“People want government to do all manner of things, things that if done privately would lead to condemnation and jail sentences. Some want government to give money to farmers, poor folk, college students, senior citizens and businesses. There’s no Santa Claus or tooth fairy. The only way government can give money to one person is to forcibly take it from another person. If I privately used the same method to raise money for a “deserving” college student, homeless person or businessman, I’d face theft charges. Others among us want government to protect wild wolves, bears and the Stephens kangaroo rat even if it results in gross violations of private property and loss of lives. The problem is that some people disagree with having their earnings taken to satisfy someone else’s wishes. They don’t want the Corps of Engineers and Fish and Wildlife Service dictating to them what they can and cannot do with their property to ensure a habitat for the kangaroo rat. Force and threats must be used. Here’s the question: Could the average American kill a person who resolutely refuses to give up his earnings so Congress can give it to farmers? Could you kill a person who insists on using all of his property, even though some wolves have set up a den on it? You say, “What do you mean, Williams— kill?” Here’s the scenario: The Corps of Engineers commands me not to remove debris from a drainage ditch on my property, placed there by beavers building a dam, because the debris creates a wetland. I remove it anyway. The Corps of Engineers fines me. I refuse to pay the unjust fine. The Corps of Engineers threatens to seize my land. I say no, you won’t: it’s my land, and I’ll protect it. A politician sends marshals to take it, and I get killed defending it.”

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple

It works this way in the United States as well - most of our estate law derives directly from British law.

"In English law, a fee simple (or fee simple absolute) is an estate in land, a form of freehold ownership. It is the way that real estate is owned in common law countries, and is the highest ownership interest possible that can be had in real property. Allodial title is reserved to governments under a civil law structure. Fee simple ownership represents an ownership interest in real property, though it is limited by government powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat, and it could also be limited further by certain encumbrances or conditions in the deed, such as, for example, a condition that required the land to be used as a public park, with a reversion interest in the grantor if the condition fail; this is a fee simple conditional."

In simple terms what this means is that the assertion that "it’s my land, and I’ll protect it" is factually incorrect. The land belongs to the United States who 'grants' an 'owner' a deed in fee simple.

It's not something you have to agree with for it to be true.

Over the years the intent of our law has found way to differentiate what the founders have implied in the original constitution by incorporating various laws used in other nations to generate money, thus increasing they importance of the governing bodies so prevalent in these United States. Either the states or the Feds must win out if economic stability is to be maintained.

The current status of the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land has far surpassed the quote's examples. By way of example; Mr. Obamunist Goodwrench the assassin's on going and executed hit list and, the police state's murdering innocent individuals at will with immunity (remember the 2 small oriental women that were mistaken for that big white guy cop killer in L.A.).

anonymous, great word salad, what government agency do you work for? I disagree with your occupying statist theocracy's defined untruths because, they are not true. Using anti-law / despot / legal positivism's usurpation (man's relatively new or outright false) definitions to explain how it now works to enslave a once free 'We The People' is contrary to the original intent of the Constitution. Redefining words is a great way to lose the concepts of freedom. Also, I know you enjoy following Lenin’s lead “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” Just because the de facto is the way it is today, that doesn't mean that was the way it was to lawfully be. Some of your references, such as 'eminent domain' are developed through an evolutionary process, antithetical to original use and etymological references. The Articles of Confederation and then, the Constitution, with its Bill of Rights, was an extension of the anti-Federalists natural law. The Federalists concepts were more easily thwarted and usurped, quickly evolving into non / anti recognizable unconstitutional edicts (the land belongs to the United States for example.Your land belonging to the United States simply replaces the tangible king / queen for an intangible god (that is anti-individual sovereign freeman, anti-natural law and a most insidious slavery by design.)

Legally, the term, ‘fee’, from feodum or feudum; references a third party government’s (aloof from We The People - not a representative of the individual sovereign, individually or in concert) recognition of an estate (estate, from the Latin meaning status, signifying the condition or circumstances of quantity, nature and extent of interest a party has in property, real or personal from a greater power or distant authority’s perspective) Fee simple or, fee simple absolute are most accurately terms of art that would describe the ultimate owner’s allowance or license in limiting estates to be passed uniquely to heirs (fee, most generally is related to a relationship of heirs; of course the occupying statist theocracy’s ever changing set of canons will evolve to a more tyrannous status) A founding principle of the de jure States united was that each individual was a sovereign child of God (the King of the Universe), equal to every other sovereign, including the King or Queen of England before the law, with ability to have a perfected ownership absolute with no encumbrances or conceived / applied interests from any third party.

‘Allodial title’ is an oxymoron that expresses legal conditions that are antithetical at their very core. Originally, Allodium was a perfected possession beyond a justice nexus and a tenurial authority’s reach; Allodium is characterized by a system of holding property beyond encumbrances, forfeitures, obligations, or seizure. Allodium is characterized by or related to the system of holding land in absolute ownership (ownership is an inalienable right, it is the right to possess and to control, it is a formally and technically lawful belonging to, carrying with it the dominion of a thing (res potestas - real or personal), corporeal - incorporeal / tangible - intangible, with lawful ability to enjoy and do with as pleased, even to spoil or to destroy, to the exclusion of all other parties (person, government, etc.). An owner may change the face of property - cut the wood thereon, demolish buildings, build new ones, dig wherever [for minerals, to make ponds or otherwise] at his pleasure. The owner’s right is exhaustive (“ absolute”) while a tenant or other inferior's titled position of control or use of the thing is less than ownership). “Title” is a moniker of privilege applied by a third party superior. Title, as concerns real property, is a legal term of limitation at commerce. As concerning real property, ‘title’ is subject to man’s whim and divisible by degrees (by way of example there are titles of occupation, from owner’s to inferiors defined engagement and use and of monomania). In the land's occupied by the current infesting statist theocracy, the use of allodial has been reduced to your use of fee simple.

I could go on and on giving the original de jure meanings, lawful history and entomology of the legal terms you have misused but, that would take more space than this blog allows.

Walter Williams is dead on as he usually is. Anonymous never disappoints, always spouting the party line.

Sounds right to me.

Jim K, Anonymous seems to be right-on the way our constitution has been rewritten. Most unfortunate for us all.

Ok; here's where the rubber hits the road. Corporations are not people. Corporations will not do anything outside of the structure of their profit formula. So, they must be forced to do the right thing (that being for the collective good of all) through legislation. For example; a pipeline corporation must br forced through legislation to perform routine mainenance on their pipeline. If not the pipeline will burst and soil other peoples property. Is this legislation an affront to this corporation's freedom? No, because without it we are all at risk. So corporations must be controlled because they can't be trusted to function outside of their profit formula.

It's sad when your life is not worth the well being of a beaver or any other animal.

So in layman terms, we have been reduced to the state and standing, of the individual before the revolution. Back to square one, but in a different light. The world at large seeing the fight for independence, as Scotland now making its move. Should the States within our union also fight for their independence from slavery and return God given rights to their freeborn sovereigns. Yes ! As is the right of each State.
Now do we have the guts to do it ? Governors and citizens.

entomology:
the branch of zoology concerned with the study of insects. Perhaps you meant etymology, perhaps not.

As for the Constitution having been rewritten with respect to land (real estate) law:
Land law in the US has never been other than what it is today in the way title to an estate is held by individuals or entities like corporations. Ask any real estate attorney.

Like I said, you may not like the way it is but the facts remain.

(-; lol, my automatic spell checker must have been in full force, you are right, it should have read etymology - good eye. ;-)
The Constitution has never been rewritten with respect to land or real estate law, only interpretations, operations and enforcement have changed. I have consulted a real estate attorney. In my office were a couple of real estate attorneys that assisted me and other attorneys Constitutional research. anonymous, a string of truth occurred in your last entry. Titled real estate has been around since before the Constitution (from biblical references through to today) but, titled property has always been different than owned property (even if the.legal nomenclature of today's occupying statist theocracy doesn't reflect that). For example: In discussions on what standard was to be used as to qualify voting in the de jure States united, the difference between owned, titled and otherwise associated to - property was brought up. No state university or other major university that I am aware of goes into a study of Constitutional law. Only a semester at best is required where stare decisis and other non-pertinent intent of the Constitution is discussed; so, unless the real estate attorney took at least a year or 2 off to research what the founders researched and the original intent, your referenced attorneys would be as ignorant of the subject as any government educated layman on the street.

Like you said, you may not like the way it is but the facts remain.

"titled property has always been different than owned property" ...

In the realm of real estate (land), a title (fee) is, and, as far as our history (the history of the US) goes, always has been the one and ONLY way one 'owns' property.

With respect to the quote in question, that's the only point that needs to be made regarding the validity of the supporting (given) argument.

Professor Williams is right on the money as usual. That anonymous character is anonymous for a reason. Like most leftists they don't have the courage to back up their side. Anonymous, like our president the community organizer, are trouble makers. They light matches and throw them and then they run away. No solutions, just political opportunists who thrive on controversy and ways to prolong it for political gain.

That's what you've got?

Your resort to ad hominem attacks signals that you're destitute in addressing the points.

The always profound, wise and thoroughly rational objectivity of the great Dr. Walter Williams.

If only we could clone Dr. Williams and have all his clones replace all the Socialist Progressives in the U.S. Congress that have been all too willing to take this sovereign nation and our unalienable rights down the road to ruin!

anonymous, your first mistake is using English law as a reference for American law regarding ownership of land. In England (and any British commonwealth country) all land is held in allodium by the Crown. 'Real Estate' is derived from the Spanish 'Royal Estate' if you will -- the Crown also lays claim to everything upon the land as well. America was the first of the colonies to not only separate from the Crown but also to gain right to all the land free and clear from any claims by the British Crown -- most any other 'free country' that was formerly a British colony has not been granted the land -- take Canada and Australia as examples -- although there are instances of land patents being granted to different people throughout their history.

After the Revolutionary War, the British Crown signed over all claims to American colonies with the transfer of the land patents to the state governments who are to act as administrators in managing the land patents -- they do not own the land themselves.

You are right, property in allodium is granted, and originally there were two parts to a purchase of property, the land grant and a deed. As well, when each state joined the Union, land patents were drawn up for every acre of land in the new state -- those patents still exist! Nothing has ever changed the way land patents work, nor is there any law that the government could write to take away these fundamental rights.

America is unique in all the English world in that Americans can own land outright -- they may posses the land grants and thus their land is untaxable and unlienable. Real estate refers to what is upon the land and certainly there is question as to how the State can claim ownership of anything on top of the land -- except when it comes to borrowing money and using the real estate as collateral. In America, land was not sold per se, it was granted and all future claims to it renounced. It also could not be held in allodium by a corporation, only by a living person. Interesting to note, that ownership of property could not be purchased with negotiable instruments like IOU's -- you either had the land patents or you did not.

The British have a hisroty of granting land patents to members of the military in exchange for their service. Land patents are still in use today in the Bahamas for example, and those that have them know exactly what they are -- they never sell them, they pass them down to their heirs. These lands are untouchable by government taxation and regulations.

Since we do not use real money in the US anymore, our fiat currency is simply a negotiable instrument representing debt (or credit depending on your perspective). Under Common Law ownership of property is not transferred with an IOU -- however equitable interest can be. That is to say, you do not own the property but you have the rights to equitable interest to it -- but you are still beholden to the property owner and the rules he/she may have attached to the equitable interest.

The New Deal resulted in the confiscation of all real money, and the Common Law courts were merged with commercial courts since the country was now beholden to using commercial paper as its currency. The Office for Land Management gradually disappeared and were transformed into other federal agencies as land patents were not being transferred -- at least not as part of the New Deal. There are people today in America who still have their land patents -- most people would be shocked to learn that someone else holds the land patent to their land today!

There is too much to write here, and yet if you talk to a land attorney today, it is unlikely that this was ever covered in his/her education. The idea of owning property outright is as foreign a concept as a common law courtroom, for that matter. ;-)

"your first mistake is using English law as a reference for American law"

Actually, US land law is modeled on English land law with respect to allodial title.

Allodial title is reserved to the government.

"Real estate refers to what is upon the land"

Partly correct IF the reference is to things ATTACHED PHYSICALLY to the land because the title is to the land itself and not to things which are not attached to the land.

"Real property which is held in allodial title is a freehold held in absolute ownership, without obligations to any other person, organization, or government. It is distinguished from fee simple, which is freehold ownership limited by certain government powers, including the powers of taxation. Allodial title is usually used as an abstract concept to contrast land ownership from feudalism.

You cannot obtain an allodial title for your property under federal U.S. law. Some state constitutions refer to allodial title, but it does not exist in practise. Until 2005, Nevada used to have a law which allowed you to make your land allodial for property tax purposes under state law. No other state has an allodial law. This is because the right to own property in U.S. law is a limited right and not an absolute right."
Source: http://www.legalsource360.com/index.php/how-do-you-obtain-an-allodial-title-for-your-property-in-the-united-states-349/

@anonynous, Considering that the federal government was not given the power to own land other than for the District of Columbia, some 'federal' terrirories and a few parks and monuments, the entire premise is incorrect. The lands of the States were patented when they joined the Union and make up the sovereign State to which they belong -- the States are not 'owned' by the federal government -- never, never, never has that ownership been transferred to the federal government even though the federal government does not cease to lay claim to 'regulate' and tax private property under any number of guises of the Commerce Clause.

Each state in the union is a sovereign state -- it begs the question why the federal government was relegated to 10 square miles of swampland. Has the federal government assumed powers unconstitutionally over the sovereign states? Absolutely! But it was not always so -- and technically still not so. The states may assert their sovereignty -- and dare I say, should continue to at all times! But the funny money system of fiat currency puts all its users under certain obligations. And no debts are ever paid with commercial paper -- only the transference of the obligation of the promissory notes themselves.

Land patents are the highest form of ownership of land -- they are not applied for from the federal government. They need only be granted by the current holder of the land patent. They are very real, and indeed recognized by English Law -- the key difference being that in England, the Crown holds the patent and in America, the citizen does, NOT the State. A 'title' is just that, a title, so there is no such thing as an allodial 'title.' Those holding their land patents know what they are. The rest are just trading equitable interest and 'titles' -- but as in a monarchy, titles are given by the land owner (the Crown) and can be taken away just as easily. With 'titles' come conditions that the holder must obey -- like collecting taxes from the serfs upon the land. The corruption of the United States of America into a feudal system under the federal government modeled after British monarchical law has been under way for more than a century. The States and the People have been duped -- other than a few 'nuts' who dare to stand up for themselves, their families, their land, and yes even their country. That's when the SWAT teams are sent in.

In fact there is no land under federal law which is immune to eminent domain seizure. That means there is no such thing as actual allodial title in the US.

All the talk in the world doesn't change that fact.

Again, the claim that the US federal government's powers are unlimited is patently false. But all the facts in the world will not stop unchecked power.

Please point to one instance where a private party (not the State or Federal Government) is in possession of a piece of real property under an unencumbered Land Patent.

Here's a quick one - please note that every inch of State lands have been patented. This particular land patent comes with some stipulations.

http://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/images/3/3d/Land_Patent_Flavius_Dilts1.png

Earlier land patents from different States have different conditions.

See also US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, General Land Office Records:

http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx#searchTabIndex=0&searchByTypeIndex=0