 The common law of England started with wealth and privilege being the equivalent with ownership of land. If you had wealth to sustain your family, it was not in gold and jewels that could be stolen, nor in businesses that could be mismanaged into failure. It was in acreage that could produce crops or sustain towns and businesses. It was the one who owned the land who had other people, commoners, working for him or her. When the Americas were colonized, it was the land that had value and the promise of land that most fueled the desire to take on that hazardous journey to the Americas. It was the promise of being able to live without having to answer to some privileged aristocrats whims and without having to surrender the fruits of one labor to maintain those who did nothing to earn it. If there was a real source of wealth, it was land that was unencumbered. It was where the one who lived on the land who built his home and raised his family was the effective owner of the place where he lived. Each colonist could have a place of his or her own and could pick up and move somewhere else without awaiting permission from some landlord. And the one who had a farm would be able to pass it to his children and his neighbors would protect and defend his interest in the land because they farmed beside him. Revolution did not change this, except as to the sovereign English government's claim on the land. It denied the feudal barons and their rights to the land that they claimed. This changed when population grew to fill the land, assigning most of it to specific owners. There were recording systems established to recognize ownership and there were the demands of new government leaders for taxes. Where there was wealth, government saw to share. The taxes paid for the roads and buildings. It paid for military and legal activities. It paid for police and emergency services. And with each new burden set upon the land, it was a less of a source of personal wealth. Transfers of land were taxed because they were where the money was. There was a burden placed on passing the land to the next generation. The government took a cut for itself. With this, there was a new phenomenon. American governments resurrected the sovereign right to land with ability to seize upon the land where taxes were not paid. No longer was the land just taxed, it was burdened with taxes and the ownership was challenged by government units that would seize upon it. Ownership was no longer ownership, it became conditional. And this was a sovereign government dishonoring its sovereign citizens. It was one more way for a constitutionally authorized leader to ignore the limits of constitutional government. It claimed sovereign rights to the land as if they were feuds. A sovereign right to profit from what citizens owned. The freedom for which the people had fought and given their final measure was spirited away by those who did not honor the sovereignty of U.S. citizens. If a citizen paid for the privilege of ownership of land, he could keep his little piece and the government would let him even pass it to his next generation. No longer was the land the value. It had the government source of public funds and it was used to sustain many public resources and to hire many government employees. It was ripe for government to seize further control, setting regulations on the use of the land, putting requirements upon any attempt by a citizen to keep the land as if he really owned it. The interest of the government was just too important to support sovereign citizens or freedom that comes with ownership of land. Indeed, regulation of land had become more and more necessary as the population grew denser, while the land had not increased to support them. The people who sought freedom and value in ownership went west with the expansion of the nation. They went west seeking the value of land for themselves and their families. Government usurpation of sovereignty over citizen lands supported the great western migration into the new states and territories. Freedom is a powerful personal incentive. The escape from England was accomplished, but the need to escape from replacement governments that claim sovereignty continued. But government followed, always seeking the value of the land for the privilege of the new aristocracy, a new set of governors and leaders who would live off the wealth of the commoners. Land is still valuable, and today's commoner citizens have been told for generations that valuable land is available, but is getting scarce, so that government regulation and harvest is more and more necessary. Here a different truth. At this time, 2016, all U.S. citizens could move to Florida and have a half acre of land each. We have a government that owns and controls more land than people use for their private homes. The federal government now owns and controls about 28% of the nation, effectively denying ownership to common citizens and restricting their use of the land that is publicly owned. There are many reasons to do this, and there are many excuses for their seizure and controls. None of these honor the freedoms of sovereign citizens. All of them assault the very reason that our federal government was authorized to exist. Funds are not collected from these lands to support government. It is collected from the lands claimed by citizens with the privilege of ownership subject to governmental restriction and taxes collected much as rentals to leased lands. The United States governments have effectively reinstated the feudal system of land ownership. They just do not claim it as privilege, but as necessary to provide the services such as regulation of property. For citizens, there is the loss of value of ownership, and the value of land is no longer growing with the demand for land, or with the value of land that is productive. That has been taken. And yet the sovereign citizens of the United States are the real owners of all the land, and owners of both the nation and its governments. People are the authority behind government, and when agreed, they are its only source of authority. There is no other party in interest. There is no future public that can authorize public officers to exercise ownership over the people or their property today. Consider the ownership of land upon which this nation was founded, and consider the differences between government regulation for a public purpose and government services for we the people. Yes, land is value, and the government can use what people are willing to provide to operate and serve the people. It can limit the use of one citizen to protect the uses of other citizens, and that is a valuable government service. The Constitution is clear on one thing. It is the government that takes land must pay the value of that land to those who are prior owners. This is not permissive. It is legal mandate, and it sets the value of the land to the owners by jury of citizens. That is not permissive either. It is mandate. Taking by regulation is seizing the value of the land. Taking for failure to pay taxes is seizing the land. In all such cases, the requirement is for a jury to set the value of the land. The government that has seized on privately owned land is required to pay the sovereign citizen owner the whole value of all that has been seized. If it is property of the state, then it is property of the citizens of that state, and they are entitled to receive the whole value of any land upon which the federal government has seized. Our Constitution is not permissive on this matter, nor is the responsibility of those who govern unclear. The challenge for tomorrow's citizens is the harm that has been done by government efforts where it acts as a sovereign in charge of a feud, simply taking what leaders feel is right. There is a difference between a government burden and a public service. In transfer of land, the burden on the citizen is in such complexity and the things being so regulated, the experts must be hired by the citizen just to protect themselves from being with their own government. The corresponding service would be government supporting the citizens, doing the registration, following their own rules in the rendering of public support for the citizens who gain or lose ownership. Is the service of value? If the citizens have to hire experts to interact with their government, then it is a burden instead of a service. It costs them to exercise their ownership. If the service has value to the public, then the public will support it. The system for recording the land should be a service to the owners. It should serve the sovereign citizenry by assuring that there is someone responsible to pay taxes on every parcel and by protecting the titled owner instead of setting new burden upon the owner to make up for lack of government protection. Can a state government demand payment on behalf of its citizens to their undivided ownership of state lands taken by federal seizure of property? Can a federal law authorize seizure of property without meeting the requirements of eminent domain? The Constitution is not subject to change by legislation. It is the supreme law of the land. The next to the last paragraph of Article 1 in the Constitution sets the condition for applying federal law upon property within states. It requires that land be purchased and that there be consent by the legislature of the state. Passing federal laws that authorize seizure of land does not satisfy this requirement. Nor does consent survive the effect of change or addition of new federal regulations to restrict that land as to the uses of sovereign citizens of the state. Neither does it support redirecting federal lands to some other purpose than that for which permission was granted. Can the people of the state challenge the permission granted as not being representative of the people required for a republican form of government? These are questions for which there are no modern answers and federal courts have not proven responsive to citizen rights in property preferring to support governmental sovereignty in claiming whatever they feel is necessary according to the determination of congressional or regulatory leaders. Citizen rights in real property ownership is an area to be further explored by the citizens of the United States. Political leadership in the United States has done all that it could to dismantle any constitutional protection for private land ownership. It goes far beyond just denying the rights of a sovereign citizen to own and control land. It goes to government seizure for purposes defined in legislation. Government, in pursuit of its own sovereignty, seizes property from private citizens. It does this for public purposes without regard to any requirement of eminent domain. It seizes and sells property without even offering to pay just compensation. Government, in pursuit of its own sovereignty, seizes state property claiming legislation as authority to avoid the requirement for legislative consent on behalf of the people of the state. We have a government that has so interfered with the right of citizens to privately own land that it is no longer a reasonable source of personal wealth but has to essentially be rented from government even the shadow of ownership is not to be honored.