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 ...
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.
Sounds like you're not happy here. No one's forcing you to post your blog excerpts at FR.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
“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...
“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”.
Your premise is wrong, they do have the right to own that land, they do own it, and they have the rights as property owners to manage it. Those facts are well established and have been a fundamental aspect of these United States since before the Constitution was adopted and were certainly permitted by the Constitution.
Pratt’s point on federal law enforcement jurisdiction is a valid one. Most property owners do not have the right to operate their own law enforcement establishment, so it’s a legitimate question of how the federal government in the past 80 years or so suddenly decided that they could do it.
When a territory becomes a state the Feds are supposed to surrender all, yes all land to the state. Keep watching the videos and learn why.
Thanks-will watch this. These are wise words indeed. I’ve been trying to sort all this out in my mind-it seems to me that the constitutionality of this will need to be decided in the courts-God help us.
But this is just another example of society slowly rejecting the authority of our government because it has become so corrupt and unwieldy. The government is and has been forfeiting it’s moral authority on all grounds. The population will not tolerate this government demanding one rule for them and one rule for us. THis is not sustainable. Lawlessness and anarchy will be the end result.
Dog is sniffing a (re)tread troll (helen)
;^D
My position is not based on videos.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-federal-ownership-public-lands
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL34267_12032007.pdf
Bump
Mine neither, the Confederation Papers
Except that I make no money from my blog. Except that there’s an “excerpt” checkbox for the bloggers posting area. Except that the site admins have not threatened to “zot” me. If you’re an admin, then “zot” me. I use my blog to measure readership, nothing else. You don’t have to click on it.
If a state doesn't become a state until it is admitted then how can it own land before then?
They were formed out of Territories. Before statehood they were territories. At statehood the territory within their borders became part of the state. No longer federal territory land.
I know there are those that site to the contrary and court cases to the contrary. But that does not solve the problem of direct conflict with wording of the Constitution.
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.