It always amazes/amuses/flabbergasts me just how ignorant those who claim to be following the Constitution are about the content of the document they claim to support. This whole controversy was based on the claim that the federal government
couldn't own land (not that they
shouldn't).* Of course, the Constitution itself belies that claim:
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.
Article 4, section 3.
Inconvenient, huh?
*
Napolitano: Washington lacks constitutional right to own land in Western states
