Article 1, Section 8, Part 2
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <8/21>

      Consider a very basic principle of law. If someone attempts to extend it beyond the words of the law those who object simply point out that it could have easily be written to cover the extension if that were the intention. At that point it is only an activist judge that will accept the extension.
      Here are a couple of items.

      From Article 1, Section 8 of the Federal Constitution

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the states in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;

      And of course the old reliable 10th

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.

      Now is says quite clearly that Congress has the authority to rule what is now the District of Columbia in any manner it chooses including an absolute dictatorship. As a matter of fact Congress did rule it as an absolute dictatorship which gives you a hint of the inclinations of Congress. It also says that the Federal government can buy land within a state if the state agrees and rule that in any manner is sees fit.
      Even were this not supported by the 10th where does the federal government derive the power to rule any land in any state that does not satisfy these these conditions? And if we do not delegate it to the federal government from where comes it authority?
      The Bureau of Land Management claims the power to govern state lands in almost every state west of the Mississippi. The EPA claims the power to regulate even privately owned lands in every state in the union. Upon what do they base this claimed power?
      It is not in the Constitution and if that had been the intention of the Constitution it could have been easily added. And if that were found needed afterwards a simple amendment could have given the federal government that power. So why does the federal government continue to do what it was not delegated the power to do?
      Every power of the federal government must be tracable back to the Constitution in some manner. Here we have another clear case of a lack of tracability. And again, everyone who works for the federal government took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and yet they are not doing any such thing.
      The exercise of any power in violation of the 10th amendment is a violation of that oath of office. If you want to do something on your land or on "federal" land and the feds come and tell you to stop they are no different from any gang of street hoods telling you to stop. Without constitutional authority they are acting on their own recognizance whether they wish to admit it or not.
      They are also acting in violation of their oath of office. And so is anyone enforcing these laws. This is not a matter of doing what the boss says. This is an oath. And oath, be you Christian or Hindu or Atheist does not mean that someone else can decide what the Constitution means for you.
      There is some excuse for the new recruit but not for anyone with a few years on the job. And there is no excuse for supervisors "only following orders" or "it is the law." That is the Nuremburg defense. It is unacceptable.
      No one forces these people to keep their jobs. An income may be essential but it does not justify the exercise of effectively dictatorial powers that were never delegated. Again they are street thugs.
      Sending them to the wall is too good for them.