Hello, this is in response to a post you made not long ago.

On constitutional law I would like to make a point. Some people like to use Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 to say that the National Parks, and National Forests, etc are unconstitutional due to the fact that they are not mentioned. Let me post the text.

The Congress shall have Power ... 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 State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

There are those who argue that the lack of mention of parks or forests in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 makes them unconstitutional, this is a moot argument. Let me explain why.

Notice the presence of the words "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" and "to exercise like authority" thereby linking the two, exercising exclusive legislation is not the same thing as owning land, if it was then there would not be any private property inside Washington DC but there is.

The land that is now Washington DC was once part of the states of VA and MD, but since the state legislatures voted to cede those lands to the federal government, that meant that the states would no longer hold any power over those lands, thus the state laws do not apply and the state authorities have no power. 

In Great Smoky Mountains National Park however, all TN and NC state laws do apply and not only do the State Authorities have power, but the county authorities do too. The parks are not federal enclaves, they are federal lands. Big difference.

The Power to own land is a separate power from the power to create federal enclaves, and the government gets this power from the 5th amendment and the eminent domain clause which states “for public use” giving the government much broader power in owning land than in creating federal enclaves. Are parks for public use? Absolutely.

Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2 makes a case for the parks 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.

The national parks and national forests are properties of the United States, but the lands are still under state authority, meaning if you break a state law they can and will arrest and prosecute. The same does not old true in DC and other federal enclaves. 

Just thought I would point that out, being a huge fan of the parks and forests.

Taylor Marshall: iceyt1981@gmail.com