|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
jryoung
Ladies Man
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Posts: 7664
City: Man Jose
|
 Posted: Apr 11, 2014 3:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Standing up against the government? He's been a welfare rancher freeloading off us, and our public land for 20 years. He's not better than the welfare Mom popping out kids, the tax evader, or anyone else that sucks off the government teat harder than they should.
_________________
| Quote: | | You don't meet many old vegans. It's mostly young priviliged kids trying to figure out where they stand in the world. |
- Steve Rinella |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Apr 11, 2014 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While I agree that farm subsidies are an issue, and don't think he should be taking them, he and his family have owned that property for years. They should not have the government stepping in and imposing restrictions and fees based upon the use of their own property.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jryoung
Ladies Man
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Posts: 7664
City: Man Jose
|
| Posted: Apr 11, 2014 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Easy solution, show the court the Deed....wait he already lost that battle.
This whole issue is totally blown out of proportion. The Feds should have stepped in years ago and enforced the rules and not let it get to this level.
_________________
| Quote: | | You don't meet many old vegans. It's mostly young priviliged kids trying to figure out where they stand in the world. |
- Steve Rinella |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Apr 11, 2014 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, you're saying his family does not own their property?
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Apr 11, 2014 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Okie Boarder wrote: | | So, you're saying his family does not own their property? |
I havnt looked into this very deeply at all, but I didnt even think that was in dispute? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Apr 11, 2014 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You think the family owns or doesn't own the property and it is undisputed?
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Apr 11, 2014 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I thought it was an open range situation |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Apr 11, 2014 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I assume you mean there was no transaction that established ownership. I get the same impression. From what I see the family started using the land many years ago and have established themselves as the "owners" similar to staking land or homesteading.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
E.J.
Ladies Man
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Posts: 7597
City: Mogadishu
|
| Posted: Apr 11, 2014 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe American Indians should do the same.....  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Apr 11, 2014 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Would you be laughing if you were the one being run off the land your family lived on for generations? Would this be funny to you if the government used eminent domain to establish their need for your property, offering you 50% value and forcing you off if you didn't take it? While this isn't exactly the same, it has many of the same elements. As long as it isn't you, most people laugh it off. When it's you, I guarantee you'll look at it differently. But if people like this keep letting the government walk all over them, it will just get worse.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jryoung
Ladies Man
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Posts: 7664
City: Man Jose
|
| Posted: Apr 11, 2014 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This guy has every reason to be laughed at he has taken from us for 20 years. You don't pay da rent you don't get to stay. Only because The government is slow to act and borderline inept has this become the spectacle that it is.
_________________
| Quote: | | You don't meet many old vegans. It's mostly young priviliged kids trying to figure out where they stand in the world. |
- Steve Rinella |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Apr 12, 2014 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Who is "us"? Is there a deed on that land at all? If so, who sold that land to who and when?
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Apr 12, 2014 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Okie, you seem to be the expert on adverse possession, please share the applicable laws, court cases or other basis for your conclusion. Im also curious about your title research regarding the subject land...oh wait never mind this is probably based on your God given natural rights "argument", my bad |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DRAGON88
Ladies Man
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 8213
City: Portland, OR
|
| Posted: Apr 12, 2014 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jgriffith wrote: |
| Okie Boarder wrote: | | Who is "us"? Is there a deed on that land at all? If so, who sold that land to who and when? |
Okie, you seem to be the expert on adverse possession, please share the applicable laws, court cases or other basis for your conclusion. Im also curious about your title research regarding the subject land...oh wait never mind this is probably based on your God given natural rights "argument", my bad |
You can't "own" mother nature, bro! Quod erat demonstrandum!
_________________
wakeboards
wakeboarding |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Apr 12, 2014 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You would be correct...this does fall into a natural rights argument from what I see. The family has been on that land for generations, so what gives someone else, or an entity like our government who is supposed to protect liberty and freedom, the right to tell him what he can and can't do on the property? What gives the government the right to tell any of us what we can do on our property or the right to establish things like eminent domain. Can you point to where that right has been given to government within our Constitution?
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Apr 12, 2014 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 5th amendment? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Apr 13, 2014 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
The 5th Amendment calls for just compensation and that rarely happens.
Look, we can argue the fact precedent has been set and they have established "legal" reasoning for what is happening. Just because something is "legal", doesn't mean it is right.
What if they started charging urban farmers a fee for growing or raising livestock on their property? What if they started charging all of us for growing flowers in our flowerbed? It has to be stopped at some point or property rights will disappear altogether.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne
|
| Posted: Apr 13, 2014 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why do you say it rarely happens? Do you have first hand experience? What are you basing this statement on?
You didnt understand that eminent domain was in the constitution until now...i doubt you have any basis for your conclusions |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nmballa
Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Posts: 3906
City: Milwaukee
|
| Posted: Apr 13, 2014 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jryoung wrote: | | This guy has every reason to be laughed at he has taken from us for 20 years. You don't pay da rent you don't get to stay. Only because The government is slow to act and borderline inept has this become the spectacle that it is. |
From what I understand its more like 130+ years his family has been herding cattle on this land. And he has been paying rent to the county he lives in. The Feds decided the land belonged to them and not the state and simply nullified the rental contracts he had with the county.
_________________
jt09 wrote:
I used to get all happy when the girlie would make a colonic appointment. That meant she was going to be breaking out the "fine china" soon.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509037985&ref=profile |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jryoung
Ladies Man
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Posts: 7664
City: Man Jose
|
| Posted: Apr 13, 2014 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nmballa wrote: | | jryoung wrote: | | This guy has every reason to be laughed at he has taken from us for 20 years. You don't pay da rent you don't get to stay. Only because The government is slow to act and borderline inept has this become the spectacle that it is. |
From what I understand its more like 130+ years his family has been herding cattle on this land. And he has been paying rent to the county he lives in. The Feds decided the land belonged to them and not the state and simply nullified the rental contracts he had with the county. |
Nope, in the early 90's the BLM changed the terms of the permits for all ranchers in the area because of the desert tortoise. Federal Rangeland has been managed under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 where the habitat was managed for all with equal access. Further, there was no change to the fees of the arrangement as per executive order (oh the humanity) 12548 under Reagan ranchers on Federal Lands have the glorious handout of $1.35 per AUM (typically on private land range fees are well north of $10 per AUM and often close to $20). In short, it's section 8 housing, free health care and foodstamps for ranchers.
So Bundy digs his boot heels in and stops paying what he had been paying for decades. Then a few years after this, the State of Nevada opted to buy the grazing allotments to help protect the tortoise, but because Bundy is a genius he had forfeited that option.
_________________
| Quote: | | You don't meet many old vegans. It's mostly young priviliged kids trying to figure out where they stand in the world. |
- Steve Rinella |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Apr 14, 2014 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jgriffith wrote: | Why do you say it rarely happens? Do you have first hand experience? What are you basing this statement on?
You didnt understand that eminent domain was in the constitution until now...i doubt you have any basis for your conclusions |
Every experience I've been close to (close friends and family) has not worked out the way it was stated in that amendment.
I understood it was out there. I just went back and looked at the way I wrote it in my earlier response and it came across wrong. I wasn't trying to say it didn't exist, but that it is used in an abusive way, rather than the original intent.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DRAGON88
Ladies Man
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 8213
City: Portland, OR
|
| Posted: Apr 14, 2014 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Okie Boarder wrote: |
I understood it was out there. I just went back and looked at the way I wrote it in my earlier response and it came across wrong. I wasn't trying to say it didn't exist, but that it is used in an abusive way, rather than the original intent. |
What was the original intent? Drop some knowledges on me.
_________________
wakeboards
wakeboarding |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Apr 14, 2014 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
BLM has backed off.
| Quote: | (NaturalNews) Breaking news: The BLM, now in a full retreat against the Citizens of the United States of America, has announced a stand down and has begun releasing the Bundy family's cattle from the BLM's "bovine concentration camps."
This has just been confirmed by the Bundy family on their Facebook page. Also, here's a breaking video showing the cattle being released.
A tense standoff had taken place for several hours, where armed citizens of the United States of America -- many on horseback -- drew a literal line in the sand and refused to back down until BLM released the cattle.
The photo below -- one of the most iconic photos of recent American history -- shows armed American citizens in a standoff with BLM thugs (in the white SUVs) who engaged in the felony theft of the Bundy family cattle and committed numerous felony assaults on American citizens.
As you can see in the photo, a brigade of armed Americans -- many waving American flags -- blockaded the road at a strategic roadway point. BLM, a tyrannical police state gang conducting illegal, illegitimate operations, earlier ordered the FAA to ban all civilian flights over the region in an effort to enforce a media blackout (possibly in preparation for an armed assault on the protesters).
Government thugs had inflamed the situation by ordering attack dogs to attack innocent bystanders and saying, on the record, that they "hoped the protesters were ready to die."
Outraged by the lawless aggression of an out-of-control government, American citizens banded together to stand up to tyranny, even at the risk of being killed in the process.
Other details now surfacing:
• No shots have been fired at this point. (Apparently BLM is wise enough not to cause themselves to be slaughtered.)
• Cell phone service has reportedly been restored to the area (it was previously reported as being cut off by the government).
• The FAA's flight restrictions have still NOT been lifted.
• The lamestream, anti-American media continues to utterly ignore this historical moment in U.S. history, pretending it isn't happening. The ignoring of this story is a total indictment of the controlled, propaganda-spewing mainstream media which has willfully abandoned America and now represents only anti-American interests that are attempting to destroy this nation.
• More armed U.S. citizens are still on their way after joining the call to defend the Bundy Ranch against the tyranny of oppressive government. |
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/044695_BLM_surrender_cattle_released_government_tyranny.html##ixzz2ysrBjHTx
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Apr 14, 2014 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Following the surprise announcement by Clark County’s Sheriff Douglas Gillespie this morning of a deal brokered to end the BLM’s occupation of the Bundy Ranch and Gold Butte, rancher Cliven Bundy has moved to reclaim some of his cattle previously stolen by the BLM.
After the Sheriff’s statement on stage at Camp Bunkerville, Cliven Bundy then made a list of demands, calling for the US Federal government’s 200 armed BLM agents to wrap-up their operation, and that they should begin “disarming the park service rangers”, and remove their equipment and structures to be “torn down immediately – within the hour”.
That hour came and went, and with the Clark County Sheriff no where to be seen, Cliven Bundy took the stage at Camp Bunkerville and announced that protesters and supporters should pick up their things and move their vehicles to nearby Interstate I15 where the men on horseback would orgainise the repatriation of cattle previously stolen by armed BLM agents this past week. Traffic leading to I15 quickly slowed to one lane, prompting Nevada Highway Patrol and Metro Police to be called out to the scene – but only to direct traffic.
An estimated 150 to 200 ‘Bundy Cowboys’ on horseback were then deployed from the ranch to shut down the freeway near the entrance to the BLM compound near the crossing at I15 where the Bundy herd is being held.
Cowboys are in process of in organising a safe crossing over the interstate to gain access to the compound where the Bundy’s cattle is being held.
Incredibly, the actions this afternoon have thus far been peaceful and well organised, with protesters cooperation with law enforcement to help facilitate an orderly transfer of the livestock back to the Bundy Ranch and Gold Butte (see photo below, taken from the highway).
Cowboys and supporters then gathered at the entrance of the BLM’s cattle holding area, and after a tense period where armed federal agents did not stand down on request, the keys to the gates were finally handed over, as the BLM appeared to recognise a credible opposition. Bundy cowboys along with their peaceful supporters – and backed up by a well-trained and organised militia, then proceeded to reclaim their livestock herd and the process of driving them back to the Gold Butte area grazing lands was underway. |
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/04/12/breaking-cowboys-on-horseback-move-in-to-reclaim-bundy-cattle-stolen-by-fed-blm/
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eeven73
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 5377
City: Halfway
|
| Posted: Apr 14, 2014 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
NaturalNews
What a bag of dicks that douche is.
_________________
Is President Obama a Keynesian? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Apr 14, 2014 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero. |
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Apr 14, 2014 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DRAGON88 wrote: | | Okie Boarder wrote: |
I understood it was out there. I just went back and looked at the way I wrote it in my earlier response and it came across wrong. I wasn't trying to say it didn't exist, but that it is used in an abusive way, rather than the original intent. |
What was the original intent? Drop some knowledges on me. |
| Quote: | | nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. |
Seems pretty straightforward with those last two words. "Just compensation" rarely occurs from what I've read and has never occured in any of the cases close to me, personally.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Apr 14, 2014 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's amazing how this battle has tied right in to the 2nd Amendment. Imagine if this group of ranchers were unable to arm themselves in defense of life, liberty and property. 
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eeven73
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 5377
City: Halfway
|
| Posted: Apr 14, 2014 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
I assure you it isn't the fear of guns or "slaughter" that stopped the federal gov't.
_________________
Is President Obama a Keynesian? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DRAGON88
Ladies Man
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 8213
City: Portland, OR
|
| Posted: Apr 14, 2014 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Okie Boarder wrote: | | It's amazing how this battle has tied right in to the 2nd Amendment. Imagine if this group of ranchers were unable to arm themselves in defense of life, liberty and property. |
Definitely, federal government is shaking in their boots. Not like the federal govt. controls the most advanced and well funded military in the world... Right?
_________________
wakeboards
wakeboarding |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Apr 14, 2014 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
I doubt they are shaking in their boots, but the strategy used was effective. If those folks were totally unarmed, it would have been nearly impossible to achieve the results they just did.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jt09
Ladies Man
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 22083
City: Austin
|
| Posted: Apr 14, 2014 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Okie Boarder wrote: | | So, you're saying his family does not own their property? |
it is federal land. always has been. not sure why you keep saying it's their land. that's not even close to the issue. they paid the gov't grazing fees for years before the blm took over and the permit issue in the 90s. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jt09
Ladies Man
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 22083
City: Austin
|
| Posted: Apr 14, 2014 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DRAGON88 wrote: | | Definitely, federal government is shaking in their boots. Not like the federal govt. controls the most advanced and well funded military in the world... Right? |
so glad that whoever was in charge for the govt this weekend didn't have this mentality. standing down and avoiding needless confrontation is rare from leo/govt. completely the right decision, and rare.
i'm as anti-leo, govt, nsa, etc, but the feds are not only right on this one, but they are handling it right as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Apr 14, 2014 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | NEVADA, April 12, 2014– Turtles and cows have absolutely no relevance to the situation in Nevada. Does the Constitution make provision for the federal government to own and control “public land”? This is the only question we need to consider. Currently, the federal government “owns” approximately 30% of the United States territory. The majority of this federally owned land is in the West. For example, the feds control more than 80% of Nevada and more than 55% of Utah. The question has been long debated. At the debate’s soul is Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which is know as the “Property Clause”. Proponents of federal expansion on both sides of the political aisle argue that this clause provides warrant for the federal government to control land throughout the United States.
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….
Those who say this clause delegates the feds control over whatever land they arbitrarily decide to lay claim to are grossly misinterpreting even the most basic structure of the Constitution.
It is said the Constitution is “written in plain English”. This is true. However, plain English does not allow one to remove context. Article IV does not grant Congress the power to exercise sovereignty over land. Article IV deals exclusively with state-to-state relations such as protection from invasion, slavery, full faith and credit, creation of new states and so on.
Historically, the Property Clause delegated federal control over territorial lands up until the point when that land would be formed as a state. This was necessary during the time of the ratification of the Constitution due to the lack of westward development. The clause was drafted to constitutionalize the Northwest Ordinance, which the Articles of Confederation did not have the power to support. This ordinance gave the newly formed Congress the power to create new states instead of allowing the states themselves to expand their own land claims.
The Property Clause and Northwest Ordinance are both limited in power and scope. Once a state is formed and accepted in the union, the federal government no longer has control over land within the state’s borders. From this moment, such land is considered property of the sovereign state. The continental United States is now formed of fifty independent, sovereign states. No “unclaimed” lands are technically in existence. Therefore, the Property Clause no longer applies within the realm of federal control over these states.
The powers of Congress are found only in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. With the exception of the less than two dozen powers delegated to Congress found within Article I, Section 8, Congress may make no laws, cannot form political agencies and cannot take any actions that seek to regulate outside of these enumerated powers.
Article I, Section 8 does lay forth the possibility of federal control over some land. What land? Clause 17 defines these few exceptions.
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings– (Emphasis added).
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is known as the Enclave Clause. The clause gives federal control over the “Seat of Government” (Washington D.C.) and land that has been purchased by the federal government with consent of the state legislatures to build military posts and other needful buildings (post offices and other structures pursuant to Article I, Section 8 ). Nothing more.
State permission being a requirement, state authority was explicitly emphasized while drafting this clause. The founders and respective states insisted (with loud cries) that the states must consent before the federal government could purchase land from the states. Nowhere in this clause will you find the power for Congress to exercise legislative authority through regulation over 80% of Nevada, 55% of Utah, 45% of California, 70% of Alaska, or any other state. Unless, of course, the state has given the federal government the formal authority to do so, which they have not.
If a state legislature decides sell land to the federal government then at that point the Enclave Clause becomes applicable and the federal government may seize legislative and regulatory control in pursuance to the powers delegated by Article 1, Section 8.
In America’s infancy, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Founding Fathers’ understanding of federal control over land. Justice Stephen J. Field wrote for the majority opinion in Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1855) that federal authority over territorial land was “necessarily paramount.” However, once the territory was organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal ground, the state government assumes sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government retains only the rights of an “individual proprietor.” This means that the federal government can only exercise general sovereignty over state property if the state legislatures formally grant the federal government the power to do so under the Enclave Clause with the exception of federal buildings (post offices) and military installations. This understanding was reaffirmed in Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan (1845), Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the city of New Orleans (1845) and Strader v. Graham (1850).
However, it did not take long for the Supreme Court to begin redefining the Constitution and legislating from the bench under the guise of interpretation. Case by case, the Court slowly redefined the Property Clause, which had always been understood to regard exclusively the transferring of federal to state sovereignty through statehood, to the conservation of unconstitutional federal supremacy.
Federal supremacists sitting on the Supreme Court understood that by insidiously redefining this clause then federal power would be expanded and conserved.
With Camfield v. United States (1897), Light v. United States (1911), Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) and multiple other cases regarding commerce, federal supremacists have effectively erased the constitutional guarantee of state control over property.
Through the centuries, by the hand of corrupt federal judges, we arrive and the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. The Founding Fathers never imagined the citizens of a state would be subject to such treatment at the hands of the federal government. Furthermore, they certainly never imagined the state legislatures themselves would allow such treatment to go unchecked. The latest updates appear to show that Bundy has won his battle against the feds– for now. However, it remains a damn shame that the state of Nevada would allow for such a situation to arise in the first place.
What does Nevada’s Constitution say about property? Section 1, titled “Inalienable Rights,” reads: All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness (Emphasis added).
In Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution, eminent domain is clarified. The state Constitution requires that the state prove public need, provide compensation and documentation before acquiring private property. In order to grant land to the federal government, the state must first control this land.
Bundy’s family has controlled the land for more than 140 years.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is an agency created by Congress, claimed that Bundy was “violating the law of the land.” Perhaps the agency has forgotten that the law of the land is the Constitution, and the only constitutional violation here is the very modern existence of the agency’s presence in Nevada.
Read more: http://benswann.com/lofti-who-actually-owns-americas-land-a-deeper-look-at-the-bundy-ranch-crisis/#ixzz2yu2BX6q9
Follow us: @BenSwann_ on Twitter |
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
Last edited by Okie Boarder on Apr 14, 2014 2:41 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Add To Favorites
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Copyright © 2012 - Wakeboarding - Wakeboarder.com - All Right Reserved
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Stats
Favorites
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
