Where’s Robin Hood When You Need Him? Stories about Robin Hood have been around for centuries.  I loved the 1950s TV show.  I remember that one of the themes of the Robin Hood legend dealt with the King’s forests.  Although people could travel through the forests, the common people couldn’t hunt in the forest, even if they were starving.  In tiny little England, the King’s forests were out-of-bounds for many activities. The Federalist Papers doesn’t mention national parks, national monuments, Bureau of Land Management, national forests, “protected land” or national land regulations.  However, we can infer from the Papers and ratification debate that the States would not have ratified the Constitution if it gave the federal government the power to come into a State and take control of land.  Federal control over State property contradicts government’s primary function as described in Federalist Papers Number 10.  “Property rights originate from the people.  But the diversity in men’s abilities is an insurmountable obstacle to equality of acquisitions.  Protection of these abilities is government’s primary function.”  10 [6] The people and States of 1787 worried about the federal government taking over their property.  Constitutionally, the federal government can only take property for two reasons: the federal capital and for military establishments.  And in both cases, the State where the property is located must concur.  43 [4–6] Article 1, Section 8  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, dockyards, and other needful Buildings; A State may also lose property by dividing into two States or by the joining of two States to become one, new State.  “The general precaution, that no new States will be formed without the concurrence of the federal authority and the States concerned, is appropriate to the principles governing such transactions.  The specific precaution against the forming new States by partitioning a State without its consent, quiets the jealousy of the larger States, just as that of the smaller States is quieted by a similar precaution, against joining States without their consent.” 43[10] Article 4, section 3.  New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State;  nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. I’m not a history scholar.  Nor am I a lawyer.  Perhaps this is why I’m baffled by how the president and Congress got the power to go into a State and declare that part of it belongs to the federal government. Copyright 2005 by Mary E Webster ********************************************************** "Property" index from The Federalist Papers: In Modern English --bankruptcy laws   42[18]  --claims 80[11-12,14,15/20], 83[11,18,36] --equal/unequal division of 10[6, 22] --federal government taking 43[4-6] --inheritance 29[4] --laws/regulations effect 10[7], 62[16], 70[1] --legislators who own property 10[8], 35[8-9], 36[1], 60[5-6,8,9] --owners/non-owners 10[6,7,8], 35[8] --protection of 1[7], 5[1], 8[4], 11[6], 17[7], 25[7], 41[18, 20], 54[8], 70[1], 85[1,3]               --ability to acquire 10[6] --rights 10[6,13], 54[9], 60[5] --slaves 54[3-5, 8] --State responsibility  45[9] --taxes 10[8], 12[6,12], 21[11]], 34[10], 36[3,7,11], 54[3-4] --value 12[2,6], 21[6, 11], 36[3]                --bad government decreases 15[3]                --increased value invites invasion/attack 4[9] --voters, federal, no property qualifications  60[11]