jbhoot - 2014-04-15 9:17 PM


The last I checked we only need two more states to sign on to a constitutional convention. It may be the only way to put the power back in the hands of public. At least it would let us attempt to correct the federal over reach.

komet. - 2014-04-15 9:27 PM


I'm not sure allowing today's politicians a chance to get their dirty little hands on the constitution is a good idea..

musikmaker - 2014-04-15 9:02 PM I will admit to some concerns about the states taking over the land....I sincerely feel it's a valid concern...especially if people continue to be apathetic.  However (always that), at the least the 'elected' officials are more aware of local needs...and...we know where they live!  Lol.

We can't continue to 'hand it over' to any agency...we must stay involved, officials who legally & Constitutionally represent us must be held accountable for their actions & how they spend 'our' money.

We are the power...we are the 'enablers' of a gov't gone wrong.

 

FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-15 10:34 PM Here Girls! Something to make you Bundy supporters nervous if you are out there on the front lines with the militia: "It was Richard Mack, a former Arizona county sheriff and founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs, who had said Monday that the gathered self-described militia had considered using women as human shields if a gunfight with federal officials erupted. He elaborated on those comments Monday in an interview with radio host Ben Swann. “It was a tactical plot that I was trying to get them to use,” Mack said in comments flagged by The Raw Story. “If they’re going to start killing people, I’m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot.” “I’m sorry, that sounds horrible,” he continued. “I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die. I would gone next, I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here. I’m willing to die here.” If you feel a hand in your back, I'd run. Also, Bundy says they have set up a PayPal Account for people to donate money to them (Color me surprised!), and they already have about $2000 in the Kitty. Just a side note on the financial side again, I read where Bundy says they own 160 acres of deeded ground, and lease the rest. He figures that he owes the Feds $300,000 instead of the $1.2M in fees and fines. If he was a private rancher with 500 cows out on grass @ the going rate of $500-600/cow/year, even at $500, that puts a private rancher's bill at $250,000 per year or in Bundy Years ($250,000 x 20 years) $5,000,000. Yes that is 5 million dollars. You can haul a lot of water for that.

FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-15 10:34 PM Here Girls! Something to make you Bundy supporters nervous if you are out there on the front lines with the militia: "It was Richard Mack, a former Arizona county sheriff and founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs, who had said Monday that the gathered self-described militia had considered using women as human shields if a gunfight with federal officials erupted. He elaborated on those comments Monday in an interview with radio host Ben Swann. “It was a tactical plot that I was trying to get them to use,” Mack said in comments flagged by The Raw Story. “If they’re going to start killing people, I’m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot.” “I’m sorry, that sounds horrible,” he continued. “I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die. I would gone next, I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here. I’m willing to die here.” If you feel a hand in your back, I'd run. Also, Bundy says they have set up a PayPal Account for people to donate money to them (Color me surprised!), and they already have about $2000 in the Kitty. Just a side note on the financial side again, I read where Bundy says they own 160 acres of deeded ground, and lease the rest. He figures that he owes the Feds $300,000 instead of the $1.2M in fees and fines. If he was a private rancher with 500 cows out on grass @ the going rate of $500-600/cow/year, even at $500, that puts a private rancher's bill at $250,000 per year or in Bundy Years ($250,000 x 20 years) $5,000,000. Yes that is 5 million dollars. You can haul a lot of water for that.

foundation horse - 2014-04-15 9:30 PM We don't agree on much, but on this subject I am not sure we are that far apart!

jbhoot - 2014-04-15 11:45 PM Finney please go read the court orders for you really do not have a clue what the court has found as to date. Bundy was found guilty of trespass a misdemeanor and is liable for undetermined damages. The lease was null and void in 1993 which means he owes zip on the lease since it does not exist anymore. Damages yes lease no. And you comparing pasture rates in in another state which is totally not relevant to the case. The 1M that is claimed by BLM is just that a claim not proven in court yet. I have no clue how you came up with your ridicules math. If the court uses the rate quoted in the original lease (1.35 per AUM) Bundy is probably close to being right. He has never denied that he owes the money only to whom he owes it to. This is all on line as to the case. It took me all of 10 minutes to find it.

foundation horse - 2014-04-15 9:51 AM Smiley, let Us revisit your reference to the Gov't Land the Ancestor to the Current Day BLM, Forest Service, and Dept. of Interior. I have researched and found the history of The Government Land Office:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Land_Management



History

The BLM's pure roots go back to the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. These laws provided for the survey and settlement of the lands that the original 13 colonies ceded to the federal government after the American Revolution. As additional lands were acquired by the United States from Spain, France and other countries, the United States Congress directed that they be explored, surveyed, and made available for settlement. In 1812, Congress established the General Land Office in the Department of the Treasury to oversee the disposition of these federal lands. As the 19th century progressed and the nation's land base expanded further west, Congress encouraged the settlement of the land by enacting a wide variety of laws, including the Homestead Act and the Mining Law of 1872.



These statutes served one of the major policy goals of the young country—settlement of the Western territories. With the exception of the Mining Law of 1872 and the Desert Land Act of 1877 (which was amended), all have since been repealed or superseded by other statutes.



The late 19th century marked a shift in federal land management priorities with the creation of the first national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges. By withdrawing these lands from settlement, Congress signaled a shift in the policy goals served by the public lands. Instead of using them to promote settlement, Congress decided that they should be held in public ownership because of their other resource values.











Sheep graze on BLM land in Snake Valley, Utah.

In the early 20th century, Congress took additional steps toward recognizing the value of the assets on public lands and directed the Executive Branch to manage activities on the remaining public lands. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 allowed leasing, exploration, and production of selected commodities, such as coal, oil, gas, and sodium to take place on public lands. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 established the U.S. Grazing Service to manage the public rangelands. The Oregon and California (O&C) Act of August 28, 1937, required sustained yield management of the timberlands in western Oregon.



In 1946, the Grazing Service was merged with the General Land Office (a product of the country's territorial expansion and the federal government's nineteenth-century homesteading policies) to form the Bureau of Land Management within the Department of the Interior. When the BLM was initially created, there were over 2,000 unrelated and often conflicting laws for managing the public lands. The BLM had no unified legislative mandate until Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).



In FLPMA, Congress recognized the value of the remaining public lands by declaring that these lands would remain in public ownership. Congress used the term "multiple use" management, defined as "management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people."



The land management policy of the federal government before 1946 involved on the one hand rapid disposal to miners, ranchers and farmers, and on the other hand reservations for national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and military needs. The combination of 1946 of the General Land Office and the Grazing Service into the new Bureau of Land Management was filled with ambiguity. In terms of bureaucracy, there has been a constant tension between the local district rangers, who have typically been oriented toward the mining and ranching interests, and the centralized leadership in Washington that follows presidential guidance. Since the Reagan years of the 1980s, Republicans have emphasized local control giving priority to grazing, mining and petroleum production, while Democrats have emphasized environmentalism.[3]



Now remember the orginal intent of the Government Land Office was the disposition of land which I have defined below. The History goes on to state that the orginal intent has been completely changed by from its orginal.





Now to define the word disposition in a legal sense:

disposition legal definition of disposition. disposition ...