s structure of the House in The Federalist Papers, argued that those who sought the office of a Representative would do so out of the noble desire to serve, and then only briefly for the people would not tolerate those who would seek to make it a profession by which they could enrich themselves. Obviously, on this matter, the Anti-Federalists “had it right.”

One of the issues that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has made part of his campaign is to push for Congress to send to the states for ratification an amendment to the Constitution to limit the length of years individuals can serve in Congress. However, unlike others who have pushed for term limits, he has added another ingredient that must be included else term limits, by themselves, will not end the corruption but instead, abet it.

The other side of the term limit coin that Trump has added is the limitation and/or prohibition of former members of Congress becoming lobbyists after they leave office. During the time of our founders, they referred with disdain to those we call lobbyists as “stock jobbers”, and were against allowing these kind of individuals from influencing those in power. Trump suggests that former members should be prohibited from becoming lobbyists for at least 5 years after leaving office, but I would suggest he should go further and make it a lifetime ban.

The reason this is necessary and why term limits alone will not end corruption is that in a representative’s or senator’s final term, he/she would be a “lame duck” and therefore more interested in “paving the way” for their future rather than serving the interests of the people. Thus they would be more inclined than ever before to do favors for those they hoped would employ them when their term was up.

We’ve had enough of the “pay to play” not so “merry-go-round” with the Clintons to last us a lifetime – we don’t need to create an environment that would encourage it. Term limits – yes, an unfortunate remedy which I have reluctantly come to embrace, but only if we have the other side of the coin put in place along with it.

-November 3, 2016

The Press is Biased and Corrupt – So What?

October 28, 2016 Frank Kuchar

That might well be our response to the revelations now being manifested in the publication of the emails of Hillary Clinton and her campaign. Everyone knew in their hearts this to be the case so when it is now revealed to be fact, the feeling might well be “so what?” Yet this is not a proper response for it implies an attitude of indifference, and what we have learned about our press should disturb us greatly.

The role of the press in a free society was of paramount importance to our founders, so much so that it was repeatedly stressed in their debates and insisted upon having it protected within a bill of rights. So it was that the first amendment to our Constitution guarantees to us that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;”

What is the meaning, then, of maintaining freedom of the press? When the Virginia convention ratified the Constitution, those in opposition insisted that their ratification report include recommended amendments to be considered as changes to the Constitution once it was put into effect. The 16th proposal stated the importance they felt was the role of a free press: “…that the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and ought not to be violated.” The Anti-Federalist “Centinel”, on October 5, 1787, described the freedom of the press as “that grand palladium of freedom, and scourge of tyrants.” The aim was to ensure that the government would not interfere with the free discourse of ideas and information, even when it was critical of the policies of the government. In short, the press was to be a watchdog against government abuses and threats to the liberties and freedom of the people.

Yet Madison wrote of an even greater threat to the destruction of this role of the press. In the closing remarks of his “Observations on the ‘Draught of a Constitution for Virginia'”, published on October 11, 1788, he stated “the Exemption of the press from liability in every case for true facts, is also an innovation and as such ought to be well considered. This essential branch of liberty is perhaps more in danger of being interrupted by local tumults, or the silent awe of a predominant party, than by any direct attacks of Power.” So for the press to be totally free, the concept should incorporate not only the principle of freedom from outside censorship, but also freedom from bias and collusion.

Sadly, today, Madison’s fear has come to pass. We have a press (encompassing all mediums) that could be said to be in “awe of a predominant party”, i.e. the Progressives in the Democrat party, insomuch as not only are they in “awe” but have thrown in with them. No longer are they the “bulwark of liberty”, the “grand palladium of freedom”. Our press today is well described in the words of Thomas Jefferson who, though an ardent defender of the principle of freedom of the press, had this to say about the press of his time in a letter to Walter Jones in 1814:

“I deplore… the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them… These ordures are rapidly depraving the public taste and lessening its relish for sound food. As vehicles of information and a curb on our funtionaries, they have rendered themselves useless by forfeiting all title to belief… This has, in a great degree, been produced by the violence and malignity of party spirit.”

Yes, deplorable indeed is the term that more aptly applies to our modern-day media rather than to the citizens whose freedom is put in peril by the failure of the press to fulfill its duty as a censor to those in power.

-October 28, 2016

When Rule of Law Vanishes

October 21, 2016 Frank Kuchar

Law, in a free society, is nothing more than the rules by which the citizens of a society have agreed (either democratically or through representation in a republican form of government) to live by so as to respect and preserve the inalienable rights of all citizens. In order for law to achieve this goal it must be applied equally and fairly to all citizens regardless of status or position within the society. If the rule of law ever fails in a society, then it will no longer be civil as it will ultimately descend into anarchy and then tyranny.

What we are witnessing in our country as revealed in the leaked emails of the Hillary Clinton campaign, the DNC and other government agencies such as the FBI, is the utter contempt for the rule of law. From these emails we are learning that those individuals in these groups believe and act as though laws regarding their conduct in elections and government functions do not apply to them. As a result many in our society now have even less confidence in and therefore less feeling of affection and loyalty to the government. When this happens then more and more citizens will develop a lack of respect and adherence to the rule of law, and societal structures will begin to crumble.

Our founders emphasized the importance of the people having confidence in their government and their representatives in order to maintain a representative government based upon free principles. William Findley, an Anti-Federalist from Pennsylvania who was later the first Representative to be given the title “Father of the House” due to his long service in Congress, wrote “…for as a republican government rests on the people’s confidence, whatever weakens that confidence saps the foundations of the government.”

A final point that we are learning in these emails is just as alarming, namely that our media is, as many have suspected, not fulfilling its role as a check against government abuses and violation of law. The founders emphasized how critical it was in a free society that the press be the people’s watchdog in order for freedom and liberties to flourish.

The guarantee of the freedom of the press in our first amendment means free from government control and censorship. Whenever a free press coludges with the government or certain ones in power, then it ceases to be a free press and instead becomes a propagandist arm of the government which is a characteristic of totalitarian regimes and not that of a free country.

Justice is not served when those in government and powerful positions are not held accountable to the rule of law as other citizens would be. When the people’s designated watchdog turns on them, then all confidence in it and the government withers away. When that process runs its course then the question becomes, will people rise up and revolt to reassert their rights or will they meekly submit the the darkness of despair and tyranny. As King Solomon succinctly stated in the book of Proverbs, “By justice a king gives a country stability, but one who is greedy for bribes tears it down.” Far too many of our leaders and leader-want-to-bes should take that nugget of wisdom to heart.

-October 21, 2016

Does Voter Integrity Matter?

October 15, 2016October 16, 2016 Frank Kuchar

As we approach what I believe to be the most critical election in my 46 years of voting, the issue is being raised all across the land regarding the integrity of our election process, especially allowing those not citizens voting and the counting of the votes cast being manipulated.

As to the second of those two concerns there should be no argument among any citizen, be they progressive or conservative, Democrat or Republican, that we want and deserve an accurate accounting of the votes. However, the issue of who should be allowed to vote is a sticking point among the left and the right.

I’ve written before about the privileges of citizenship (Who Has Constitutional Rights?), among which is the guarantee of being allowed to vote for our leaders and representatives. This is a privilege that is in all other countries restricted to those who are citizens of that country. For instance, if your employer sent you to Germany to manage a branch office in that country, do you think they would allow you to vote in their elections? Absolutely not. Why? Because you’re an American, not a German! Determining how a country will be governed is the prerogative of those who have committed and joined themselves legally to that country.

Now the argument is made that anyone who pays taxes ought to be allowed to vote for those who will be spending that money. Let’s return to the scenario of you being a branch manager in Germany. Did you know that you will pay income taxes to Germany (as well as US taxes, but with an off-set)? Furthermore, you may or may not even have to pay into another country’s social security system, depending on whether or not there is a “totalization agreement” between the US and that country. Yet, despite this, you will not be allowed to vote in their elections! So much for that argument.

Then there is the argument that requiring some form of proof of citizenship and picture voter ID creates a hardship on certain groups of citizens and will disenfranchise them is also bogus. To begin with, such identification is required to purchase restricted products, get on an airplane or enter federal buildings and there is no outcry about that being burdensome! Second, all of us, if we want something bad enough will find a way to procure it. If voting is important enough to someone and proof of citizenship to register and obtain a picture ID are required, he/she will find a way to comply, and if not, then they shouldn’t be voting in the first place.

Robert Yates was a delegate from the state of New York to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. He left before the draft of the Constitution was completed because he felt it did not provide sufficient safeguards for the sovereignty of the states and the liberties of the people. He subsequently became an ardent opponent to its ratification and wrote numerous essays to that end, writing using the pseudonym “Brutus”. In his essay numbered IV, written on November 29, 1787, he stated:

“When a people once resign the privilege of a fair election, they clearly have none left worth contending for….If the people of America will submit to a constitution that will vest in the hands of any body of men a right to deprive them by law of the privilege of a fair election, they will submit to almost any thing.”

If those elected officials at both the federal and state level will not take the steps necessary to guarantee us a fair election, then they are no friends of liberty, America and not deserving of our support and vote, regardless of their party affiliation.

-October 14, 2016

Do We Need More Representatives in Congress?

October 8, 2016 Frank Kuchar

Before you dismiss me as having lost my mind, let me take you back to the debate over the ratification of our Constitution over this very question. During the Constitutional Convention in 1787 there was much debate over how many representatives were to compose the House of Representatives. The final compromise was for each state to have no less than one representative and that there would be a limit of no more than one representative for every 30,000 citizens (which was a reduction in the original ceiling of 40,000 that had been proposed). As a result, for a population of around three million the first House of Representatives was set at sixty-five (interestingly, James Madison had argued for double that number).

In the ensuing debate in the papers during the ratification process those who opposed the Constitution as it was written repeatedly argued that this ratio allowed for too few representatives. Patrick Henry in his speech on June 7, 1788 during the Virginia Ratification Convention argued that the style of the language in Article I Section 2 was too vague and would be subject to future manipulation. The Anti-Federalist Robert Yates, a delegate from New York who used the pseudonym “Brutus”, wrote a scathing essay (Essay # IV, November 29, 1787) on this matter:

“The small number which is to compose this legislature, will not only expose it to the danger of that kind of corruption, and undue influence, which will arise from the gift of places of honour and emolument, or the more direct one of bribery, but it will also subject it to another kind of influence no less fatal to the liberties of the people, though it be not so flagrantly repugnant to the principles of rectitude…A farther objection against the feebleness of the representation is, that it will not possess the confidence of the people.”

The number was increased as the population of the country grew until The Permanent Apportionment Act was signed into law on June 18, 1929 which set the number at our current level of 435, based upon the 1910 census. Those who opposed this Act argued it was unconstitutional, but the law stood, and the current method of reapportionment was adopted in 1941. Obviously the objection of Patrick Henry over the vagueness of the wording in the Constitution proved to be true.

In Federalist #56, James Madison took on this argument of too few representatives, and in it made this observation: “It is a sound and important principle that the representative ought to be acquainted with the interests and circumstances of his constituents.” So the question is, given our population today and the number of representatives allotted, can this principle hold true?

We now have a ratio of approximately 700,00 citizens for each representative. Consider the fact also that according to many recent reports as much as two-thirds of a representative’s day is devoted to fund-raising for his/her party as well as his/her own re-election efforts. Given also the amount of time spent away from their districts and the sheer number of constituents, how can they possibly fulfill Madison’s dictum? The answer is, they can’t, despite the best efforts of some to do so; it just isn’t humanly possible.

This is part of the reason it is also hard for a challenger to defeat a well-entrenched, well-funded incumbent. I know from personal experience as I tried to do so twice, in the 2012 and 2014 GOP primaries. In my case I had to cover two and a half counties while holding down a full-time job and relying on a small group of loyal un-paid volunteers who also had full-time jobs. In such instances, reaching 700,000 people requires more time and money than an average citizen can muster, and so it is that those elected tend to be individuals who are well-connected or who have worked their way up the political ladder, building their name recognition and “war chest” of funds along the way. Such was not the intention of our founders in their vision of what the House of Representatives would be.

By increasing the number of representatives you reduce this ratio, making it more likely that citizen-statesmen could arise and be more ” acquainted with the interests and circumstances of his constituents.” As for The argument that too many would make it difficult to pass legislation, etc, I say “Good”! We have too many laws encroaching upon our freedom and liberties that exceed the constitutional boundaries of the general government anyway. Admittedly, too many representatives would make the Congress unwieldy. What that number ought to be I do not know, but it should be more than one for every 700,000 citizens.

-October 7, 2016

Loss of Property Rights…

September 30, 2016 Frank Kuchar

Equivocates into the beginning of the loss of all rights and liberties. The right to property (be it money, land, intellectual property, etc) is the foundation of individual liberty. I have made this point in times past by quoting the 17th century political philosopher, John Locke, who wrote:

“…every man has a property in his own person; this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands we may say are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property…For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to…”

This fact was not a new concept to Locke; it is a concept as old as mankind’s earliest civilizations. Every civilization from that of the ancient Sumerians to our time have held individual property to be sacrosanct. That this is an inalienable right, i.e., one granted by our Creator and not bestowed upon us by man, is upheld by the fact that God included it in one of the ten commandments – “Thou shalt not steal.” It is so important that this principle was incorporated in not just one amendment to our Constitution, but in four – the third, fourth, fifth and fourteenth!

When there is a loss of private property, depending upon the cause and scope, a number of situations may unfold, none of which are good. A thief who attempts to steal someone’s property may be shot in the attempt, or if successful, cause the victims to feel violated. When a group of individuals destroy the property of their fellow citizens, it creates a maelstrom exhibited in anarchy, such as we’ve recently witnessed in several of our cities this year. Or it may be in the form of tyranny and oppression when government confiscates the property of its citizens through taxation, be it income or forfeiture due to the failure to pay property taxes.

Unfortunately, such is not new to America, or to mankind. For example, we celebrate the “Boston Tea Party”, yet it was not any different than the looting we witnessed in Ferguson, Baltimore and Charlotte. It was the willful, wanton and unlawful destruction of another’s property over the frustration of what was felt to be an injustice.

Our war for independence was begun over the attempt of the government to seize private property. On April 19, 1775 British soldiers set out from Boston en route to Concord to seize a cache of munitions that were stored there. The American militiamen, upon hearing of their approach, assembled in Lexington Commons to oppose them. It was there that the “shot heard ’round the world” was fired and our fight for independence and freedom was launched.

So what’s the point of all this? If we are to remain a civil society, then it must begin with a firmness to instill respect in the heart of every citizen this respect for each other and one another’s property. We must demand that the government respect our property rights as well. Without it, we will continue to slowly disintegrate as a society and a country. The key to achieving this can be found in another of the ten commandments: “Thou shalt not covet…” We shun the wisdom and commands of God to our peril; but, it’s not too late to turn back to this foundation of life and liberty.

-September 30, 2016

There He Goes Again…

September 23, 2016 Frank Kuchar

If President Reagan were with us today he might well make use of this line he made famous in his presidential election debates with President Jimmy Carter, but this time in reference to President Obama.

A couple of weeks ago I commented on President Obama’s unconstitutional use of executive power to “federalize” 400,000 square miles of the Pacific Ocean, declaring it off limits to commercial fishing and mineral exploration (Federal Overreach into State Territory). He is now threatening to declare off-limits to commercial fishing (and “other activities” – think drilling for oil/gas) in large portions of the 200-mile continental shelf off both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of our country, all with the flourish of his mighty pen. In both instances there were/are no hearings, no legislative debates and no representation of the people; just a tyrant and his minions wielding their power to force their environmental agenda down the throats of our citizenry.

The consequence of this will be to put many fishermen and those industries dependent upon their fishing success either out of business or severely restricted. This will in turn negatively impact the communities that have for centuries built their economy around the fishing industry. Those who press on to continue their business will have to venture further out into the ocean to hopefully continue providing us with fish entrees. Of course, those entrees will now cost consumers more as well, but all of this is of little concern to Obama and his henchmen.

I realize that these leftists will claim they have the authority to make such sweeping grabs of land and ocean, based upon the 1906 American Antiquities Act, signed by Teddy Roosevelt (no friend of the Constitution or limited government). This Act grants the president the power to designate land (and now oceans) by simple degree “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest.” However, this Act is wholly unconstitutional and should be declared as such for no authority of this magnitude is granted to the president in the US Constitution.

Behind closed doors President Obama is working with the leaders of many other countries to do likewise with their coasts and to designate up to 2.3 million (yes, you read that right) square miles of ocean as protected areas for natural parks for fish and other marine life! You just can’t make this stuff up. And we wonder why we see our property rights – the foundation of individual liberty – being eroded away?

Unheralded stories like these are why our upcoming election is so vital to turning back this tyrannical onslaught upon our liberties, our Constitution, and our “American way of life.” The prospect of putting an end to such atrocities will vanish as a vapor should Hillary Clinton become our next president. In that event America, as most of us knew her, along with our freedom, will be no more.

-September 23, 2016

Who has Constitutional “Rights”?

September 9, 2016 Frank Kuchar

In the debate over immigration, those advocating for open borders and legalization of those who enter our country illegally are often heard to assert that these individuals have “constitutional rights”, but do they? To answer this question we must return to the understanding of exactly what a constitution is and why they are created.

A constitution is a compact – a contract if you will – between members of a society in which they agree with one another as to what authority they will cede to a government that will rule over them in order that society might be orderly, and the rights and property of the citizens be protected.

However, not all constitutions are of this exact nature; it all depends upon who drafts the constitution for the society. For example, the old Soviet Union had a constitution, but it was created by those in power to secure their power over their citizens, not for the benefit of the people.

Our constitution is different. All you need do is read the opening words of the Preamble – “We the people of the United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” In our constitution we see the definition of a constitution that I stated above. We – the citizens of the United States – agreed (and each generation continues to agree amongst ourselves) that the powers contained within the Constitution are those, and only those, which the government may exercise over us, and all those not granted to it reserved, ultimately, to us, the people (Amendments IX and X). Within the first eight amendments certain of our rights are enumerated and guaranteed to be protected from government encroachment.

However, again, to whom are these guarantees given? Remember, these are part of a contract that “We the People” made and continue to agree to as belonging to us, American citizens. Those who come to our country illegally have never entered into this agreement; they are not part of our society, though they live among our society. They have no allegiance to our principles of government and society, and have not assimilated into our culture, learned our language (English), nor come to an understanding and appreciation for our history and the sacrifices of those before who made our country the greatest on earth.

This being the case, therefore, they do not have “constitutional rights” or guarantees as they have not become a part of “us” who agreed to continue that contract established over 200 years ago. They have inalienable rights granted to them by our Creator, but constitutional rights, no. You see, rights are those things that no one has the authority to give or take; they come from our Creator. A constitution cannot grant rights, only protect or restrict them as agreed to by those who created and perpetuate it, and illegal aliens living among us are not of us nor parties to our contract known as our Constitution.

-September 9, 2016

Federal Overreach into State Territory

September 2, 2016September 2, 2016 Frank Kuchar

On August 26, 2016, President Obama created the largest ocean reserve in the world off the Hawaiian Islands. He did this without the consent of Congress, but simply with the flourish of his signature on a presidential proclamation. His proclamation expanded the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument by over 400,000 square miles (that’s right, miles), increasing the total size of the preserve to 582,578 square miles! This means that this region is now off-limits to commercial fishermen and mineral exploration, which will, in a statement released by the White House, “allow scientists to monitor and explore the impacts of climate change on these fragile ecosystems.”

This action will adversely affect those whose livelihood depends upon fishing or exploring that part of the ocean as well as prices for their products, all in the name of the bogus concept of “climate change”. Furthermore, American citizens who violate this “protection” will be subject to prosecution; but how will this be enforced against foreign fishermen and companies? 582,578 square miles of ocean is a lot of ocean to “rope off!”

The bigger question, though, is does the general government have the constitutional power to make such a land grab (or in this case, ocean grab)? The answer would be a definite ‘NO’! I realize the argument is made utilizing the “Property Clause” in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution that Congress has the authority to do as it wishes with federal territory:

“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.”

However, this does not address the issue as to whether or not the federal government has the right to this property in the first place. Turning to our Constitution and reading what properties it authorizes the general government to “own” we see that it strictly limits the kinds of property it may constitutionally acquire. Article I Section 8 lists the “enumerated powers” of the general government, and within those powers are given the kinds of properties it may possess: (1) Post offices and post roads, (2) the District of the seat of the government, (3) Forts, (4) Magazines, (5) Arsenals, (6) Dockyards, and (7) other “needful” buildings. All of these properties were to be purchased by the general government upon the consent of legislature of the state from which the property was to be acquired. The Union of the States did acquire property by other means, namely purchasing land from foreign countries (e.g., the “Louisiana Purchase”, Alaska) or as a result of war (Arizona, New Mexico, California, etc). However, once these territories were divided into states, those states became as much a sovereign entity as the original thirteen.

Nowhere in those enumerated properties will you find national parks, preserves, etc authorized. So for President Obama to annex such a huge swath of ocean to the control of the general government is an act outside the bounds of his constitutional authority. As former Hawaiian governor George Ariyoshi (a Democrat by the way) stated in July at a rally regarding ownership of the ocean, “The ocean belongs to us. We ought to be the ones who decide what kind of use to make of the ocean” – a statement echoing the words of the ninth and tenth amendments:

“ The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

“ 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.”

So remember – if a president or group of legislators can with the stroke of a pen or passage of a piece of legislation seize control of 400,000 square miles of ocean that it has no constitutional right to, what can they do regarding your and my property? This is precisely why we have a constitution to limit the power of government; it’s time we returned to it.

-September 2, 2016

This Land’s NOT Your Land, This Land’s NOT My Land…

August 31, 2016August 31, 2016 Frank Kuchar

I remember singing “This land is your land, this land is my land” in elementary music classes, but my how the sentiment has changed from “is” to “not”! We have witnessed some startling developments as related to our Constitutional rights this past week in the confrontation between rancher Cliven Bundy and the Federal Department of the Bureau of Land Management. You can read the news stories and blog essays about what happened there but I want to take a few paragraphs to delve below the surface of these events.

(As an aside, in the standoff between armed citizens and those armed members of this government agency, we have witnessed the precise reason why we have the second amendment right to bear arms – to resist the tyrannical overreach of the central government as well as the further trampling upon our Constitutional right of free speech when these government agents limited such speech to only certain restricted areas.)

There are some basic Constitutionally-related issues that need to be addressed. First, who controls the land that is in dispute, and the corollary to it, who should control that land, Nevada or Washington DC? Second, should any government entity control the land to begin with? Third, if the land is “owned” by the state of Nevada, under what Constitutional authority does the federal government have in interfering with how the land is used?

Let us begin by turning to our Constitution and reading what properties it authorizes the general government to “own”. Article I Section 8 lists the “enumerated powers” of the general government, and within those powers are given the kinds of properties it may possess: (1) Post offices and post roads, (2) the District of the seat of the government, (3) Forts, (4) Magazines, (5) Arsenals, (6) Dockyards, and (7) other “needful” buildings. All of these properties were to be purchased by the general government upon the consent of legislature of the state from which the property was to be acquired. The Union of the States did acquire property by other means, namely purchasing land from foreign countries (e.g., the “Louisiana Purchase”, Alaska) or as a result of war (Arizona, New Mexico, California, etc). However, once these territories were divided into states, those states became as much a sovereign entity as the original thirteen. Further, Article IV, Section 3 states that Congress shall have the power to either dispose of its territory or property as well as “make all needful Rules and Regulations” regarding said territory.

The general government owns approximately 85% of the state of Nevada, which pretty much destroys any notion of state sovereignty as far as the citizens of Nevada are concerned. There is a dispute in this case as to whether or not the grazing range used by Mr. Bundy is federal or, as he alleges, land properly belonging to Nevada. It appears that the property is technically federal land. So the question is, does the property in Nevada at the heart of the dispute fall into any of those seven categories of property listed in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, and if not, then even though Nevada may have at some point ceded the land to the general government, such would be an unconstitutional exchange. The federal government has no business being in possession of that land. It should belong to the citizens of Nevada to either sell to private individuals/companies or lease to ranchers such as Mr. Bundy.

Therefore, since the “federal” government has no constitutional right to own that land, the land should revert back to the state of Nevada, and as Nevada is a sovereign entity, the “federal” government has no right to interfere in how the land is used. This is why I advocate for the return of all lands and property currently owned by the general government that do not fall within those above listed categories of the Constitution back to the states wherein such property is located.

-April 23, 2014