|
|
 Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
  
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | bscanchaser - 2014-04-19 9:24 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:03 PM
What exactly do you mean by “put the land into production” and “grow their product”? If you hadn't posted that you use to live in Clark county I would seriously say you come off as someone who has never been to Nevada or know our economy. This isn’t a green rolling grass state like Kentucky or corn rows for miles like Nebraska where people can make a living off a small portion of ground. Basically our State has 3 economic systems- Ranching, Mining and Tourism. All 3 use BLM public ground at the same time under the multi-use provision. By selling off the land for private use you basically limit what industry is available to that site... My bet is that mining wins since they have the most money.
I do not have fears about what private ownership will do- I know the reality. I have family in other states that do not have public ground. They are limited on what they can do and rely on neighbors/connections to fulfill their needs/wants if they can’t do something on their own property-not the case here. So I’m looking off my property onto BLM land right now and this is what I see- there are cows grazing the hill behind my house, an open pit mine hauling material, kids that ride their 4-wheelers up the canyon, a family that taking their kids to fish the creek and 3 people up riding horses up the canyon- all simultaneously - If this becomes private owned, none of this would be occurring. Do you use public land for anything? A large portion of the people in our area use it every day and see the value of keeping it public whether it’s for recreational use or business use and are against the State taking over ownership knowing there is a possibility the changes could affect their everyday activities. The fact that someone OWNS large tracts of land they can’t sell doesn’t mean much to me- the fact that this same land is private owned and not being USED for anything speaks volumes. This is basically where we will be if all Public land goes private- a bunch of bare ground that has been made useless to everyone.
You mention being locked out of public land- I have NEVER seen this under normal circumstances; during fires and round-ups of illegal grazers-yes, to protect people from getting into a place and not being able to get out, but not ever beyond these circumstances.
Do we use public land for anything? Not so much anymore...
I hope that explains a bit more as I have no idea what different areas are dealing with...we're a 'hotspot' and a target for even more Wilderness. Something we're fighting & I won't apologize for my attitude about an out of control gov't that is two-faced.
We're either FOR big government or we're AGAINST it...can't have it both ways.
General BLM ground here is open for use. People collect and sell pine nuts all the time, they issue $5 wood cutting permits and Christmas tree cutting permits. No diapers on horses either. The wilderness areas are accepted and most outdoorsmen and rancher appreciate these areas because they aren't impacted by atv's and motorcycles. Cow are easily gathered without having people interfere with what you are doing.
I'm not a big government person- trust me it p!$$es me off that my horses are better identified, tested and tracked than any person is- that said there has to be some regulation... If people would follow the law and be considerate of things that are theirs then we wouldn't have all the regulations we have. They were all made for a reason-mostly ignorant people that have no respect for things that aren't theirs.
The big non-profits (Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy...et al) are the ones who create all this unfounded 'fear'...they have a lot of $$$ 'invested' from donors & when you think about it you realize that many of their donors also donate 'time' and hard work, while the 'executives' draw huge profits...some profits must be invested in self-preservation, expansion and/or plans. Hence, the constant land grab & don't forget the many 'connections' these people have.
This is a tough battle.
We used to enjoy the same freedoms as you...we saw this coming & it's not a new fight. I think the first meeting I attended here was in 1991...we were lied to then and continue to be.
Anyhow...nobody here intends to lose our public land, we simply want to have local control of it as we currently have no voice...they close roads & trails without public input.
| |
| | |
 Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-19 10:01 AM
TXBO - 2014-04-19 8:41 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:03 PM ...
We're either FOR big government or we're AGAINST it...can't have it both ways.
I gotcha..... So even though I lost a good friend in the Oklahoma City bombing, I need to be in support of Timothy McVeigh?
It does help to understand your emotional views and support of 'some' big gov't.
Like I said...we can't have it both ways...we either give the control to the fed or keep it for ourselves as was the intent of our form of gov't. We have other options to replace & improve those agencies...hopefully ones that wouldn't require people to be targets, whether it be IRS agents or cattlemen.
No, no. You're platitudes make you no different that the progressives. Somebody supports a legitimate function granted to the fed so lets call it "big government".
You want selective enforcement. That's as progressive as supporting illegal immigration.
You want to ignore the words of the constitution to support your agenda. That's judicial activism and progressivism at it's very finest. That's the most detrimental threat to our liberty and you're on board for your cause.
Here's Article 4, Section 3, paragraph 2 of the US Constitution:
"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."
Let's break that down, Congress has the authority to:
1) Sell property belonging to the US.
2) To make rules and regulations to property belonging to US
3) Nothing else in the constitution shall prejudice any claim of the US
Here's what it doesn't say: "The US must dispose of all property once a territory becomes a state"
I get it though, you're like Justice Ginsberg and think the Constitution could be better. I'll live with it just like it is. Even when it doesn't give me the results I like.
Owning and regulating property is a constitutionally legitimate function of the federal government......Like it or not. You want to change that....great....do it the right way with a constitutional amendment......otherwise, you're progressive judicial activist and just as big of a threat to my liberty as Barack Obama.
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-19 10:06 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-19 10:01 AM TXBO - 2014-04-19 8:41 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:03 PM ...
We're either FOR big government or we're AGAINST it...can't have it both ways.
I gotcha..... So even though I lost a good friend in the Oklahoma City bombing, I need to be in support of Timothy McVeigh?
It does help to understand your emotional views and support of 'some' big gov't.
Like I said...we can't have it both ways...we either give the control to the fed or keep it for ourselves as was the intent of our form of gov't. We have other options to replace & improve those agencies...hopefully ones that wouldn't require people to be targets, whether it be IRS agents or cattlemen.
No, no. You're platitudes make you no different that the progressives. Somebody supports a legitimate function granted to the fed so lets call it "big government". You want selective enforcement. That's as progressive as supporting illegal immigration. You want to ignore the words of the constitution to support your agenda. That's judicial activism and progressivism at it's very finest. That's the most detrimental threat to our liberty and you're on board for your cause. Here's Article 4, Section 3, paragraph 2 of the US Constitution: "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." Let's break that down, Congress has the authority to: 1 ) Sell property belonging to the US. 2 ) To make rules and regulations to property belonging to US 3 ) Nothing else in the constitution shall prejudice any claim of the US Here's what it doesn't say: "The US must dispose of all property once a territory becomes a state" I get it though, you're like Justice Ginsberg and think the Constitution could be better. I'll live with it just like it is. Even when it doesn't give me the results I like. Owning and regulating property is a constitutionally legitimate function of the federal government......Like it or not. You want to change that....great....do it the right way with a constitutional amendment......otherwise, you're progressive judicial activist and just as big of a threat to my liberty as Barack Obama.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17:
17: 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;
and paragraph 1:
Section 3
1: 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.
This was how the 'regional districts' were found to be unconstitutional in 1982 (?) although it's still used as a base of information.
When we look closely at the 10th Amendment:
Amendment X (10): Powers retained by the states and the people
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
...we find that the state 'owning' the land is not prohibited by the Constitution...of course, that takes an act of Congress! The real question is if the people of the state are served fairly & equally when compared to other states.
Look...you can call me all the names you want...it doesn't change the fact that many people much smarter than us are fighting for this cause & feel we have the power, jurisdiction & authority to get it done.
I support States Rights.
And what legitimate function are you refering to? I'm a simple person who supports 'elected officials' & small, local gov't that is answerable directly to the people it serves. There is no need to change the Constitution...it's all there!
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO, and anyone else...why are you opposed to the States having control of the land within their borders?
Is Texas so bad? Would you prefer it be under the fed?
Really curious...I've heard the arguments on here & so far I'm not convinced...maybe becasue I live here & see the vast amount of land that will never be habitable or usable for mineral extraction etc...I don't see the problem & don't see where the fed is protecting it so well, either.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-19 12:17 PM TXBO, and anyone else...why are you opposed to the States having control of the land within their borders?
Is Texas so bad? Would you prefer it be under the fed?
Really curious...I've heard the arguments on here & so far I'm not convinced...maybe becasue I live here & see the vast amount of land that will never be habitable or usable for mineral extraction etc...I don't see the problem & don't see where the fed is protecting it so well, either.
I'm not at all opposed to state's controlling public land. In most cases, I would prefer it.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-19 11:51 AM
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17:
17: 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;
and paragraph 1:
Section 3
1: 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.
This was how the 'regional districts' were found to be unconstitutional in 1982 (?) although it's still used as a base of information.
When we look closely at the 10th Amendment:
Amendment X (10): Powers retained by the states and the people
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
...we find that the state 'owning' the land is not prohibited by the Constitution...of course, that takes an act of Congress! The real question is if the people of the state are served fairly & equally when compared to other states.
Look...you can call me all the names you want...it doesn't change the fact that many people much smarter than us are fighting for this cause & feel we have the power, jurisdiction & authority to get it done.
I support States Rights.
And what legitimate function are you refering to? I'm a simple person who supports 'elected officials' & small, local gov't that is answerable directly to the people it serves. There is no need to change the Constitution...it's all there!
1) US Constitution Article 1, sec 8, clause 17 Grants fed authority over places purchased from states. Has no bearing, this land was not purchased from the states. And as stated in Article 4, Sec 3, paragragh 2, does not "prejudice any claims of the United States".
2) Section 3 has absolutely no bearing. Don't know where you're going with that.
3) 10th Amendment doesn't come into play because the powers to own and regulate land are explicitly granted to congress in Article 4.
4) In Utah's case, The Enabling Act, 1894 Section 3, paragraph 4, states; " That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof;"
5) Nevada Enabling Act, 1864, Sec 4, Paragraph 4 states: "Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States ..."
Edited by TXBO 2014-04-19 1:36 PM
| |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| Lunch break thoughts. We spent all morning feeding than replanting trees in a shelter belt that we costshared with the NRCS (you know, the GOVERNMENT). Since planting trees is a fairly mindless task, it leaves a lot of time for thinking. People who I will call real ranchers are in the middle of the busiest time of the year. Calving, farming, feeding, branding, sorting to go to pastures, some A.I.ing already. I don't know one family who is sitting on their a$$ complaining about how abused they are. My mom's favorite quote "Busy Hands are Happy Hands." I watched another "Breaking News" story about the Bundy barbeque and fun time rally last night, and, I hate to be judgemental, but all I saw was a bunch of very overweight people with a sour look on their face, buying up t-shirts from some vender and I couldn't help but think, maybe if they spent less time feeling sorry for themselves and more time doing a little manual labor, maybe they could lose some pounds. While we were out working this morning, there was probably a bunch of the gun guys recovering from the night before, since I'm sure they are not all Mormons.
I just wish some of those news stations would follow real ranch families around and see what we really do, rather than portray us all like those people.
PS: Don't those militia people have jobs? How do they have time to go all over with their guns, and why, if I pointed a gun at a policeman they would kill me, but if they do, they get a pass? | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-19 11:48 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-19 11:51 AM
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17:
17: 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;
and paragraph 1:
Section 3
1: 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.
This was how the 'regional districts' were found to be unconstitutional in 1982 (?) although it's still used as a base of information.
When we look closely at the 10th Amendment:
Amendment X (10): Powers retained by the states and the people
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
...we find that the state 'owning' the land is not prohibited by the Constitution...of course, that takes an act of Congress! The real question is if the people of the state are served fairly & equally when compared to other states.
Look...you can call me all the names you want...it doesn't change the fact that many people much smarter than us are fighting for this cause & feel we have the power, jurisdiction & authority to get it done.
I support States Rights.
And what legitimate function are you refering to? I'm a simple person who supports 'elected officials' & small, local gov't that is answerable directly to the people it serves. There is no need to change the Constitution...it's all there!
1) US Constitution Article 1, sec 8, clause 17 Grants fed authority over places purchased from states. Has no bearing, this land was not purchased from the states. And as stated in Article 4, Sec 3, paragragh 2, does not "prejudice any claims of the United States".
2) Section 3 has absolutely no bearing. Don't know where you're going with that.
3) 10th Amendment doesn't come into play because the powers to own and regulate land are explicitly granted to congress in Article 4.
4) In Utah's case, The Enabling Act, 1894 Section 3, paragraph 4, states; " That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof;"
And a few other things, including the complete text of paragraph 4:
AN ACT to enable the People of Utah to form a Constitution and State Government, and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States.
That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States; that the lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without the said State shall never be taxed at a higher rate than the lands belonging to residents thereof; that no taxes shall be imposed by the State on lands or property therein belonging to or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States or reserved for its use; but nothing herein, or in the ordinance herein provided for, shall preclude the said State from taxing, as other lands are taxed, any lands owned or held by any Indian who has severed his tribal relations and has obtained from the United States or from any person a title thereto by patent or other grant, save and except such lands as have been or may be granted to any Indian or Indians under any act of Congress containing a provision exempting the lands thus granted from taxation; but said ordinance shall provide that all such lands shall be exempt from taxation by said State so long and to such extent as such act of Congress may prescribe.
Third. That the debts and liabilities of said Territory, under authority of the Legislative Assembly thereof, shall be assumed and paid by said State.
Section 4.....And if the Constitution and government of said proposed State are republican in form, and if all the provisions of this act have been complied with in the formation thereof, it shall be the duty of the President of the United States to issue his proclamation announcing the result of said election, and thereupon the proposed State of Utah shall be deemed admitted by Congress into the Union, under and by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the original States, from and after the date of said proclamation.
SEC. 9. That five per centum of the proceeds of the sales of public lands lying within said State, which shall be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said State into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to the said State, to be used as a permanent fund, the interest of which only shall be expended for the support of the common schools within said State.
SEC. 13. That all land granted in quantity or as indemnity by this act shall be selected, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, from the unappropriated public lands of the United States within the limits of the said State of Utah.
SEC. 15. That the circuit and district courts for the district of Utah and the judges thereof, respectively, shall possess the same powers and jurisdiction and perform the same duties possessed and required to be performed by the other circuit and district courts and judges of the United States, and shall be governed by the same laws and regulations.
SEC. 16. That the marshal, district attorney, and clerks of the circuit and district courts of the said district of Utah, and all other officers and other persons performing duty in the administration of justice therein, shall severally possess the powers and perform the duties lawfully possessed and required to be performed by similar officers in other districts of the United States, and shall, for the services they may perform, receive the same fees and compensation allowed by law to other similar officers and persons performing similar duties.
http://archives.utah.gov/research/exhibits/Statehood/1894text.htm
It's obviously not so simple...otherwise our lawmakers & elected officials wouldn't still be debating it...it's interesting, though!
Section 3...concerns the 'regions' that the fed once created to manage these lands...they overlapped many staes...actually, UT, NV CO, NM AZ...are all part of region 4 (I think...this is off the top of my head, but, I can find the documents some other day!)...it was during the Reagan Adm. that it was desolved because it was found to be unConstitutional. We still have the 'regions' but they no longer have ethe authority & jurisdiction they once were granted.
Anyhow...as always I'm interested in learning & have an open mind...I appreciate what you're doing as these arguments may be brought up in court when we finally have our day! So shoot holes in it!
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-19 2:36 PM And a few other things, including the complete text of paragraph 4:
AN ACT to enable the People of Utah to form a Constitution and State Government, and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States.
That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States; that the lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without the said State shall never be taxed at a higher rate than the lands belonging to residents thereof; that no taxes shall be imposed by the State on lands or property therein belonging to or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States or reserved for its use; but nothing herein, or in the ordinance herein provided for, shall preclude the said State from taxing, as other lands are taxed, any lands owned or held by any Indian who has severed his tribal relations and has obtained from the United States or from any person a title thereto by patent or other grant, save and except such lands as have been or may be granted to any Indian or Indians under any act of Congress containing a provision exempting the lands thus granted from taxation; but said ordinance shall provide that all such lands shall be exempt from taxation by said State so long and to such extent as such act of Congress may prescribe.
Third. That the debts and liabilities of said Territory, under authority of the Legislative Assembly thereof, shall be assumed and paid by said State.
Section 4.....And if the Constitution and government of said proposed State are republican in form, and if all the provisions of this act have been complied with in the formation thereof, it shall be the duty of the President of the United States to issue his proclamation announcing the result of said election, and thereupon the proposed State of Utah shall be deemed admitted by Congress into the Union, under and by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the original States, from and after the date of said proclamation.
SEC. 9. That five per centum of the proceeds of the sales of public lands lying within said State, which shall be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said State into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to the said State, to be used as a permanent fund, the interest of which only shall be expended for the support of the common schools within said State.
SEC. 13. That all land granted in quantity or as indemnity by this act shall be selected, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, from the unappropriated public lands of the United States within the limits of the said State of Utah.
SEC. 15. That the circuit and district courts for the district of Utah and the judges thereof, respectively, shall possess the same powers and jurisdiction and perform the same duties possessed and required to be performed by the other circuit and district courts and judges of the United States, and shall be governed by the same laws and regulations.
SEC. 16. That the marshal, district attorney, and clerks of the circuit and district courts of the said district of Utah, and all other officers and other persons performing duty in the administration of justice therein, shall severally possess the powers and perform the duties lawfully possessed and required to be performed by similar officers in other districts of the United States, and shall, for the services they may perform, receive the same fees and compensation allowed by law to other similar officers and persons performing similar duties.
http://archives.utah.gov/research/exhibits/Statehood/1894text.htm
It's obviously not so simple...otherwise our lawmakers & elected officials wouldn't still be debating it...it's interesting, though!
Section 3...concerns the 'regions' that the fed once created to manage these lands...they overlapped many staes...actually, UT, NV CO, NM AZ...are all part of region 4 (I think...this is off the top of my head, but, I can find the documents some other day!)...it was during the Reagan Adm. that it was desolved because it was found to be unConstitutional. We still have the 'regions' but they no longer have ethe authority & jurisdiction they once were granted.
Anyhow...as always I'm interested in learning & have an open mind...I appreciate what you're doing as these arguments may be brought up in court when we finally have our day! So shoot holes in it!
Truly Musik, I wish I could help but I don't see a good argument here at all. Maybe somebody more intelligent than me will.
1) Equal footing. This act is saying that ratification by the state is acepting these terms as equal footing.
2) Sec 3 does not require the US to extinguish title. Furthermore the courts have held that a comma will deliniate two separate but related independent clauses. In this case, a semicolon is used between the first three clauses, making them both main, independent but related. Scalia discusses that in US vs Heller for one example. With those clauses of section 3 being main and independent, the disclaiming of right and title by the state is not subject to the time in which the US disposes of it. Additionally, be prepared for the argument that the extinguishing clause only pertains to the preceeding clause pertaining to indian land.
3) SEC 15 Your court do possess the same powers and jurisdiction as other judges of the US. Completely irelevant to ownership dispute.
4) SEC 16 Same as above. Jurisdiction and authority have nothing to do with ownership.
5) Additionally Sec 12 states, " The said State of Utah shall not be entitled to any further or other grants of land for any purpose
than as expressly provided in this Act; and the lands granted by this section shall be held, appropriated,
and disposed of exclusively for the purposes herein mentioned, in such manner as the legislature of the
State may provide."
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-19 2:36 PM SEC. 9. That five per centum of the proceeds of the sales of public lands lying within said State, which shall be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said State into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to the said State, to be used as a permanent fund, the interest of which only shall be expended for the support of the common schools within said State.
....
Anyhow...as always I'm interested in learning & have an open mind...I appreciate what you're doing as these arguments may be brought up in court when we finally have our day! So shoot holes in it!
From my shallow, uneducated veiwpoint, Sec 9 is your best argument but read in whole, not just the portion you have outlined..... but it's a longshot.
The state could argue the presumption of sale to satisfy the 5% interest owed to the state to support the school system. IMO, the forced sales couldn't exceed the needed funds to support the school system. That also doesn't give title to the state.
Overall, I think it's your best but also losing argument.
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-19 3:02 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-19 2:36 PM SEC. 9. That five per centum of the proceeds of the sales of public lands lying within said State, which shall be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said State into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to the said State, to be used as a permanent fund, the interest of which only shall be expended for the support of the common schools within said State.
....
Anyhow...as always I'm interested in learning & have an open mind...I appreciate what you're doing as these arguments may be brought up in court when we finally have our day! So shoot holes in it!
From my shallow, uneducated veiwpoint, Sec 9 is your best argument but read in whole, not just the portion you have outlined..... but it's a longshot.
The state could argue the presumption of sale to satisfy the 5% interest owed to the state to support the school system. IMO, the forced sales couldn't exceed the needed funds to support the school system. That also doesn't give title to the state.
Overall, I think it's your best but also losing argument.
I do want to say...to Finney...that calving season is different out here...a lot of ppl questioned the bulls being run with the cows, too...calves usually hit the ground here in December, likely sooner in Mesquite area.
I have more quetions and points to ponder...maybe later...tomorrow...Monday...lol.
eta an 'i' to my 'dong' in the 1st sentence...
Edited by musikmaker 2014-04-19 9:36 PM
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comments/865601377/Western-states-to-feds-Turn-over-public-lands.html
SALT LAKE CITY — A group of lawmakers and policymakers from eight Western states joined forces Friday in an all-day summit in Salt Lake City to declare "enough is enough" against the federal government when it comes to management of public lands.
"It is time states in the West came of age," said Idaho House Speaker Scott Bedke, R-Twin Falls. "We are every bit as capable of managing the lands within our boundaries as are the states to our east, those states east of Colorado."
Bedke, in a press conference at the Capitol after the summit, pointed to forest ecosystems degraded by mismanagement that have imperiled watersheds and led to catastrophic wildfires.
"We are burning up each summer in Idaho," he said, while stressing that state-managed lands in Idaho are faring better, despite parity in lightning strikes and drought impacts.
Bedke and representatives from Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, Oregon and Utah, are part of a coalition of Western states where federal land ownership has been an enduring complaint they say locks up access to mineral resources, strips them of revenue and shreds their autonomy when it comes to control of their own house.
"There is a distinct difference in the way federal agencies are managing the federal lands today," said Montana Sen. Jennifer Fielder, a co-organizer of the summit.
"They used they to do a good job, but they are hamstrung now with conflicting policies, politicized science and an extreme financial crisis at the national level. It makes it impossible for these federal agencies to manage the lands responsibly any more."
Utah, where 67 percent of the land is in federal land ownership, has led a legislative charge to demand relinquishment of title to certain lands that exclude national parks and wilderness study areas.
The Transfer of Public Lands Act, sponsored by Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan and signed into law by Utah Gov. Gary Herbert in 2012, set the stage for a formal showdown with the government by demanding action under threat of lawsuit.
Other states are exploring similar options in a collaborative effort to not only signal a show of solidarity but craft like-mind solutions to the problem, said Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart, R-Provo.
"The majority of these states have more federal land within their borders than land of their own," she said. "It is about fairness."
She deflected questions about how much such an effort would ultimately cost the states involved, instead pointing to the cost of inaction, on both sides.
"I would counter with what is it costing the government to maintain control and management of the federal lands. What if we don't act? We believe the states can manage the lands better at lower costs and at greater returns for our taxpayers and our children."
Both she and Ivory added that the movement is not "new," with her saying the "great Western state of Illinois," once had 90 percent of its lands in federal ownership.
But the transfer of public lands movement by Utah has come under harsh criticism by environmental groups that claim it is a reckless, costly pursuit that will only cost millions and ultimately put landscapes at risk. Pristine land, they argue, will be auctioned off to the highest bidder with little regard to environmental impacts.
Lockhart said if the groups care about preserving landscapes, they will be at the table in negotiations because of watersheds that are destroyed in fires and wildlife that is decimated in their wake, jeopardizing resources for the American public in general.
"This is bigger than the West," she said. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-19 10:06 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-19 10:01 AM TXBO - 2014-04-19 8:41 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:03 PM ...
We're either FOR big government or we're AGAINST it...can't have it both ways.
I gotcha..... So even though I lost a good friend in the Oklahoma City bombing, I need to be in support of Timothy McVeigh?
It does help to understand your emotional views and support of 'some' big gov't.
Like I said...we can't have it both ways...we either give the control to the fed or keep it for ourselves as was the intent of our form of gov't. We have other options to replace & improve those agencies...hopefully ones that wouldn't require people to be targets, whether it be IRS agents or cattlemen.
No, no. You're platitudes make you no different that the progressives. Somebody supports a legitimate function granted to the fed so lets call it "big government". You want selective enforcement. That's as progressive as supporting illegal immigration. You want to ignore the words of the constitution to support your agenda. That's judicial activism and progressivism at it's very finest. That's the most detrimental threat to our liberty and you're on board for your cause. Here's Article 4, Section 3, paragraph 2 of the US Constitution: "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." Let's break that down, Congress has the authority to: 1 ) Sell property belonging to the US. 2 ) To make rules and regulations to property belonging to US 3 ) Nothing else in the constitution shall prejudice any claim of the US Here's what it doesn't say: "The US must dispose of all property once a territory becomes a state" I get it though, you're like Justice Ginsberg and think the Constitution could be better. I'll live with it just like it is. Even when it doesn't give me the results I like. Owning and regulating property is a constitutionally legitimate function of the federal government......Like it or not. You want to change that....great....do it the right way with a constitutional amendment......otherwise, you're progressive judicial activist and just as big of a threat to my liberty as Barack Obama.
Since this was posted on a public forum I'm thinking I'll share it with those who are fighting this battle on the front lines & hopefully in the courts at some point...I'm sure they'll be interested to know (or not) that they're considered a threat to Liberty...the very thing they're fighting for! Lol...Geez, we don't need the courts anyhow! Just check out BHW...everything you ever wanted to know is right there in black & white!
Funny stuff!
BTW...the 9th Amendment protects me from being intimidated or belittled by the courts...it protects our Constitution & prevents the courts from interpreting it to say what it does not say.
Note I did not use semi-colons. Lol...
| |
| | |
 Famous for Not Complaining
Posts: 8848
Location: Broxton, Ga | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-18 3:04 PM Lunch break thoughts. We spent all morning feeding than replanting trees in a shelter belt that we costshared with the NRCS (you know, the GOVERNMENT). Since planting trees is a fairly mindless task, it leaves a lot of time for thinking. People who I will call real ranchers are in the middle of the busiest time of the year. Calving, farming, feeding, branding, sorting to go to pastures, some A.I.ing already. I don't know one family who is sitting on their a$$ complaining about how abused they are. My mom's favorite quote "Busy Hands are Happy Hands." I watched another "Breaking News" story about the Bundy barbeque and fun time rally last night, and, I hate to be judgemental, but all I saw was a bunch of very overweight people with a sour look on their face, buying up t-shirts from some vender and I couldn't help but think, maybe if they spent less time feeling sorry for themselves and more time doing a little manual labor, maybe they could lose some pounds. While we were out working this morning, there was probably a bunch of the gun guys recovering from the night before, since I'm sure they are not all Mormons. I just wish some of those news stations would follow real ranch families around and see what we really do, rather than portray us all like those people. PS: Don't those militia people have jobs? How do they have time to go all over with their guns, and why, if I pointed a gun at a policeman they would kill me, but if they do, they get a pass?
Really..................
I ask myself about the Occupy Wall Street protesters.............. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | CJE - 2014-04-20 4:14 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-18 3:04 PM Lunch break thoughts. We spent all morning feeding than replanting trees in a shelter belt that we costshared with the NRCS (you know, the GOVERNMENT). Since planting trees is a fairly mindless task, it leaves a lot of time for thinking. People who I will call real ranchers are in the middle of the busiest time of the year. Calving, farming, feeding, branding, sorting to go to pastures, some A.I.ing already. I don't know one family who is sitting on their a$$ complaining about how abused they are. My mom's favorite quote "Busy Hands are Happy Hands." I watched another "Breaking News" story about the Bundy barbeque and fun time rally last night, and, I hate to be judgemental, but all I saw was a bunch of very overweight people with a sour look on their face, buying up t-shirts from some vender and I couldn't help but think, maybe if they spent less time feeling sorry for themselves and more time doing a little manual labor, maybe they could lose some pounds. While we were out working this morning, there was probably a bunch of the gun guys recovering from the night before, since I'm sure they are not all Mormons. I just wish some of those news stations would follow real ranch families around and see what we really do, rather than portray us all like those people. PS: Don't those militia people have jobs? How do they have time to go all over with their guns, and why, if I pointed a gun at a policeman they would kill me, but if they do, they get a pass? Really..................
I ask myself about the Occupy Wall Street protesters..............
Maybe some people manage their time & lives real well...and they don't make excuses when a fellow American needs help...they go divert another Waco/Ruby Ridge. That was a worthwhile effort even if you don't think so.
Edited by musikmaker 2014-04-20 6:58 PM
| |
| | |
  Warmblood with Wings
Posts: 27846
Location: Florida.. | These are the cows being picked up after they were ran to death or shot. 
Edited by Bibliafarm 2014-04-20 8:33 PM
| |
| | |
Famous for Not Complaining
Posts: 8848
Location: Broxton, Ga | Sad | |
| | |
 Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| Bibliafarm - 2014-04-20 8:32 PM
These are the cows being picked up after they were ran to death or shot.
There are a lot more pictures on the site and there are more graves to dig up. There are also several videos posted of the damage they did to the water tanks. NO where in the court orders did it give them authority to do this. | |
| | |
New Info Detective
Posts: 1551
| http://rtfitchauthor.com/2011/07/30/nevada-tribal-leader-81-sues-bl...
Intersting article if interested.
| |
| | |
 I'm not opinionated
Posts: 4597
Location: Online |
I saw this earlier. I just wonder why the Native Americans haven't gone after the BLM before now? Why did he wait this long? | |
| |
| |
Folks on-line