Napolitano Wrong?: Washington lacks constitutional right to own land in Western states | PunditFact

Okay, so the Property Clause has been interpreted as allowing the US government the right to own property. Napolitano didn't say it didn't.

Regardless, the point is that the Property Clause in this article is being read and interpreted in the absence of the Enclave Clause, concerning which Napolitano was undoubtedly also referring.


Napolitano: Washington lacks constitutional right to own land in Western states | PunditFact.

Here's the most interesting thing about this whole "debate": The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which I knew was going to come up sooner or later. I heard Thom Hartmann mention it in passing, but I didn't have time to address it at the time.

Here's the deal about that "Treaty." It is based upon an illegal war wage by the United States against Mexico.

Have you ever read about the origins of the Mexican-American War? Have you ever heard of "Mr. Polk's War" and the Spot Resolutions by Abraham Lincoln?

The upshot is that Lincoln believed that President Polk trumped up a false-flag attack that not only was false but may not have happened at all. Lincoln demanded that the President show the exact spot where the Mexicans attacked American troops. That information was never forthcoming to my understanding. Lincoln believed that the whole war effort was about violent Empire building and land grabbing. From what I've read, Lincoln's position seems the more plausible.

If it is, and I think it's highly likely, then the US truly didn't legally come into possession of the land in the first place.

Even if it did though, reading the Property Clause in light of the Enclave Clause and reading it without bending it to fit the desire to building and holding illegally, immorally, unethically gained Empire, leads one to believe that, in deed, the federal government shouldn't have held onto the land but should have started from the position that all lands within the bounds of the given incoming state are not federal but that the federal government would purchase a rather limited amount of land from the incoming state for the express, limited purposes mentioned in the Enclave Clause.

It doesn't due to say that the US had territories that it allowed to become states under the condition that the states agree in advance and write it into their state constitutions that the federal government would retain large swathes and land (81% in the case of Nevada).

So, I may not deem PolitiFact's "pants on fire," but do deem PolitiFact ignorant in this case. Check again, PolitiFact.

Don't just say that the Supreme Court said or experts say. Look for the truth. The Supreme Court doesn't always tell it and neither do your "experts."

By the way, my take won't be at all popular with the Libertarians, who generally despise Abraham Lincoln, even when Lincoln was right.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Libertarian Capitalism. Bookmark the permalink.