This is what it says preceding what you just put up.
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) ..."
Now where do you get 'can't own land more that 10 square miles"? It clearly says the federal govt is to "exercise exclusive LEGISLATION...OVER SUCH DISTRICT NOT EXCEEDING TEN MILES SQUARE..." Nothing about owning nor not owning! The federal govt bought and paid for the land so until they states buy it or the govt gives them title, it still owns it!
Re: Your Personal Decision
I wrote...."Really the issue is, should there be any National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National Historic Sites, National Monuments, National Battlefields, National Forests, National Grasslands, or for that matter National anything? Should it all be private and those who can pay can enter and those who are forbidden exiled by those who can afford to buy the land?"
I asked..... Should there be these places held in the public trust or do you favor it all to be private? Many are over 10 sq. mi. Pretty much all National Parks and National Monuments meet that criteria. In other words, there should be no government ownership of land except maybe the Capitol and White House. I suppose we should also have to rent our military bases and training grounds from private sources and turn over all those locks, dams, rivers, lakes etc. It's a freakin' Socialist web and I am guessing you might think it all needs to go to the highest bidder. The list is HUGE.
Where do you draw the line BA? Should we even own the Capitol and DC lands and monuments? In aggregate, they may be over the limit you mentioned. How do you decide where to draw the line?
Maybe most of it is pretty good and in our interest. Maybe you want the highest bidder to own our public lands? Decide.
The government wants control of as much land as possible so they can dole out the goodies to whom ever gives them the most cash.