Cliven Bundy is not a righteous man, but there's more to the BLM story

The Thanks Project ^ | 04/15/2014 | Steve Berman

[thackney]

Except that there’s an “excerpt” checkbox for the bloggers posting area.

That is not unique to the blogger posting area. Several majors threatened to sue (or did sue) and the excerpts are for when they are required.

Is there a reason you want to use Free Republic, supported by its members, to promote your blog, but not share the content?

If your desire is to get the word out, then feel welcome bring it to Free Republic. If you only want to use our site to promote yours, maybe you should find another place.

[lifeofgrace]

I donated, that’s how I support the site. I enjoy reading others posts and getting the news aggregated. I am also working on my own writing, aspiring to one day do that for a living, but not now. So I use my blog to measure interest. Period. I post other places and don’t have issues.

[kiryandil]

LOL!

Thanx! Niiiiiice.

[DoodleDawg]

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.

And that wording is in which clause of the Constitution?

[Texas Fossil]

CRS Report for Congress>

https://opencrs.com/document/RL34267/2007-12-03/download/1005/

“Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority and the History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention”

December 3, 2007

—

The Equal Footing Doctrine.

The equal footing doctrine is based on ArticleIV, § 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution.

That clause addresses how new states will be admitted. The doctrine means that “equality of constitutional right and power is the condition of all States of the Union, old and new. It does not mean that physicalor economic situations among states must be the same. The term comes from state enabling acts that included the phrase that the state was admitted “into the Union on an equal Footing with the original States. The U.S. Supreme Court has clarified what those rights are. In the context of land, the equal footing doctrine has been held to mean that states have the authority over the beds of navigable waterways. Some have argued that the equal footing doctrine prohibits permanent federal land ownership. This is contrary to the plain wording of the Constitution. The doctrine and some language within the U.S. Supreme Court case of Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan11 have been combined to provide an argument that the federal government held the lands ceded by the original states only temporarily pending their disposal. However, this theory has been rejected by other Supreme Court cases. Furthermore, in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, the Supreme Court ruled on the narrow issue of federal ownership of submerged lands beneath navigable waterways, finding those lands belonged to the state under the equal footing doctrine because the original states had kept ownership of the shores of navigable waters and the soils under them.

—
>

Constitution says Congress controls ownership and dispersal of Federal land. It does not say some agency like BLM does it. This is where the rub comes in.

[Fledermaus]

This article is BS and the new conventional wisdom and ignores so much.

[DoodleDawg]

Constitution says Congress controls ownership and dispersal of Federal land. It does not say some agency like BLM does it. This is where the rub comes in.

Article IV also says, "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..." Congress can create any agency it wants to manage its property for it.

[thackney]

Your choice. But you may want to consider the words from FR owner and administrators.

- - - - - -

FR does not exist for the purpose of driving traffic (read: revenue generation) to your, or anybody elses, blog. What we can do is pull threads from this blog if that will help.

38 posted on 7/13/2010 1:24:30 PM by Admin Moderator
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2548666/posts?page=38#38

- - - - - - -

I have no complaint if a good conservative blogger posts his own material to FR, not as an excerpt to drive hits and discussion back to his blog, but rather to impart useful information to OUR readers and to promote and join in on the discussion and conservative activism HERE on FR.

If a blogger can’t or refuses do that, and if he constantly complains or fights with our participants over it, then I’d just as soon he doesn’t post here. It’s not my job to make his content or his presentation or cooperation acceptable to our readers. That’s his job. And if he cannot do it or refuses to do it and continues posting brief excerpts only and obviously attempting to draw away our participants while loudly complaining about it, then I have no sympathy for his complaints and the more apt I am to ban his account and blog.

552 posted on 12/7/2010 4:06:19 PM by Jim Robinson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2636843/posts?page=552#552

[TsonicTsunami08]

“It’s a use of force that is unnecessary, irresponsible, inflammatory, and, ultimately, useless”.

Useless.
Because brave men and women at great risk to their lives and future took up arms
against tyranny. Just as the wise men who founded this nation had anticipated.