# The US Constitution and the Bundys **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 28, 2016, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-and-the-bundys/744483 "2016-01-28T09:19:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ticker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d07c76/32.png) [@ticker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ticker)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2016, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-and-the-bundys/744483/1 "2016-01-28T09:19:47Z")
I have been half following the progress of the Malheur refuge occupation. Those guys seem to like waving around their printed copies of The Constitution, and set great store by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17: > [@](#): > > 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;– Could somebody please explain what exactly the Bundyist interpretation is of this, how the believe it justified their actions, and in what way this interpretation diverges from the prevailing one. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2016, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-and-the-bundys/744483/2 "2016-01-28T09:33:54Z")
> [@ticker](#): > > I have been half following the progress of the Malheur refuge occupation. Those guys seem to like waving around their printed copies of The Constitution, and set great store by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17: > > Could somebody please explain what exactly the Bundyist interpretation is of this, how the believe it justified their actions, and in what way this interpretation diverges from the prevailing one. My very limited understanding is that they think that means the federal government can ONLY own land “for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”. So wildlife refuges or any other usage is prohibited. I’m sure that someone else will be along later to explain why it doesn’t work that way. ---
**Author:** ![Isilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@Isilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isilder)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2016, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-and-the-bundys/744483/3 "2016-01-28T10:01:24Z")
> [@ticker](#): > > I have been half following the progress of the Malheur refuge occupation. Those guys seem to like waving around their printed copies of The Constitution, and set great store by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17: > > Could somebody please explain what exactly the Bundyist interpretation is of this, how the believe it justified their actions, and in what way this interpretation diverges from the prevailing one. They are claiming that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 gives the _only_ reasons the fed’s can hold land and have it as federal land , an enclave, is for military purposes, such as for a fully fenced base… a fort… There is no such _only_. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 obviously exists just to say that the state could not stop the feds building the military base or other building for federal purposes. So this protects the feds from a claim that buildings are a state issue. Article 4, Section 3 , Clause 2 gives the Fed’s the power to own, use (or allow use of … dispose was a bit clunky, but obviously it is not time limitted…) , and sell or give away, its land as it sees fit, and to apply Fed law to it in the fashion of a territory … ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2016, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-and-the-bundys/744483/4 "2016-01-28T13:03:07Z")
The other point that they Bundyists miss is the word “exclusive” - this grant of federal power gives Congress exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the lands listed in this provision. That doesn’t foreclose the feds having concurrent legislative jurisdiction over other lands which the federal government owns, with state laws also applying. That concurrent legislative jurisdiction can come from other sources in section 8, such as the necessary and proper clause, and Article 4, section 2, as noted by **Isilder**. The point of this particular provision is that takes the types of land listed out of state control entirely, and therefore needs the consent of the state in question to apply. It doesn’t limit the federal government to only this type of land-holding. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2016, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-and-the-bundys/744483/5 "2016-01-28T14:12:41Z")
Citizens can own land; foreigners can own land. Partnerships, corporations and other juristic persons can own land. State and local governments can own land. But deh eevul Kenyanistic gungrabbin’ guvmint cain’t own land. It don’t need to make sense Jake, this is RedneckTown. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2016, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-and-the-bundys/744483/6 "2016-01-28T15:53:44Z")
They’re cherry-picking the document to suit their own agenda. End of story. ---
**Author:** ![jerry\_smissingfinger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e56c9b/32.png) [@jerry\_smissingfinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jerry_smissingfinger)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2016, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-and-the-bundys/744483/7 "2016-01-28T21:50:36Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Citizens can own land; foreigners can own land. Partnerships, corporations and other juristic persons can own land. State and local governments can own land. > But deh eevul Kenyanistic gungrabbin’ guvmint cain’t own land. > > It don’t need to make sense Jake, this is RedneckTown. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![UncleRojelio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unclerojelio/32/3160_2.png) [@UncleRojelio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleRojelio)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2016, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-and-the-bundys/744483/8 "2016-01-28T21:54:33Z")
When I saw this thread I wondered what constitutional questions came up in _Married with Children_ and why this thread wasn’t in Cafe Society. ---
**Author:** ![usedtobe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@usedtobe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/usedtobe)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-and-the-bundys/744483/9 "2016-01-30T03:15:42Z")
Remember the good old days when these nuts were content to seize on a random string of words in The Holy Bible\* (KJV, the only one _ **that counts** _) - - with the proper English words Jesus actually spoke hisself printed in _RED_ so’s you know which words are important. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-and-the-bundys/744483/10 "2016-01-30T04:13:37Z")
There’s nothing in the US Constitution that forbids a State’s right to let the _Federales_ own vast tracts of land … 10th Amendment or some such … perhaps a study of the history of Redwood National Park could illustrate this principle. My understanding is that California refused to surrender the three State Parks to the _Federales_, not sure how things were settled. Kinda of a joke back in the '70’s that Redwood National Park didn’t actually have Redwoods in it. Oregon appreciates the _Federales_ managing the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, we not about to sue the _Federales_ to get it back. ETA: The Bundy’s are getting a heaping dose of 5th Amendment right about now ROLFMAO. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-and-the-bundys/744483/11 "2016-01-30T08:02:17Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Kinda of a joke back in the '70’s that Redwood National Park didn’t actually have Redwoods in it. That’s completely incorrect. I was there in the 1970s and it had redwoods in it. It still does. Where are you getting this ridiculous misinformation from? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-and-the-bundys/744483/12 "2016-01-30T13:17:42Z")
must be the same guidebook that consistently mis-spells “federal”. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-and-the-bundys/744483/13 "2016-01-30T13:34:00Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > That’s completely incorrect. I was there in the 1970s and it had redwoods in it. It still does. > > Where are you getting this ridiculous misinformation from? I was there in the 70s also and there were no redwoods. The were all brown. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-and-the-bundys/744483/14 "2016-01-30T21:12:54Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > I was there in the 70s also and there were no redwoods. > > The were all brown. > > 😃 ba-da-BUM! ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-and-the-bundys/744483/15 "2016-01-30T23:20:27Z")
> [@Isilder](#): > > They are claiming that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 gives the _only_ reasons the fed’s can hold land and have it as federal land , an enclave, is for military purposes, such as for a fully fenced base… a fort… > There is no such _only_. > Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 obviously exists just to say that the state could not stop the feds building the military base or other building for federal purposes. > So this protects the feds from a claim that buildings are a state issue. Maybe they’re saying that the “only” comes (implicitly) from the 10th Amendment? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2016, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-constitution-and-the-bundys/744483/16 "2016-01-31T14:04:11Z")
But it’s not just Article I, Section 8, para. 17. There’s also [Article IV, Section 2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_2:_Property_Clause), as cited earlier by **Isildur:** > [@](#): > > 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. That provision follows on the pre-Constitution Northwest Ordinance passed by the Congress under the Articles of Confederation, by which the states ceded their land claims to the US government. So there are two provisions in the Constitution which recognise federal power to regulate federal property: the exclusive power in Article I, which only operates if the state has ceded jurisdiction, and the property power in Article IV, which gives the Congress power to regulate federal property not covered by Article I, and without prejudice to the states’ jurisdiction: a concurrent power, not an exclusive power. The Tenth Amendment only operates with respect to “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…” That doesn’t leave much room here, where you have two separate provisions which both give Congress the power to regulate federal property.