|
|
 Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
  
| musikmaker - 2014-04-12 10:30 AM.... I've read this c/p somewhere myself and although it seems to make sense...it just doesn't. Mainly because the state had no authority to 'give' the land away & the Constitution forbids the fed from accepting said land other than for the erection of forts, dockyards, arsenals etc ( Article l Section 8 Clause 17).
...
See there's the rub..... That clause ends with..."other needful buildings." I find that phrase to be granting authority not limiting authority. "other needful buildings" seems pretty darn broad to me. The clause certainly does not say "only" these things. |
|
| |
|
 Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-12 9:06 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-11 10:47 PM ..... Nobody holds title as the 'disposal' has yet to be accomplished per treaty. This alone should prove that the federal gov't has not completed their role and the land should now be forfeited to the states due to incompetence. .... Or one could argue that since Nevada hasn't paid for it after all these years that they have forfeited their right to the land.
Paid for what? The fed took a lot of silver & gold out of Nevada...among other things.
We really need to get over thinking since 'we' are the fed that 'we' own the land. No, we don't.
The power lies in land ownership....our Forefathers knew this & did everything possible to prevent our gov't from having any claim to personal & real property!
Think...lour ancestors fled their home country's becasue they had nothing!!! No hope of ever owning land...life giving land. Whoever owns the land holds the hammer. Unfortunately, we fell for choosing one evil over another (big corporations vs. government). Becasue we're cowards. We allowed and welcomed a police state...where we could anonymously whine & complain.
Gotta go for now! I really hope some of you click on the links I provided in the other post!
|
|
| |
|
 Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
 
| TXBO - 2014-04-12 10:00 AM
musikmaker - 2014-04-11 10:47 PM It's under the jurisdiction & authority of the state in which it resides...hence the fact that the Sheriff is the ultimate authority as he/she is an elected official.
Jurisdiction and ownership are two completely different things.
In my mind once statehood was granted the land belongs to the state. I have never understood how the Fed. Gov. retains so much control over the west. In the east as the territory's where settled and than where granted statehood the land within it's borders belongs to the states. In the eastern states when the Federal Government wanted to create a park it had to buy the land from who ever held tile. There are some exemptions mainly resulting from the Civil war when the Feds held some lands that where captured. But as a whole they have had to purchase the land that they hold today. But in the west when statehood was granted they said ya you are now a state but we are keeping 84%. Ok how can they legally do that. I see no where in the Constitution that they can do this. |
|
| |
|
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-12 10:30 AM As explained in an earlier post about the Territory's...when the land was disposed of the states were to be on 'equal footing' with the origianl 13 states...never happened. That is a fact.
I must have missed that earlier post. Where is that stipulated? What land was disposed?
Edited by TXBO 2014-04-12 11:29 AM
|
|
| |
|
 BHW's Lance Armstrong 
Posts: 11134
Location: Somewhere between S@%&# stirrer and Saint | I am stopping reading everything I see posted. The more I read the more I get confused! |
|
| |
|
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-12 11:17 AM I am stopping reading everything I see posted. The more I read the more I get confused!
I sometimes wonder if it's confusing by design ( okay...I always think it's confusing by design!).
How many of us 'quit'? Lol...
|
|
| |
|
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-12 9:46 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-12 10:30 AM As explained in an earlier post about the Territory's...when the land was disposed of the states were to be on 'equal footing' with the origianl 13 states...never happened. That is a fact.
I must have missed that earlier post. Where is that stipulated? What land was disposed?
Stipulated in the various Treaty's (The Louisiana Purchase, Gadston Exchange, the Treaty of Paris...).
And...as the Constitution doesn't allow for the gov't to own land not affiliated with the protection of our borders the only way they could purchase these large tracts was to promise to 'dispose' as quickly as possible utilizing the Homestead Act, placer claims etc...there was so much land that wasn't disposed of as it wasn't habitable at that time (much of it still isn't), some that was patented was later retracted due to the anti-trust laws. Also...the gov't later started denying the minerals to the new property owners...that is flat out wrong.
Hope that helps!
|
|
| |
|
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | ???
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/04/129003-breaking-news-armed-standoff-bundy-ranch-ends-feds-leaving/
|
|
| |
|
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | C/p'd...so very excited to say that when the people stand up...things really do happen! Victory dance!
Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie made an announcement moments ago and ordered BLM off the Bundy land. People from around the country that traveled to Nevada in support of states rights and property rights are rejoicing at the end to this federal land grab and overreach. It looks like the one person who has the authority to tell BLM to leave the premises and cease operations has done so.
|
|
| |
|
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-12 12:32 PM TXBO - 2014-04-12 9:46 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-12 10:30 AM As explained in an earlier post about the Territory's...when the land was disposed of the states were to be on 'equal footing' with the origianl 13 states...never happened. That is a fact.
I must have missed that earlier post. Where is that stipulated? What land was disposed?
And...as the Constitution doesn't allow for the gov't to own land not affiliated with the protection of our borders the only way they could purchase these large tracts was to promise to 'dispose' as quickly as possible utilizing the Homestead Act, placer claims etc...there was so much land that wasn't disposed of as it wasn't habitable at that time (much of it still isn't), some that was patented was later retracted due to the anti-trust laws. Also...the gov't later started denying the minerals to the new property owners...that is flat out wrong.
Hope that helps!
This would have been a part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. USA paid several million dollars for the aquisition of that land.
Again, what article of the US Constitution forbids owning land for anything other than protection of the borders? |
|
| |
|
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| TXBO - 2014-04-12 1:46 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-12 12:32 PM TXBO - 2014-04-12 9:46 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-12 10:30 AM As explained in an earlier post about the Territory's...when the land was disposed of the states were to be on 'equal footing' with the origianl 13 states...never happened. That is a fact.
I must have missed that earlier post. Where is that stipulated? What land was disposed?
And...as the Constitution doesn't allow for the gov't to own land not affiliated with the protection of our borders the only way they could purchase these large tracts was to promise to 'dispose' as quickly as possible utilizing the Homestead Act, placer claims etc...there was so much land that wasn't disposed of as it wasn't habitable at that time (much of it still isn't), some that was patented was later retracted due to the anti-trust laws. Also...the gov't later started denying the minerals to the new property owners...that is flat out wrong.
Hope that helps!
Again, what article of the US Constitution forbids owning land for anything other than protection of the borders?
No that treaty was for lands farther south to secure a right off way for southern railway. The area in Question would have acquired from the Mexican war. |
|
| |
|
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-12 1:42 PM C/p'd...so very excited to say that when the people stand up...things really do happen! Victory dance!
Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie made an announcement moments ago and ordered BLM off the Bundy land. People from around the country that traveled to Nevada in support of states rights and property rights are rejoicing at the end to this federal land grab and overreach. It looks like the one person who has the authority to tell BLM to leave the premises and cease operations has done so.
BLM said they had concluded their operation. The last I heard, they had rounded up 500 head. I have read that the sherriff was involved in the negotiations but I see nothing of him ordering the feds out.
Edited by TXBO 2014-04-12 2:30 PM
|
|
| |
|
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| jbhoot - 2014-04-12 1:51 PM TXBO - 2014-04-12 1:46 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-12 12:32 PM TXBO - 2014-04-12 9:46 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-12 10:30 AM As explained in an earlier post about the Territory's...when the land was disposed of the states were to be on 'equal footing' with the origianl 13 states...never happened. That is a fact.
I must have missed that earlier post. Where is that stipulated? What land was disposed?
And...as the Constitution doesn't allow for the gov't to own land not affiliated with the protection of our borders the only way they could purchase these large tracts was to promise to 'dispose' as quickly as possible utilizing the Homestead Act, placer claims etc...there was so much land that wasn't disposed of as it wasn't habitable at that time (much of it still isn't), some that was patented was later retracted due to the anti-trust laws. Also...the gov't later started denying the minerals to the new property owners...that is flat out wrong.
Hope that helps!
Again, what article of the US Constitution forbids owning land for anything other than protection of the borders? No that treaty was for lands farther south to secure a right off way for southern railway. The area in Question would have acquired from the Mexican war.
That was the treaty that ended the Mexican war and it included a payment to Mexico for land that is now CA, NV, UT and more. |
|
| |
|
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-12 12:46 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-12 12:32 PM TXBO - 2014-04-12 9:46 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-12 10:30 AM As explained in an earlier post about the Territory's...when the land was disposed of the states were to be on 'equal footing' with the origianl 13 states...never happened. That is a fact.
I must have missed that earlier post. Where is that stipulated? What land was disposed?
And...as the Constitution doesn't allow for the gov't to own land not affiliated with the protection of our borders the only way they could purchase these large tracts was to promise to 'dispose' as quickly as possible utilizing the Homestead Act, placer claims etc...there was so much land that wasn't disposed of as it wasn't habitable at that time (much of it still isn't), some that was patented was later retracted due to the anti-trust laws. Also...the gov't later started denying the minerals to the new property owners...that is flat out wrong.
Hope that helps!
Again, what article of the US Constitution forbids owning land for anything other than protection of the borders?
I give...you're saying that the fed has every right to own land...they can even purchase the rest...ok. Game over. What does that make us as a country? What form of government is that?
As to the Bundy news of today...it's not over. There's people trying as we speak to take the cattle back to the range...it's still very scary out there.
I hope American's win...I hope the Constitution prevails.
|
|
| |
|
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-12 3:02 PM I give...you're saying that the fed has every right to own land...they can even purchase the rest...ok. Game over. What does that make us as a country? What form of government is that?
I'm just trying to understand why you believe the Constitution prohibits it.
Article 1, section 8 definitely grants the right to purchase. It seems the only argument is for what purposes.
Edited by TXBO 2014-04-12 3:16 PM
|
|
| |
|
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-12 3:02 PM As to the Bundy news of today...it's not over. There's people trying as we speak to take the cattle back to the range...it's still very scary out there.
I hope American's win...I hope the Constitution prevails.
The rhetoric is high. I'm all for fighting for the constitution. I'm not convinced that this is a legitimate constitutional battle. I just hope nobody gets hurt. |
|
| |
|
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-12 2:19 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-12 3:02 PM As to the Bundy news of today...it's not over. There's people trying as we speak to take the cattle back to the range...it's still very scary out there.
I hope American's win...I hope the Constitution prevails.
The rhetoric is high. I'm all for fighting for the constitution. I'm not convinced that this is a legitimate constitutional battle. I just hope nobody gets hurt.
I'm pretty sure there's no convincing you! Shouldn't have to anyhow...there's right & there's wrong. If you think it's just a-ok for a gov't to own the majority of the land, the minerals, control the air, water & economy...then I don't know what to say. Our Constitution, the Declaration of Independence & the Bill of Rights are quite specific in how much power the gov't can have.
Nobody got hurt...at least not by the Patriots...the cows are on their way home (!!! America has a re-newed chance to shine yet again !!!). musikmaker - 2014-04-12 3:02 PM I give...you're saying that the fed has every right to own land...they can even purchase the rest...ok. Game over. What does that make us as a country? What form of government is that?
I'm just trying to understand why you believe the Constitution prohibits it.
Article 1, section 8 definitely grants the right to purchase. It seems the only argument is for what purposes.
Maybe this will make some sense...especially towards the bottom...
http://famguardian.org/Publications/PropertyRights/exclufed.html
rticle 1, Section 8, Clause 17:
"To exercise exclusive legislative jurisdiction 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, dockyards and other needful buildings;
The first provision of this Cluse referred to the establishment of the District of Columbia. The second provision established a limited number of federal "enclaves" or islands of exclusive federal jurisdiction within the outer boundaries of a State to be justified in their use for specific purposes. This was meant to have a very limited "swiss cheese" effect on the jurisdiction of the State. [Note: According to Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, an "enclave" is defined as a territorial or culturally distinct unit enclosed within foreign territory.]
As stated in Chapter VI, pages 145-146 of the April, 1956, report (Part I) of the Interdepartmental Committee "Study Of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within The States":
"Once an area has been brought under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Federal Government, in general only Federal civil laws, as well as Federal criminal laws, are applicable in such area, to the exclusion of State laws...
"The subject is so fully discussed by Mr. Justice Field, delivering the opinion of the court in Fort Leavenworth R.R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, that we need do no more than refer to that case and the cases cited in the opinion. It is of the highest public importance that the jurisdiction of the State should be resisted at the borders of those places where the power of exclusive legislation is vested in the congress by the Constitution....
"The civil authority of a State is extinguished over privately owned areas and privately operated areas to the same extent as over federally owned and operated areas when such areas are placed under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States."
The provisions of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 are not to be confused with two other historical Constitutional issues regarding exclusive legislative jurisdiction as applies to lands only while in a territorial state:
(1) The "Property" Clause - which applied only to the "western wastelands"- territories east of the Mississippi that were ceded to the federal government by the original 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; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."
(2) The "Treaty Making and War Powers" - upon which the ability to acquire new land outside the original boundaries of the United States was based. These were to be governed under the Rules of International Law while in a territorial, pre-State status. (This applied to Florida, Louisiana and the lands west of the Mississippi acquired through international treaty.)
Both of these exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction arrangements were supposed to apply only to lands while in pre-statehood territorial status, and were not to survive statehood. Under the equal footing doctrine, new states were to be admitted on an equal footing with the original States. Ceded ("public") lands within the new Eastern States were temporarily retained only in regard to proprietary ownership by the federal government, as a trustee until the lands could be disposed of into private hands and the States completed in their sovereignty. Although ownership of "wastelands" in the far West has been claimed by the federal government on the basis of terms and conditions imposed through Enabling Acts for statehood, the status of political jurisdiction over lands within a Western State's borders is SUPPOSED to be on an equal footing with that of the Eastern States.
|
|
| |
|
 Expert
Posts: 1409
| Any truth to this:
"This is all part of Harry Reid's crony capitalism. His son was negotiating with the Chinese to build a solar farm on the site and they only way to do it was to push this guy off his land."
|
|
| |
|
  That's White "Man" to You
Posts: 5515
| TXBO - 2014-04-12 1:56 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-12 1:42 PM C/p'd...so very excited to say that when the people stand up...things really do happen! Victory dance!
Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie made an announcement moments ago and ordered BLM off the Bundy land. People from around the country that traveled to Nevada in support of states rights and property rights are rejoicing at the end to this federal land grab and overreach. It looks like the one person who has the authority to tell BLM to leave the premises and cease operations has done so.
BLM said they had concluded their operation. The last I heard, they had rounded up 500 head. I have read that the sherriff was involved in the negotiations but I see nothing of him ordering the feds out.
Edited by Whiteboy 2014-04-12 7:35 PM
|
|
| |
|
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Whiteboy - 2014-04-12 6:08 PM TXBO - 2014-04-12 1:56 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-12 1:42 PM C/p'd...so very excited to say that when the people stand up...things really do happen! Victory dance!
Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie made an announcement moments ago and ordered BLM off the Bundy land. People from around the country that traveled to Nevada in support of states rights and property rights are rejoicing at the end to this federal land grab and overreach. It looks like the one person who has the authority to tell BLM to leave the premises and cease operations has done so.
BLM said they had concluded their operation. The last I heard, they had rounded up 500 head. I have read that the sherriff was involved in the negotiations but I see nothing of him ordering the feds out.
I so wanted to go! Have grandkids for the weekend...tough choice! Lol.
I can just see the 'brains' in DC trying to figure their way outta this one when they realized they don't own the land & are now the jerks of the new century.
|
|
| |
Folks on-line