What I mean is, to say that if the govt followed the Constitution to the letter, there would still be a sizable amount of people who would disagree with that "letter." The Constitution isn't a blank and white document. If it were, the Constitution probably wouldn't have provided for a body to interpret its meaning. So yeah, nobody (who has a cursory understand of the Constitution), would believe the whole "if you followed the Constitution, this wouldn't have happened," nonsense.
I still don't agree with you, but thanks for clarifying.
The property ownership of the feds is clearly spelled out. The way I see it, it happened because the feds didn't exercise much control over that "owned" land for the first few decades. By the time they did it was considered "normal" to own it. Now it seems supposedly crazy to wind it back, just as people would think it was crazy to unwind the 1930s interpretation of the commerce clause.