So did I... SCOTUS.... They don't agree with you, nor does the majority of Congress or any President. Hmmm Yeah, must be a government conspiracy. And finally, LaVoy is here to show us the way to truth....
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 02-08-2016).]
So did I... SCOTUS.... They don't agree with you, nor does the majority of Congress or any President. Hmmm Yeah, must be a government conspiracy. And finally, LaVoy is here to show us the way to truth....
Find anywhere in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government the ability to own land, in states that is not for the purpose of the Enclave clause. Illegal action by the government does not make them or you correct.
The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] It expresses the principle of federalism, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution of the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.
Find anywhere in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government the ability to own land, in states that is not for the purpose of the Enclave clause. Illegal action by the government does not make them or you correct.
The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] It expresses the principle of federalism, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution of the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.
So you can't. Hence illegal, despite the the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS, does not have the ability to circumvent the Constitution for the Government's gain.
Liberals fail to understand the Constitution is not a document that can be used to strip rights from individuals or states, aside from what the Constitution allowed to be removed for the purpose of order.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 02-08-2016).]
So you can't. Hence illegal, despite the the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS, does not have the ability to circumvent the Constitution for the Government's gain.
Liberals fail to understand the Constitution is not a document that can be used to strip rights from individuals or states, aside from what the Constitution allowed to be removed for the purpose of order.
(BTW... liberals? Hey, I am following the law. How about right-winger, tin-foil hat wearing "cowboys" who pick and choose which laws apply to them? How about calling them out... Yeah, I am guessing you won't).
quote
Originally posted by jaskispyder:
Already covered....
Not illegal.... as ruled by SCOTUS
Did you not read this? Or do you choose to ignore it because it is not spelled out specifically in the Constitution? Well, nuclear weapons are not spelled out, nor are many other things (I have to go off-topic for examples), but you are happy to accept those things. If you are going to take the Constitution without interpretation by SCOUTUS, then you have a lot of back-pedaling to do... and start calling for the US to head back to the 1700s.
Federal Ownership of Public Lands. The federal government’s authority over public lands is set forth in the Property Clause of the United States Constitution, granting Congress the power to “dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”
Utah and her sister states accepted the U.S. Constitution as the “supreme law of the land” as a condition of statehood.
The Supreme Court has made clear that the Property Clause grants Congress an “absolute right” to decide upon the disposition of federal land and “[n]o State legislation can interfere with this right or embarrass its exercise.”
The power to make decisions regarding disposition includes the power to forego disposition and to retain property in federal ownership because, “it lies in the discretion of the Congress, acting in the public interest, to determine of how much of [its] property it shall dispose.”
Furthermore, “inclusion within a State of lands of the United States does not take from Congress the power to control their occupancy and use . . . and to prescribe the conditions upon which others may obtain rights in them.”
More than a century ago, the Supreme Court upheld the nascent National Forest System, concluding that the federal government could retain public lands for broad national benefits, and that it could do so indefinitely. In Light v. United States, a Colorado resident who had been enjoined from grazing cattle on National Forest System lands argued that Congress could not withdraw public lands from settlement without state consent. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the United States owns the public lands “and has made Congress the principal agent to dispose of property,” which includes the right to “sell or withhold [public lands] from sale.”
As an owner and sovereign, “the United States can prohibit absolutely or fix terms on which its property can be used. As it can withhold or reserve the land it can do so indefinitely.”
As the owner of the public lands, the United States holds the public lands “in trust for the people of the whole country,” not solely for the benefit of adjacent landowners.
Stated simply, Congress has discretion to decide how much of the public domain to retain and how much to dispose of. State legislation cannot displace that discretion.
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 02-08-2016).]
But once a territory is organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal footing with other states, the state government assumes general sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government has the rights only of an “individual proprietor.”
But once a territory is organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal footing with other states, the state government assumes general sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government has the rights only of an “individual proprietor.”
In the text above:
Utah and her sister states accepted the U.S. Constitution as the “supreme law of the land” as a condition of statehood.
The Supreme Court has made clear that the Property Clause grants Congress an “absolute right” to decide upon the disposition of federal land and “[n]o State legislation can interfere with this right or embarrass its exercise.”
The next few posts will be surrounding the Cliven Bundy issue in Nevada. I will be including my own comments and articles from other writers.
Is this a case of a free loading rancher or is this what he claims it is–an issue of State’s Rights?
You decide.
Fundamental to this growing discussion are two philosophies of governments: Federalism and Nationalism. Federalism is the philosophy promoted by the framers of the Constitution based on the idea of sovereign states and limited federal government (Art. 1 Sect. 8 and the 10th amendment).
Nationalism is the concept that a large and powerful central government should regulate and govern all aspects of life from food production to housing to taxation to land use and property ownership. Historically, America adhered to Federalism up through the American Civil War, and then transitioned into Nationalism from 1865 to 1913. Many people struggle with understanding the differences between these philosophies or the particulars of the States Rights stance as most Americans have been educated from a Nationalistic perspective.
A government funded education system is going to promote the interests of that government. This has been the case for all countries rich enough to provide such an public service. It was only when the states (under federalism) were responsible for education that privates schools and church schools provided a wide variety of education opportunities at the local level and people were very involved in the actual educational process of their children, much like the home schooling movement today.
By Michael Lotfi – “Who Actually Owns America’s Land? A Deeper Look At The Bundy Ranch Crisis”
Tortoises 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.
us_publicHistorically, 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 into 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 (equal footing doctrine – footnote 1), 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). "...on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever."
“…on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.”
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, through the use of judicial review, we arrive at 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.
Michael Lotfi is a Persian, American political analyst and adviser living in Nashville, Tennessee where he works as the executive director for the Tenth Amendment Center (TN). Lotfi founded TheLibertyPaper.org, which is an online news source that is visited daily by readers in over 135 countries. Lotfi also writes a column at The Washington Times called “American Millennial”. Lotfi graduated in the top 5% of his class with top honors from Belmont University, an award winning, private university located in Nashville, Tennessee.
1-The Doctrine of the Equality of States, (also called Equal Footing), is based on Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which says:
“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”
Additionally, since the admission of Tennessee in 1796, Congress has included in each State’s act of admission a clause providing that the State enters the Union “on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever. (Wiki) http://shanonbrooks.com/201...a-the-last-frontier/
Is this a case of a free loading rancher or is this what he claims it is–an issue of State’s Rights?
You decide.
from that article :
quote
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.
.....
Through the centuries, through the use of judicial review, we arrive at 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.
Nice try.... adding nothing of his own opinion or thoughts... just follows the rest. Don't be like jmbishop.
Seems like a valid question for this discussion. Also a pretty simple question and concept. I would be interested in knowing the answer as well. Granted, you are under no obligation to be open and honest about anything so feel free to deflect or ignore as you see fit.
Seems like a valid question for this discussion. Also a pretty simple question and concept. I would be interested in knowing the answer as well. Granted, you are under no obligation to be open and honest about anything so feel free to deflect or ignore as you see fit.
I have already laid out my answer.... I have been open about the complexity of the situation. I have shown that the Constitution is not currently taken word for word, yet, those issues are ignored by a few here. Yes, the Constitution is the law of the land, however, we have 3 branches of government that work within and interpreters the Constitution. Why else would the founding fathers give us 3 branches and the ability to amend the Constitution.. and make laws? Why not just say "Well, the Constitution is the only thing we need".
It seems few here want to read what I have posted and comment on those areas... you know, offering insight. I am guessing they have none (unless someone tells them what to think). At least Dennis_6 is actually having a discussion.
I wonder if anywhere in his contract, with the government who cosigned the said contract, stipulated anywhere that they were allowed to change the rules anytime they wanted. Every contract I ever signed, it was illegal for either party to change the terms without the other parties approval. They changed the contract and he didnt agree, therefore he only had to honor the contract he signed.....legally. The government of course dont have to. The only time ive had a contract change is like with cable/sat tv where it says in the fine print, that you approve of when you sign, that they have the right to change pricing at any time with no notice.
I see the BLM (aka government) who are illegally controlling the land for themselves, using intimidation, arrests and murder...are by description...terrorists.
Right.... It has only been working "my way" since our founding.... but disregard that fact.
The Constitution list liberty as a inalienable right, the process of amendments were not to remove liberty, but instead preserve it, a just in case they forgot something. Also, the Government is not allowed to interpret the Constitution, the Constitution was written literally in plain English. We have 3 branches for checks and balances, so that the Government will hopefully police itself, and preserve liberty. The Supreme Court is supposed to do nothing other than make sure laws, and rulings meet the intent of the Constitution, not some modern liberal lets twist it this way interpretation. They do not have that power. You also seem to fail to understand that Constitutional law is above criminal law and family law. All other law, must fall in the guide lines set by the constitution or it is ILLEGAL.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 02-09-2016).]
The Constitution list liberty as a inalienable right, the process of amendments were not to remove liberty, but instead preserve it, a just in case they forgot something. Also, the Government is not allowed to interpret the Constitution, the Constitution was written literally in plain English. We have 3 branches for checks and balances, so that the Government will hopefully police itself, and preserve liberty. The Supreme Court is supposed to do nothing other than make sure laws, and rulings meet the intent of the Constitution, not some modern liberal lets twist it this way interpretation. They do not have that power. You also seem to fail to understand that Constitutional law is above criminal law and family law. All other law, must fall in the guide lines set by the constitution or it is ILLEGAL.
"The very flawed Constitution was drafted and put into place in a very secretive process by a few politicians, and was never a contract voluntarily entered into by individual citizens. It was forced on the public, and its purpose was not to protect liberty or restrict the power of the national government, it was to expand the powers of the state over the individual, thereby reducing liberty."
“I’m not going to end up in prison,” said Mr. Finicum, 54, who often appeared at news conferences wearing a broad cowboy hat on his head and a sidearm on his hip. “I would rather die than be caged. And I’ve lived a good life.”
Dennis says: the federal government is perverting the constitution and the lawmaking process to in order over reach.
jaskispyder says: well, they did it so you're wrong.
Don't be like jaskispyder.....
Well they did do it.
And Jaskispyder will capitulate and support it. After all. The constitution is only a piece of paper that men made an agreement on. If men don't support it or protect it when it is attacked then that is the way it is.
And Jaskispyder will capitulate and support it. After all. The constitution is only a piece of paper that men made an agreement on. If men don't support it or protect it when it is attacked then that is the way it is.
There are a lot of people like Jaskispyder.
You are doing a poor job of protecting it, if you feel that way. Time to step up and do your duty to Constitution and country. Start by stealing it so you can keep it out of the hands of those liberals! LOL!
No, my solution is to make businesses like Bundy's pay for what they agreed upon. Bundy signed a contract.
Yea, it would be nice if Al Sharpton would pay the $4.5 million in back taxes he owes too (NY Times claim). But instead, he's a regular guest at the white house and I don't see you getting upset about it.
Yea, it would be nice if Al Sharpton would pay the $4.5 million in back taxes he owes too (NY Times claim). But instead, he's a regular guest at the white house and I don't see you getting upset about it.
The Constitution is a contract between the people and the government. Without that contract, the government does not have to recognize our natural rights. It is the only thing protecting us, from tyranny. When one tries to down play it, because it interferes with your agenda, then one puts their head in a very real noose.
For example, the 2nd amendment, if it means something other than the people owning arms, maybe life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not literal. Maybe inalienable rights meant something else.
The Constitution is a imperfect document, but to balance liberty and order, it is probably as close to perfect as possible in this life.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 02-09-2016).]
The Constitution is a contract between the people and the government. Without that contract, the government does not have to recognize our natural rights. It is the only thing protecting us, from tyranny. When one tries to down play it, because it interferes with your agenda, then one puts their head in a very real noose.
For example, the 2nd amendment, if it means something other than the people owning arms, maybe life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not literal. Maybe inalienable rights meant something else.
The Constitution is a imperfect document, but to balance liberty and order, it is probably as close to perfect as possible in this life.
Yes, I did and that is his opinion, just like every liberal doesn't necessarily agree, or every conservative, but then you knew that. I also addressed a few of his topics, did you even read my post?
Yes, I did and that is his opinion, just like every liberal doesn't necessarily agree, or every conservative, but then you knew that. I also addressed a few of his topics, did you even read my post?
So, how is it "my agenda" when you have someone from "your side" who disagrees with you? If "your side" can't come to agreement, then who on "your side" is right?
Yup, I read your posts. I don't agree with you, though.
So, how is it "my agenda" when you have someone from "your side" who disagrees with you? If "your side" can't come to agreement, then who on "your side" is right?
Yup, I read your posts. I don't agree with you, though.
My side is anyone who holds the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, who doesn't view it as a "living document", that should be taken lightly as a "loose" guideline. Be they, liberal, conservative, or libertarian. Also known as Americans, all others are domestic enemies of the United States.
