27 Mar 17
2 edits
Originally posted by EladarYour first sentence contradicts your own point i.e. "But as long as you have 5 politically pointed judges making the decisions, the Constitution means nothing." This has been the system since ratification.
Not true at all. The longer we go, the more the Constitution gets ignored.
The Federal government is allowed to own/control land for defined reasons.
Once a territory becomes a state, the state is a state. It is no longer a territory.
Your second sentence ignores the treaty power expressly given to the Federal government and denied to the States. Since I was willing to discuss your point and concede where it was correct, it's rather poor manners of you to ignore my post asking for a concession regarding the treaty power and the fact that treaties often make territorial changes between nations.
Your third sentence is true as far as it goes, but does not effect the Federal government's Constitutional ability to own land in pursuance to the enumerated powers and the Necessary and Proper Clause. There is simply no Constitutional provision requiring the Federal government to cede property to a State.
27 Mar 17
Originally posted by no1marauderWhen a territory becomes a state the Federal givernment is allowing federal land to become a state. All of the state is land seceded from the Federal government. The Federal government seceded land to the government of the Philippines. It is the natural result of no longer being a territory.
Your first sentence contradicts your own point.
Your second sentence ignores the treaty power expressly given to the Federal government and denied to the States.
Your third sentence is true as far as it goes, but does not effect the Federal government's Constitutional ability to own land in pursuance to the enumerated powers and the Necessary and P ...[text shortened]... simply no Constitutional provision requiring the Federal government to cede property to a State.
27 Mar 17
Originally posted by EladarHaving explained this to you several times already, I really feel no need to repeat my prior posts. The act of admitting a State does not change pre-existing land ownership in the State unless the Congressional Act granting Statehood specifically does so. John Doe retains ownership of his 100 acres and the Federal government and other property owners retain ownership of their property. There is nothing in the Constitution to the contrary and no grant of Statehood has every been intrepretated otherwise.
When a territory becomes a state the Federal givernment is allowing federal land to become a state. All of the state is land seceded from the Federal government. The Federal government seceded land to the government of the Philippines. It is the natural result of no longer being a territory.
Quite simply, you are wrong.
27 Mar 17
Originally posted by no1marauderIf the state does not own the land, then why does the federal government pay money to states in lieu of taxes?
Having explained this to you several times already, I really feel no need to repeat my prior posts. The act of admitting a State does not change pre-existing land ownership in the State unless the Congressional Act granting Statehood specifically does so. John Doe retains ownership of his 100 acres and the Federal government and other property owners ret ...[text shortened]... nd no grant of Statehood has every been intrepretated otherwise.
Quite simply, you are wrong.
If it is the federal government's then no payment should be required.
27 Mar 17
Originally posted by EladarStop trying to make sense of the federal leviathan. Why torture yourself?
If the state does not own the land, then why does the federal government pay money to states in lieu of taxes?
If it is the federal government's then no payment should be required.
28 Mar 17
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarI suggest you read your own link:
https://www.doi.gov/pilt
"Payments in Lieu of Taxes" (PILT) are Federal payments to local governments that help offset losses in property taxes due to non-taxable Federal lands within their boundaries. The original law is Public Law 94-565, dated October 20, 1976. This law was rewritten and amended by Public Law 97-258 on September 13, 1982 and codified at Chapter 69, Title 31 of the United States Code. The law recognizes the inability of local governments to collect property taxes on Federally-owned land can create a financial impact.
PILT payments help local governments carry out such vital services as firefighting and police protection, construction of public schools and roads, and search-and-rescue operations. The payments are made annually for tax-exempt Federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (all agencies of the Interior Department), the U.S. Forest Service (part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture), and for Federal water projects and some military installations. PILT payments are one of the ways the Federal Government can fulfill its role of being a good neighbor to local communities.
So Congress in 1976 decided to help out local(not State) governments that had non-taxable Federally owned land in their districts. In no way does that imply that the Feds don't own the land; the payments are only "required" because Congress passed a law mandating them (in 1976 BTW). Congress could repeal that law tomorrow and no payments would be required.
28 Mar 17
1 edit
Why would it be list property tax if the land did not beling to the Federal government to begin with and not the state?
Btw, I know the Federal government has claimed the land and has been allowed to own it. I am saying it is Unconstitutional and no one can stop it.
28 Mar 17
Originally posted by EladarThe word "lieu" means "instead". So the local governments are getting a payment instead of taxes because the property, being owned by the Feds, is not subject to local property taxes.
Why would it be list property tax if the land did not beling to the Federal government to begin with and not the state?
I really don't understand why you can't grasp the fact that the Federal government owned land in these areas before they were States and that ownership carried over after the areas were admitted as States.
28 Mar 17
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy pay anything at all?
The word "lieu" means "instead". So the local governments are getting a payment instead of taxes because the property, being owned by the Feds, is not subject to local property taxes.
I really don't understand why you can't grasp the fact that the Federal government owned land in these areas before they were States and that ownership carried over after the areas were admitted as States.
28 Mar 17
Originally posted by EladarYou are claiming it is unconstitutional for the Federal government to acquire land by treaty with a foreign nation?
Why would it be list property tax if the land did not beling to the Federal government to begin with and not the state?
Btw, I know the Federal government has claimed the land and has been allowed to own it. I am saying it is Unconstitutional and no one can stop it.
31 Mar 17
Originally posted by no1marauderDo you care to explain why Congress is giving states compensation for lost property taxes if the states have no right to the land? The only way the states could be losing property tax is if the Federal government has taken land rightfully owned by the State.
'Cuz Congress decided to in 1976.