Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: hoosiermama; All
http://www.futurnamics.com/reid_bundyranch.php

The referenced article includes the following wording:

... desert BLM land ...

First, why did Sean Hanity allegedly say that the land in question is state land?

Next, if the feds do own the land in which case Hanity is wrong, then did they acquire it by proper compensation according to either the Constitution's Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I, or the eminent domain clause of the 5th Amendment?

Otherwise, if the land was acquired by the feds bureaucratically and without compensation, the BLM has no constitutional authority to call the shots concerning the land imo.

What constitutional clause am I overlooking that gives any federal agency the right to tell people what to do concerning land that the feds do not own?

100 posted on 04/13/2014 4:24:52 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]


To: Amendment10
State Land/Fed Land.

Well it is Public Land. At the moment, the legal system deems it to be Federal Land.

As we know, The Law now is quite fluid. Much of The Law now comes from the mouth of Bammy and from the mouth of H0lder.

Why shouldn't The Law also come from the mouth of Cliven Bundy?

105 posted on 04/13/2014 4:29:17 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies ]

To: Amendment10

Nevada gave up the land when they became a state

http://www.c-span.org/video/?314028-1/federal-land-rights-nevada


112 posted on 04/13/2014 4:36:46 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies ]

To: Amendment10
Next, if the feds do own the land in which case Hanity is wrong, then did they acquire it by proper compensation according to either the Constitution's Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I, or the eminent domain clause of the 5th Amendment?
Acquired in the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo in 1848, known as the Mexican Cession, approve and verified by the US Senate of the day. Same type of acquisition as the Louisiana Purchase, the Gadsen Purchase, Treaty of Paris, etc.
What constitutional clause am I overlooking that gives any federal agency the right to tell people what to do concerning land that the feds do not own?
Well, the Feds are considered to be the clear owners of that land. In this case, it is specifically governed under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. Those two Acts are considered by the courts to have constitutional justification under the following: “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.” Property Clause, U.S. Constitution, Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2.

If you want to know the legal justifications given in Court, this is a good guide.
115 posted on 04/13/2014 4:38:52 PM PDT by GAFreedom (Freedom rings in GA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson