Posted on 04/10/2014 10:35:30 AM PDT by bimboeruption
Article I Section 8: 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;
Article IV, Section 3: "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."
See post #55.
Well said.
It did indeed own it, But the BLM took over managing the grazing with the ranchers at a later date.
I'm a bit more concerned with the tens of millions of criminal illegal alien squatters who are aided and abetted the same corrupt US Government...All at tax payer expense to the tune of hundreds of billions in social services, health care, choking off our hospitals etc., every year?
And you suggest this guy is a squatter over some cows eating some weeds?
Ya think it's a bit odd the government comes down on some American like he's a foreign invading enemy, with snipers etc, all while government makes American citizenship and our sovereignty all but pointless? All while forcing us all to pay for our own incremental demise?
Ya see something wrong with this picture?
There are some interesting parallels to Harper’s Ferry here. Although, I see a hot CWII as a drawn out guerrilla affair until/unless enough progress is realized to capture the interest of foreign backing. The reality is, what foreign power has any interest in supporting the forces of liberty?
If the U.S. owns the land, they get to make the rules about who uses it and how it is used.
It seems to me that you feel very strongly about the Federal gov’t rights and I am your enemy for not agreeing with you, so let’s just agree to disagree.
Yes, and all of these were presumed to be necessary. Is cattle land in Nevada necessary? Read the Federalist were it explicitly discusses the need to keep the geographic size of the federal government to a minimum.
Koresh was a nut. Not sure how he was able to get folks to follow him, but this is all beside the point. The feds wouldn't stop until they got their way.
What happened next? Innocent people who just wanted to be left alone were slaughtered. I wouldn't have wanted to be one of those agents having to live with the thought that I had a hand in the murder of a bunch of children.
Doesn’t seem to bother Janet Reno or Eric Holder ... dead souls have selective conscience.
ping
No one is arguing jurisdiction where it is appropriate. And copying and pasting doesn’t prove scholarship. The Feds have no NEED for cattle land, so they should have relinquished it long ago.
[ Sadly, I believe this is going to degrade into a hybrid Waco/Ruby Ridge situation. The Federal government is not going to stand down, and the state government of Nevada isn’t going to provide protection for the landowner lest they run afoul of Obama and his cronies. ]
Sounds more like it could turn into this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre
Only in Nevada...
We haven’t hit Lexington and Concorde ... yet...
funny aint it?
You list the reasons that the Constitution gives the fed gov the right to own particular land, forts, etc... of which this particular piece of land is not any one of those things. Then, in Art 4, Sec 3, paste in where the Constitution gives the fed gov authority to manage those particular purposed lands, which this area under contest is not, and claim that gives the fed gov legal right to that land, which it doesn’t.
Would Jeb Bush call this man’s cow herd in Nevada an “Act of Love”.....
No he wouldn’t....
So screw Jeb Bush!
Fix the issue with federal lands along the border with Mexico FIRST then we can talk about the rancher in Nevada...
How come the Federal government is only concerned with rules and law when it pertains to legitimate Americans, yet aid and abet those who routinely violate federal law when they enter US land illegally?
No, I despise the overreaching federal gov’t. We don’t disagree about them. I simply believe Bundy is legally and morally wrong in his assertions. I absolutely support States’ Rights and have defended them on FR since I came here. If Nevada owned the land, I’d support its right to manage the land as it sees fit, but it doesn’t.
FRegards.
>>Doesn’t seem to bother Janet Reno or Eric Holder ... dead souls have selective conscience.<<
Oh my...sooooo well put. Couldn’t have articulated any better.
“If the U.S. owns the land, they get to make the rules about who uses it and how it is used.”
The Constitution lays out very specific purposes for the land that the fed gov is allowed to own. This area under contest does not qualify in any way, shape or form with any one of those specific purposes.
I’m starting to wonder about you.
Semper Fi, Mac.
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.