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

Skip to comments.

Cliven Bundy is not a righteous man, but there's more to the BLM story
The Thanks Project ^ | 04/15/2014 | Steve Berman

Posted on 04/15/2014 6:50:41 AM PDT by lifeofgrace

The Bureau of Land Management is the primary "property manager" for the United States. It obtains its authority directly from the Constitution, and in fact, prior to that, the Articles of Confederation. There has been an unbroken chain of Federal management of public lands since the founding of our country, first by the Treasury Department, then the War Department, followed by the General Land Office, and more recently, the BLM.

In the case of Bundy, the odds and the law are most definitely stacked against him. What we must consider, as policy, is how the Federal government manages its considerable land holdings. Remember, Constitutional authority to own, dispose and regulate land is vested in the Congress, not the Executive Branch. Our Congress, throughout the years, has ceded regulatory authority to an ever-growing bureaucracy of departments, agencies, bureaus, and offices, each with its own (and some overlapping) fiefdom. This effectively emasculates Congress' power and allows the President and his administration to order, by fiat, which land is protected, which land is designated, and even seize land under present laws protecting wildlife, the environment, historical sites, and Native American rights, not to mention lands designated for the armed forces.

(Excerpt) Read more at thanks-project.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: blm; blogpimp; bundy; clivenbundy; nevada; ranch
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last

1 posted on 04/15/2014 6:50:42 AM PDT by lifeofgrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lifeofgrace

http://www.argentco.com/htm/f20010701.476442.htm


2 posted on 04/15/2014 6:51:50 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lifeofgrace

I’m going to post an article on Klamath and the Farmers...because it mentions first in, first rights and may be relevant to the Cattle grazing situation.


3 posted on 04/15/2014 6:56:23 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lifeofgrace
The title starts out saying “Cliven Bundy is not a righteous man” but said nothing about in the beginning of the rant. Name calling with out backup will not get me to read an article. Bundy seems more righteous than the author.
4 posted on 04/15/2014 6:56:33 AM PDT by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/07/local/la-me-klamath-20130507


5 posted on 04/15/2014 6:56:39 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lifeofgrace

“The Bureau of Land Management is the primary “property manager” for the United States. It obtains its authority directly from the Constitution”

There is evidence that is a totally false statement. That the Fed Gov is prohibited from owning land which belongs to the state at the time of admission.


6 posted on 04/15/2014 6:57:24 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Texas is not where you were born, but a Free State of Heart, Mind & Attitude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lifeofgrace

The real problem in this episode....landlines conceived in the 1870s, historical trappings left over from the Roosevelt era (not FDR but Teddy), and inability to grasp that great portions of the western states (unlike the eastern states) were simply deemed to forever remain federal property instead of being sold off.

This has been brewing for decades. You’ve got water rights all screwed up because the federal government stepped in and did things that state just wouldn’t do or they were so corrupted that they couldn’t do them.

My suggestion? For every state with over twenty-five percent of the state owned by the federal government....return that portion to the state government with two options. They either rent the property out or they sell it in 500-acre tracts to people who must live on the property for three years to get full ownership. Downsize the BLM authority by half and within a decade....dissolve the BLM entirely. The idea we need federal property to remain like this....for the next ten thousand years...is a joke.


7 posted on 04/15/2014 6:57:24 AM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lifeofgrace

“Remember, Constitutional authority to own, dispose and regulate land is vested in the Congress, not the Executive Branch.”

Not even congress can regulate what property belongs to the State. This is the scam.

It is TIME to DownSize DC! Close Entire Rogue/Unconstitutional Departments including their SWAT Teams.


8 posted on 04/15/2014 6:59:33 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Texas is not where you were born, but a Free State of Heart, Mind & Attitude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lifeofgrace

Thanks Project?

I don’t know what that is, but from the non-sequitar of the title of the piece and the introductory paragraph presented, I say no thanks.


9 posted on 04/15/2014 6:59:46 AM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lifeofgrace

The Chinese want their promised land sterilized of any irritating pestilence that will harm or destroy their precious solar power plants.


10 posted on 04/15/2014 7:01:36 AM PDT by Spartan302
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

This needs to be resolved in the courts—who really owns the land? Where was the state of Nevada on this issue? Where was the Governor—He should have been with the ranchers. Looks like a 10th Amendment issue to me.


11 posted on 04/15/2014 7:01:48 AM PDT by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

Personally, I think it’s just blog pimping of a fashion. The title, like you said, has no substantiation from the limited information provided. I’m not gonna go to that sight just on a newbie’s say so..


12 posted on 04/15/2014 7:07:48 AM PDT by Gaffer (Comprehensive Immigration Reform is just another name for Comprehensive Capitulation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lifeofgrace

Is not a righteous man-—what does that even mean? He’s a lot more righteous than the government thugs out to get him.

I’m not clicking on your link; I don’t want a bunch of bugs and malware.


13 posted on 04/15/2014 7:14:07 AM PDT by CatherineofAragon ((Support Christian white males---the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lifeofgrace

What stopped you from posting the full content?


14 posted on 04/15/2014 7:14:18 AM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lifeofgrace

Excerpting your self-authored blog?

If you have something worth saying, why don’t you post it here and share with the whole class?


15 posted on 04/15/2014 7:15:46 AM PDT by shibumi (Cover it with gas and set it on fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner; lifeofgrace
What stopped you from posting the full content?

Yeah! What he said.

16 posted on 04/15/2014 7:20:15 AM PDT by Focault's Pendulum (I live in NJ....' Nuff said!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: lifeofgrace

Go to hell you piece of shit newby!


17 posted on 04/15/2014 7:24:40 AM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

Hey! Don’t candy coat it!


18 posted on 04/15/2014 7:25:48 AM PDT by Focault's Pendulum (I live in NJ....' Nuff said!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

The notion that this land belongs to the state is incorrect. Upon admission to the Union, Nevada, as were other new states, certain unallocated lands in accordance with the Northwest Ordnance of 1787. Instead of receiving the traditional section from each township, Nevada negotiated to accept a certain acreage of their chosing, all of the rest remained federal property. All of that that has not been disposed of in the intervening years remains the property of the federal government. The Constitution, the law, and precedence all agree on this.

This is a good article that draws on information provided by the Heritage Foundation. The fight should not be some baseless argument over who owns the land, but how the federal government is abusing its authority and manipulating legislation to enact policies that the Congress never intended or authorized.


19 posted on 04/15/2014 7:34:02 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Forward the Light Brigade
These videos are for people who don't yet understand why Cliven Bundy broke his agreement with the BLM. They show why the BLM should not even be managing the public lands of Nevada or any other state.

1of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference

2of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference

3of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference

Here's one that shows why the Sheriff of Clark County is duty bound to keep the BLM and all Federal agents from arresting Cliven Bundy.

Steven Pratt, Bound by Oath to Support THIS Constitution,/a>

20 posted on 04/15/2014 7:44:37 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Name your illness, do a Google & YouTube search with "hydrogen peroxide". Do it and be surprised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3144566/posts?page=20#20


21 posted on 04/15/2014 7:45:50 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Name your illness, do a Google & YouTube search with "hydrogen peroxide". Do it and be surprised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: lifeofgrace

Didn’t read past the first paragraph. So much wrong in it.


22 posted on 04/15/2014 7:45:59 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

Agreed. Under what Constitutional authority do they possess all those millions of acres? The answer, of course, is none. There are enumerated reasons under the Constitution for the feds to own property, and “national parks,” etc., ain’t there.


23 posted on 04/15/2014 7:46:29 AM PDT by afsnco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: lifeofgrace

“I’ll post the whole article from now on for your reading pleasure.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3135279/posts?page=7#7


24 posted on 04/15/2014 7:47:19 AM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

lifeofgrace
Since Mar 10, 2014


25 posted on 04/15/2014 7:47:20 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lifeofgrace

26 posted on 04/15/2014 7:47:51 AM PDT by Bikkuri (Molon Labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bikkuri

Hee hee....BTTT!


27 posted on 04/15/2014 7:50:12 AM PDT by Jane Long (While Marxists continue the fundamental transformation of the USA, progressive RINOs assist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: lifeofgrace
(Excerpt) Read more at thanks-project.blogspot.com ...


28 posted on 04/15/2014 7:53:07 AM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lifeofgrace

29 posted on 04/15/2014 7:58:01 AM PDT by shibumi (Cover it with gas and set it on fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner
For you, and for the trolls who refuse to read it:
Cliven Bundy has opened up a rabbit hole that goes back at least 200 years.  There's a lot of history surrounding Federal management of land, grazing rights, and Washington D.C.'s power to enforce its will upon states and citizens.  Unfortunately, there's also a lot of ignorance of this history flying around the internet.  Going back to the old saw "if it's online, it must be true," people can be whipped up into a frenzy, grab the AR-15's and head out to Nevada to fight against the Big Bad government.

That's insanity.

What we need to know is that the United States has a rich legal history of owning, managing, and disposing land.


In black and white, the Congress has Constitutional authority to regulate land owned by the United States.  But there are limits to this power.  Once a state has been admitted to the Union, it becomes a constitutional government in its own right, and thereby has the right to regulate land that, prior to admission, belonged to the United States (the Admitting Act of a State governs this transition).

The Supreme Court, in Camfield v. United States, in 1897, ruled that the Congress can regulate access to public land, by preventing private landowners from placing fences limiting access to that land.


Nevada is a state of course, and in fact the United States owns over 76% of it.  Put into perspective, that would be like the Federal government owning Florida from Lake City south to Key West.


Congress' legal authority and power to own, control, regulate and dispose of this land sits between two legal poles:  the proprietary theory and the police-power theory.

The proprietary theory grants Congress the same rights as any other private landowner, and the Supreme Court has long rejected that view based on the United States having vested national interests that override state legislation.  The police-power theory gives the Federal government almost unlimited authority to enforce its ownership rights, through regulation and legislation.  In fact, the Supreme Court held in 1976 that Congress has significant power to regulate public land and its use by private individuals.
At issue was the constitutionality of the Wild, Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, which prohibits capturing, killing, or harassing wild horses and burros that range on public lands. Writing for the Court, Justice Thurgood Marshall specifically rejected the contention that the Property Clause includes only "(1) the power to dispose of and make incidental rules regarding the use of federal property; and (2) the power to protect federal property." He concluded that "Congress exercises the powers both of a proprietor and of a legislature over the public domain." Thus, without regard to whether wild animals are the property of the United States, or whether the act could be justified as a form of protection of the public lands, Congress was held to have sufficient power under the Property Clause to adopt regulatory legislation protecting wild animals that enter upon federal lands. [Emphasis mine]
The Bureau of Land Management is the primary "property manager" for the United States.  It obtains its authority directly from the Constitution, and in fact, prior to that, the Articles of Confederation. There has been an unbroken chain of Federal management of public lands since the founding of our country, first by the Treasury Department, then the War Department, followed by the General Land Office, and more recently, the BLM.

In the case of Bundy, the odds and the law are most definitely stacked against him.  What we must consider, as policy, is how the Federal government manages its considerable land holdings.  Remember, Constitutional authority to own, dispose and regulate land is vested in the Congress, not the Executive Branch.  Our Congress, throughout the years, has ceded regulatory authority to an ever-growing bureaucracy of departments, agencies, bureaus, and offices, each with its own (and some overlapping) fiefdom.  This effectively emasculates Congress' power and allows the President and his administration to order, by fiat, which land is protected, which land is designated, and even seize land under present laws protecting wildlife, the environment, historical sites, and Native American rights, not to mention lands designated for the armed forces.

The Obama administration is extremely skilled at pulling the strings of bureaucracy to gain its own ends.  He With A Pen And A Phone chooses his battles well, under cover and color of law.  The reason to side with Bundy is not because he is a righteous man, but because this conflict has been going on since 1993, and all previous administrations have simply pursued it as a money matter in paying for grazing rights.  Only Obama has taken the extra step of enforcing police-power in physical form.  I, for one, don't like the precedent.  It's a use of force that is unnecessary, irresponsible, inflammatory, and, ultimately, useless.

There's more to this story that meets the eye, but we must not cross the line from patriots to anarchists.  It's good that BLM "de-escalated" but I fear this is not the end of the conflict.  As Rahm Emanuel (channeling Saul Ailinsky) was heard saying "never let a crisis go to waste."  This one should be used to expose the corruption in the system, not create a reason for further hay-making about "gun-toting, flag-wrapped, neo-conservative extremists."

That is the sane approach.


Ed. Note:  I relied heavily on the Heritage Foundation's materials on the Consitution for this post.  They have a considerable amount of material on this, and you should check it out for yourself.

30 posted on 04/15/2014 8:05:36 AM PDT by lifeofgrace (Follow me on Twitter @lifeofgrace224)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
For your reading pleasure, in its entirety:
Cliven Bundy has opened up a rabbit hole that goes back at least 200 years.  There's a lot of history surrounding Federal management of land, grazing rights, and Washington D.C.'s power to enforce its will upon states and citizens.  Unfortunately, there's also a lot of ignorance of this history flying around the internet.  Going back to the old saw "if it's online, it must be true," people can be whipped up into a frenzy, grab the AR-15's and head out to Nevada to fight against the Big Bad government.

That's insanity.

What we need to know is that the United States has a rich legal history of owning, managing, and disposing land.


In black and white, the Congress has Constitutional authority to regulate land owned by the United States.  But there are limits to this power.  Once a state has been admitted to the Union, it becomes a constitutional government in its own right, and thereby has the right to regulate land that, prior to admission, belonged to the United States (the Admitting Act of a State governs this transition).

The Supreme Court, in Camfield v. United States, in 1897, ruled that the Congress can regulate access to public land, by preventing private landowners from placing fences limiting access to that land.


Nevada is a state of course, and in fact the United States owns over 76% of it.  Put into perspective, that would be like the Federal government owning Florida from Lake City south to Key West.


Congress' legal authority and power to own, control, regulate and dispose of this land sits between two legal poles:  the proprietary theory and the police-power theory.

The proprietary theory grants Congress the same rights as any other private landowner, and the Supreme Court has long rejected that view based on the United States having vested national interests that override state legislation.  The police-power theory gives the Federal government almost unlimited authority to enforce its ownership rights, through regulation and legislation.  In fact, the Supreme Court held in 1976 that Congress has significant power to regulate public land and its use by private individuals.
At issue was the constitutionality of the Wild, Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, which prohibits capturing, killing, or harassing wild horses and burros that range on public lands. Writing for the Court, Justice Thurgood Marshall specifically rejected the contention that the Property Clause includes only "(1) the power to dispose of and make incidental rules regarding the use of federal property; and (2) the power to protect federal property." He concluded that "Congress exercises the powers both of a proprietor and of a legislature over the public domain." Thus, without regard to whether wild animals are the property of the United States, or whether the act could be justified as a form of protection of the public lands, Congress was held to have sufficient power under the Property Clause to adopt regulatory legislation protecting wild animals that enter upon federal lands. [Emphasis mine]
The Bureau of Land Management is the primary "property manager" for the United States.  It obtains its authority directly from the Constitution, and in fact, prior to that, the Articles of Confederation. There has been an unbroken chain of Federal management of public lands since the founding of our country, first by the Treasury Department, then the War Department, followed by the General Land Office, and more recently, the BLM.

In the case of Bundy, the odds and the law are most definitely stacked against him.  What we must consider, as policy, is how the Federal government manages its considerable land holdings.  Remember, Constitutional authority to own, dispose and regulate land is vested in the Congress, not the Executive Branch.  Our Congress, throughout the years, has ceded regulatory authority to an ever-growing bureaucracy of departments, agencies, bureaus, and offices, each with its own (and some overlapping) fiefdom.  This effectively emasculates Congress' power and allows the President and his administration to order, by fiat, which land is protected, which land is designated, and even seize land under present laws protecting wildlife, the environment, historical sites, and Native American rights, not to mention lands designated for the armed forces.

The Obama administration is extremely skilled at pulling the strings of bureaucracy to gain its own ends.  He With A Pen And A Phone chooses his battles well, under cover and color of law.  The reason to side with Bundy is not because he is a righteous man, but because this conflict has been going on since 1993, and all previous administrations have simply pursued it as a money matter in paying for grazing rights.  Only Obama has taken the extra step of enforcing police-power in physical form.  I, for one, don't like the precedent.  It's a use of force that is unnecessary, irresponsible, inflammatory, and, ultimately, useless.

There's more to this story that meets the eye, but we must not cross the line from patriots to anarchists.  It's good that BLM "de-escalated" but I fear this is not the end of the conflict.  As Rahm Emanuel (channeling Saul Ailinsky) was heard saying "never let a crisis go to waste."  This one should be used to expose the corruption in the system, not create a reason for further hay-making about "gun-toting, flag-wrapped, neo-conservative extremists."

That is the sane approach.


Ed. Note:  I relied heavily on the Heritage Foundation's materials on the Consitution for this post.  They have a considerable amount of material on this, and you should check it out for yourself.

31 posted on 04/15/2014 8:05:36 AM PDT by lifeofgrace (Follow me on Twitter @lifeofgrace224)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

You obviously have not read the article...the BLM receives its authority from Congress and the Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2.


32 posted on 04/15/2014 8:05:36 AM PDT by lifeofgrace (Follow me on Twitter @lifeofgrace224)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon

Yeah Google is famous for bugs and malware. Blogspot is a free blogging service, and no revenue is generated. I could care less if you click it or not. I use the blog to generate comments and track readership. Some of you freepers are hung up on who is new and who isn’t. Who cares? No wonder you have to run people off.


33 posted on 04/15/2014 8:05:36 AM PDT by lifeofgrace (Follow me on Twitter @lifeofgrace224)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: lifeofgrace

“The Bureau of Land Management is the primary “property manager” for the United States. It obtains its authority directly from the Constitution, and in fact, prior to that, the Articles of Confederation. There has been an unbroken chain of Federal management of public lands since the founding of our country,”

Well not really but over time an activist Supreme Court has slowly watered down the original intent of the Constitution to severly restrict the rights of the Federal Govt regarding public land.


34 posted on 04/15/2014 8:10:03 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lifeofgrace

35 posted on 04/15/2014 8:10:36 AM PDT by Focault's Pendulum (I live in NJ....' Nuff said!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lifeofgrace

See? That wasn’t so hard was it?

Save yourself some grief and do as you said you would:

Post the full content.


36 posted on 04/15/2014 8:13:40 AM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Jane Long; Bikkuri

OK, I’m an old fossil - I don’t get it.

I get the the troll, but not much else.


37 posted on 04/15/2014 8:15:01 AM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: lifeofgrace

Yep.


38 posted on 04/15/2014 8:16:51 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lifeofgrace
I will try to read it again after some more coffee. I am depressed after having to send good money after bad for taxes yesterday. This country needs a good revolt even if it is over false premiss.
39 posted on 04/15/2014 8:17:39 AM PDT by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

Even if we were to essentially sell off a majority of federally-owned land, there’s no reason that the proceeds shouldn’t go to the U.S. taxpayers, since they’re generally the ones who bought it in the first place.


40 posted on 04/15/2014 8:19:24 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Spartan302

There is the problem. We are allowing foriegn enities to own land and we are abusing the rights of the American Citizens to do so. Welcome to the end of this country.


41 posted on 04/15/2014 8:29:46 AM PDT by Busko (The only thing that is certain is that nothing is certain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: lifeofgrace
Some of you freepers are hung up on who is new and who isn’t. Who cares? No wonder you have to run people off.

Sounds like you're not happy here. No one's forcing you to post your blog excerpts at FR.

42 posted on 04/15/2014 8:31:53 AM PDT by Jane Long (While Marxists continue the fundamental transformation of the USA, progressive RINOs assist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

I am not making an argument in favor of federal law enforcement authority within the states. My argument, one that was understood by the founders and was the basis for the expansion of the United States, is that as a property holder, the federal government was entitled to manage that property.

The BLM is assigned management authority. They are abusing it, to be sure, but that is driven by the President of the United States and his Administration. The issue of federal law enforcement authority is another question. Your point seems to suggest that you believe that they are one and the same.


43 posted on 04/15/2014 8:37:27 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: lifeofgrace

Thank you for posting-I went to the Heritage site and printed out the info on “Property Clause” for further reading. This is really a complicated situation that requires careful thought and research.

There is the law to consider.
There is property rights to consider.
There is individual rights to consider.

There are elements of truth to both sides. There are problems with both sides.

As with many Freepers, I have been most disturbed by this situation and it’s implications for us as Americans.

One thing that struck me this morning. Our government no longer has the moral authority to do much of anything. Yes there are laws. Yes there is precedent and history. But as a government, it no longer holds the moral authority to carry out it’s duties or enforce anything.

As Mark Levin as noted-we are seeing clear signs of a declining country and a society disentigrating. This situation is just one more stark example of this.

I grieve for my country.


44 posted on 04/15/2014 8:41:13 AM PDT by murrie (Mark Levin: Prosecuting stupidity nightly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

The “dispose of” provision in the Constitution regarding federal property clearly exposes the mistake made by courts in the past whenever they ruled “property owner” status for the Federal government involving managed land within states.

It is obvious that the Federal Government cannot “dispose of” 80%+ of Nevada and sell it, for example, to Pennsylvania.

That’s simply ridiculous. As land within the boundaries of the state designated as Nevada, all of those millions of acres are Nevada and cannot be sold to another state or to a foreign country (Mexico, for example).

It will remain Nevada barring its being part of a constitutionally approved redesignation into an additional state.


45 posted on 04/15/2014 8:47:50 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

If you watch the videos, you’ll learn that the feds don’t have authority to own any land that was not sold to them by the states. So they sure as hell don’t have the right to manage half of the land in the USA.


46 posted on 04/15/2014 8:55:18 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Name your illness, do a Google & YouTube search with "hydrogen peroxide". Do it and be surprised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: murrie

Michael Cannon in a House Judiciary committee hearing said:

“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate. If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws, then they will conclude that neither are they.”

Cannon said it is “very dangerous” for the president to “wantonly ignore the laws, to try to impose obligations upon people that the legislature did not approve.”

MUST WATCH!

http://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/michael-f-cannon-testifies-house-judiciary-committee-presidential


47 posted on 04/15/2014 8:56:00 AM PDT by infool7 (The ugly truth is just a big lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

It seems to me that it is irrelevant whether Bundy is in the right with the land issue.

The issue now is the thuggery of a government agency,
and The People standing up to that thuggery.


48 posted on 04/15/2014 8:57:08 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

“That the Fed Gov is prohibited from owning land which belongs to the state at the time of admission.”

That is simply inaccurate. Courts going back at least as far as the 1840s have rejected your interpretation of the Constitution. With nearly 200 years of settled case law all ruling the same way, you’ve got a tough sale ahead of you...


49 posted on 04/15/2014 8:59:42 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: lifeofgrace

“What we must consider, as policy, is how the Federal government manages its considerable land holdings. Remember, Constitutional authority to own, dispose and regulate land is vested in the Congress, not the Executive Branch. Our Congress, throughout the years, has ceded regulatory authority to an ever-growing bureaucracy of departments, agencies, bureaus, and offices, each with its own (and some overlapping) fiefdom.”

I think it is time for Nevada, Utah, Idaho & Arizona to band together and sue the BLM for refusing to obey public law requiring “multiple use” instead of “no humans allowed”.


50 posted on 04/15/2014 9:04:13 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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