Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Western states seeking ways to reclaim federal land
American Thinker ^ | 04/19/2014 | Rick Moran

Posted on 04/19/2014 10:37:15 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

A nascent rebellion by western states looking to reclaim some of the land that was appropriated by the federal government is taking shape. A group of about 50 western lawmakers from 9 states met in Utah to discuss ways to bring about a revolution in land management that would see the states have a mich bigger say in how their own land is managed.

Salt Lake Tribune:

It’s time for Western states to take control of federal lands within their borders, lawmakers and county commissioners from Western states said at Utah’s Capitol on Friday.

More than 50 political leaders from nine states convened for the first time to talk about their joint goal: wresting control of oil-, timber -and mineral-rich lands away from the feds.

"It’s simply time," said Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, who organized Legislative Summit on Transfer for Public Lands along with Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder. "The urgency is now."

Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart, R-Provo, was flanked by a dozen participants, including her counterparts from Idaho and Montana, during a press conference after the daylong closed-door summit. U.S. Sen. Mike Lee addressed the group over lunch, Ivory said. New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington also were represented.

The summit was in the works before this month’s tense standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management over cattle grazing, Lockhart said.

"What’s happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem," Lockhart said.

Fielder, who described herself as "just a person who lives in the woods," said federal land management is hamstrung by bad policies, politicized science and severe federal budget cuts.

"Those of us who live in the rural areas know how to take care of lands,"

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: agenda21; blm; bundyranch; federalland; nv; reid; statesrights; un; westernstates

1 posted on 04/19/2014 10:37:15 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

OK, folks, I’d like to spark a discussion of the intent of the framers when they added this article in the constitution:

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 :

“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.”

Was their intent in this clause for the Federal Government to own vast amounts of land for conservation and management? If not, what was the purpose of this article?


2 posted on 04/19/2014 10:39:14 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

States taking land from the Feds by the eminent domain process ?


3 posted on 04/19/2014 10:44:28 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
4 posted on 04/19/2014 10:44:59 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The Feds OWN 87% of Nevada. With numbers like that, why is it even a state? BLM needs to go bye-bye.
5 posted on 04/19/2014 10:46:45 AM PDT by JPG (Yes We Can morphs into Make It Hurt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

What was the intent of Article IV Section 3 Clause 2?


6 posted on 04/19/2014 10:47:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Bump


7 posted on 04/19/2014 10:47:30 AM PDT by Jet Jaguar (Resist in place.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The answer is in the videos at the bottom of the synopsis.

A quick background as to why the BLM should not be harassing Cliven Bundy. This issue goes all the way back to the Confederation Papers, prior to the writing of our US Constitution.

Please remember that the Supreme Court has reversed more than 150 of earlier Supreme Court decisions on natural law. Is that what you would consider as someone being consistent and reliable in interpreting the Constitution?

The Resolution of 1780, "the federal trust respecting public lands obligated the united States to extinguish both their governmental jurisdiction and their title to land that achieved statehood."

In the Constitutional Convention of 1787, The Charter of Liberty contained these words, "The new Federal Government is an agent serving the states.", "The delegated powers are few and defined", "All powers not listed are retained by the states or the people", "The Resolution of 1780 formed the basis upon which Congress was required to dispose of territorial and public lands", "All laws shall be made by the Congress of the United States". (not agency bureaucrats!)

That should be sufficient for you to determine who all public lands belong to, hint - NOT the Federal Government!

"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, it's meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted. it means now". So said the Supreme Court in South Carolina v United States in 1905

Articles of Confederation, Article VI, clause 1 All engagements entered into before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. In Article IX "... no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States."

Formation of a "more perfect union" does not absolve that union of prior engagements, including those obligations establish by the resolution of 1780 and the Articles of Confederation.

Our government system is established by compact, not between the Government and the State Governments but between the States as Sovereign Communities. By James Madison 1821 (This is what make the County Sheriffs the highest law enforcement officer in that County and gives him/her the authority to tell the BLM, the FBI or any other Federal Agency to get out of the County or they will be arrested and jailed.)

What I have written here is but a short piece of the process that the Founder went through to establish our Constitution and system of government.

Please view these videos and see if they don't change your mind about whether or not Cliven Bundy is in the wrong by defying the BLM.

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,

8 posted on 04/19/2014 10:48:57 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 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
If I had to guess, I would say that territory (such as Hawaii pre-1959 statehood) is owned and controlled by the feds, per the Constitution.
Further, I would guess that a military base (such as Hickham AFB in Hawaii) would remain as federal property even after statehood.

But on the whole, once a geographical area becomes a state, then the land is owned and controlled by the state government and not by the federal government.

Where this will get interesting is in the Indian Reservations, and the National Parks. The Constitution doesn't provide for such things, and the Feds aren't likely to want to change the current arrangement. And then there's the broader issue of BLM turf. It's hard to weaken the Fed.

But I would say that if the states just moved in, put stakes in the ground and said, "This is ours", then it seems to me unlikely that the Federal Government would move in with guns blazing. It's not a civil war. It's not a rebellious rancher. It's not weird religious cult. It's just a state government saying, "This is land is my land."

9 posted on 04/19/2014 10:53:01 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Property belonging to the U-N-I-T-E-D S-T-A-T-E-S.

Now comes Art 1 Sec 8 which spells specifically out what they are allowed to do. ..AND they have to be uniform throughout these United States.

The the 17th enumerated power, or 17th clause if you will, where it list specifically the lands allowed the federal government to hold.


10 posted on 04/19/2014 10:53:19 AM PDT by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
You ask an odd question. You are asking this:
Does the federal government have the authority to own and administer large tracts of land within the states? If it does not, what is the purpose of this article that talks about states taking back land illegally owned and controlled by the feds?

The answer is implicit in the question.

To answer your first question, no it was not. The framers did not invision the federal government owning land within the states, they saw states as sovereign entities. The only land the feds owned was “unclaimed” land, meaning unclaimed by a state - not within the borders of any state. This clause was put in to allow the federal government to prevent massive annexation by states as the western expansion continued.

11 posted on 04/19/2014 10:54:47 AM PDT by GilesB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
This is ridiculous. Rick Moran, as usual, takes work done by others, excerpts it, adds a few generic comments and tries to own the original work. BS.

Here, go read the original article posted by Jim Rob.

12 posted on 04/19/2014 10:56:34 AM PDT by upchuck (Support ABLE, the Anybody But Lindsey Effort. Yes, we are the ABLE!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I don't know the " intent " of the original makers of the Constitution, but ? " Territory or other Property " the way I see it is ? Territories were parts of land until they became states, so to speak that is.
Once they became states ? Hands off Federal Government.
The 10th Amendment has a lot to say about this.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Once it becomes a state ?
The Federal government must surrender all properties to the states and the people.

To bad Federal Government.... the law is the law.
13 posted on 04/19/2014 10:57:40 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

2 Kings 6:15-18


14 posted on 04/19/2014 10:59:08 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

To those who scorn art 1 Sec 8. If any part of the constitution is ignored, then the whole of it is ignored.

Aside this, if these lands were intended for the sole ownership of the federal government, then why are they MANAGED AS A TRUST? There would be no need for any such management by the federal government.

The trust notion is in fact the key. They can not hold any lands, by may manage them as a trust.
They have violated that trust, so therefore it no longer is in effect. All the states have to do is fire them, and take over that land and manage it as they see fit.


15 posted on 04/19/2014 11:00:02 AM PDT by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The reason much of the land in the west went unclaimed, in spite of efforts to give it away, can be seen from this picture:

I am confident the states can manage it better than the feds. I wish the folks working this conference all the best, and will support them politically in any way I can. But we shouldn't pretend that the federal government ended up owning this land out of greed. They just could not give much of it away because in many places, land without water rights is nothing.

16 posted on 04/19/2014 11:07:45 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: crz
" and take over that land and manage it as they see fit."

Drill baby drill and bring on the oil gushers....
17 posted on 04/19/2014 11:10:15 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

YES SIR!

And guess how much that would bring into the local treasury?

Mine Baby Mine.

Log baby log.

Farm baby farm.

Build manufacturing..


18 posted on 04/19/2014 11:15:47 AM PDT by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

B4Ranch,

I know you’ve been all over this issue, I’ve done a little research myself and would like to know your thoughts.

From what I can tell, it comes down to this:

BLM issues “Grazing permits” that require compliance with their Terms and Conditions. This includes a limit on the number of cattle (as a result of pressure from environmentalists)

If a Rancher has less cattle grazing on public lands he will lose the rights to the water since he is not using the water.

The BLM has been consistently shrinking the acreage for these allotments for well over 20 years.

The BLM is engaged in a two, maybe three step process to drive the rancher out of business.

They are forcing the rancher into a catch 22. Agree to the terms and they lose their water rights, without the water rights they can’t allow their cattle on public lands.

It seems to be more about the water than anything else.

Keep in mind these “water rights” are not for “resale” but for use by cattle.

The BLM has been slowly reducing access by shrinking the allotments and forcing a reduction of livestock (terms and Conditions) that, in turn forces the reduction/forfeiture of “water-rights” (lack of use), that ultimately forces the rancher out of business.

That’s my understanding.

Please point out where I may be wrong.


19 posted on 04/19/2014 11:22:05 AM PDT by Zeneta (Thoughts in time and out of season.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Was their intent in this clause for the Federal Government to own...”

I haven’t seen evidence that the Federal Government is the owner. The owner is, or owners are, the United States. Each of the sovereign states has an ownership interest as far as I can tell. The Federal Government is just an (out of control) agent for the States.

Article III, Section 3, second clause 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; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

I’m not sure how the second half plays, but the first half certainly shows that the United States (not the Federal Government) retains “Territory or other Property belonging to the United States”.

At the time that was mostly the Northwest Territory won from England as a result of the Revolutionary War, but later on other territory came to belong to the United States through the Louisiana Purchase, the purchase of territory from Mexico after the Mexican-American War, and the Alaska purchase.

When States were created from all that territory, Congress just didn’t dispose of all the land to the newly created States.

Now here are some things to think about:

How can a state or group of States take as their own territory within their state boundaries with out permission of the fifty United States if said territory is owned by the United States?

How do property rights play in this?

What Constitutional authority authorizes the purchases of the Louisiana Territory, the Southwest land from Mexico, and Alaska?


20 posted on 04/19/2014 11:30:46 AM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the and breadth of "ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

RE: When States were created from all that territory, Congress just didn’t dispose of all the land to the newly created States.

So, was this in violation of the intent of the constitution or not? THAT is what I want to know.

If the answer is ‘yes’, then we have to rectify it by CEDING all that land BACK to the Western states.

If the answer is ‘NO’, I’d like to know the basis for answering that. Specifically, How does the answer of’NO’ square with the Tenth Amendment?


21 posted on 04/19/2014 11:37:57 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

Grazing rights where established under the “Taylor Grazing Act of 1934”.

From what I can tell, this is what the Feds seem to base their position on.

From what I understand, some states had provisions or exceptions under this act that allowed “Native” or Grandfathered in ranchers to not be subject.

New Mexico for one, but Nevada, not so much.


22 posted on 04/19/2014 11:42:27 AM PDT by Zeneta (Thoughts in time and out of season.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta
This is basically an Agenda 21 issue. Get the small farmers and ranchers off of the land, that's the goal. People belong in cities where they can be easily controlled! They want to deal with corporations who are have but one goal, making money, not people who might have an emotional attachment to the land that's been in the family for the past 150 years.

Then there's what I call the Reid Twist. This follows the Golden Rule. Whomever has the Gold makes the rules. So Reid has decided that he should, "Make as much money as I can because I am a very powerful Senator."

If a corporation wants to invest on what's known as BLM land, then they will pay whatever Harry thinks they should. Some will be above the table in the form of political contributions and some will be hidden out of the line of direct sight. Perhaps a land trade or shuffle something off to his family members. Whatever is necessary to get the deal done.

Now that Reid has his man in the top BLM seat, things should speed up quite a bit. The troubling thing about all this is that the BLM should not even exist. Just because some politicians decided to screw over the western states doesn't make it legal.

The Resolution of 1780, "the federal trust respecting public lands obligated the united States to extinguish both their governmental jurisdiction and their title to land that achieved statehood."

The Resolution of 1780 formed the basis upon which Congress was required to dispose of territorial and public lands when a state became a state.

Articles of Confederation, Article VI, clause 1 All engagements entered into before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. In Article IX "... no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States."

Formation of a "more perfect union" does not absolve that union of prior engagements,including those obligations establish by the resolution of 1780 and the Articles of Confederation.

23 posted on 04/19/2014 11:43:36 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: Mr Rogers
But we shouldn't pretend that the federal government ended up owning this land out of greed.

You always seem to come across as apologist for the federal government.

It's time to get the feds out of the land business.

/johnny

24 posted on 04/19/2014 11:44:13 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Thank you for posting these videos B4Ranch.


25 posted on 04/19/2014 11:47:03 AM PDT by AZamericonnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JPG

Short cited. We need a training area.


26 posted on 04/19/2014 12:02:14 PM PDT by Domangart (LBGT = NAMBLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Agenda 21.

While there may be some or even a lot of truth to this, Agenda 21 doesn’t make the nightly news.

The mechanisms for its implementation can.

Agenda 21 sounds conspiratorial and is therefore rejected by most respected news outlets.

You and I can see the big picture since we apparently have the time to research and think about the implications. There are likely hundreds, if not thousands of Ranchers that have been forced off public lands over the past 25 years. Each case, when taken individually seems innocuous, but together they paint a picture of a massive Federal land grab.

Federal rules upon rules that separately can be defended and sold to the public as “in the public interest” or “lawlessness” is pushing this to a head.

It’s ironic that the left in our country will attack our government as being “responsible” for the actions of the terrorists on 9/11, but will defend our government for it’s oppression of US citizens.


27 posted on 04/19/2014 12:06:55 PM PDT by Zeneta (Thoughts in time and out of season.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Try the Enlcave Clause

Article I Section 8 Clause 17

http://constitutionus.com/

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;—And


28 posted on 04/19/2014 12:11:12 PM PDT by Enlightened1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

According to Article I (comes before yours) Section 8 Clause 17....

The Feds only have authority over

“Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”

So they DO NOT have the authority.

The Feds know this, and this is why they originally tried to say it was about the Tortoise.. Which they quickly backed away from once it was revealed the Feds killed over 1000 of the endangered Tortoise last August.

What they did in 1993 was highly illegal and unconstitutional. Possibly High Treason? Anyway, they basically said U.N. Agenda 21 Trumps the U.S. Constitution and State Law.

Which IMO consider it a violation of oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.


29 posted on 04/19/2014 12:11:12 PM PDT by Enlightened1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

If you don’t understand water rights vs land, then you don’t understand the west.

Yes, the feds ought to turn over all BLM/USFS/USPS land to the states. However, I’m also sure I have two REPUBLICAN senators - McCain and McFlake - who will oppose it. At this point, I’d consider it a huge victory if we could just get the Republican House to have oversight hearings on the BLM & USFS - anyone want to guess how likely John Boner is to do even that much?


30 posted on 04/19/2014 12:24:07 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
I understand water rights and open range law.

None of that requires the feds.

Have you written your rep and senators and DEMANDED that the federal scheme of land management be ended?

The speaker of the house will have oversight hearings if congressmen are getting their phones melted down.

/johnny

31 posted on 04/19/2014 12:31:28 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Tell you what...I will contact my senators and congressman on Monday to argue that federal land should be turned over to the state. The odds of them listening are slim, but maybe if a lot of folks call or write, something will start rolling.


32 posted on 04/19/2014 12:54:34 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
America is about to get a lesson the hard way. The communists controlled Federal Government will not give up any power and that included the land. Most States have very little rights since there is a Federal agency that controls almost everything we do. State right are a joke and can and has been revoked by many Federal laws.
33 posted on 04/19/2014 1:04:34 PM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta

>>Agenda 21 sounds conspiratorial and is therefore rejected by most respected news outlets.<<

How can some that has 2,690,000 hits on Google be a conspiracy? Something with worldwide costs that exceed $600 billion annually not make the evening news? Actually it does make the evening news, almost everyday I hear something about sustainable development or protecting the atmosphere, or a plan for better land usage, combating the deforestation of South America, sustaining biological diversity or managing hazardous wastes. They simply changed the name and never speak of the entire plan which is the Agenda for the 21st Century.

You and I have very differing views on what it takes to produce a respected news outlet. I don’t know of one that is broadcast on TV or newspaper that is sold in a food outlet where the common person might pick one up. I do see a lot of social engineering taking place though.


34 posted on 04/19/2014 1:48:04 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Name your illness, do a Google & YouTube search with "hydrogen peroxide". Do it and be surprised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

How can some that has 2,690,000 hits on Google be a conspiracy?


ZEITGEIST: MOVING FORWARD | OFFICIAL RELEASE | 2011

22 million on youtube

Complete crap

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w


Loose Change

A re-post that has 2.8 million

All crap

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDx1GLqvBO8


Strange things in 911 footage - look closely

39 million views

crap on crap

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3AwEz0K-UI


I’m not saying Agenda 21 is crap, I’m just saying that it is discounted as a conspiracy and therefore will never get the attention it deserves.


35 posted on 04/19/2014 2:04:19 PM PDT by Zeneta (Thoughts in time and out of season.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Social engineering ?

That’s worth talking about.


36 posted on 04/19/2014 2:09:13 PM PDT by Zeneta (Thoughts in time and out of season.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta

Pretty close but it is very complicated. Grazing rights themselves have been considered part of the value of the ranch and still are in fact though the value has to be taking a huge hit with the courts ruling against the ranchers on the lease issues.

In some areas the government has cut down the amount of land available for lease and in other areas the size of the acreage stays the same but the government reduces the number of cattle allowed to graze. The outcome is the same ranchers herds are downsized by the government until they are out of business.

A couple of interesting things...in these cases I have been told the government does not try to change the numbers of cows on the rancher’s actual grazing rights...they claim the lower numbers they are allowing on a new lease are temporary and give many excuses as to reduction (usually an endangered specie) so to be clear a rancher may on paper have grazing rights for 1000 cows on his ranch and the government will only issue a lease for 100. Meaning if he tries to exercise his grazing rights and run 1000 cattle he is in violation of his lease. In other cases the government has said they want the rancher to keep cows off for say 5 years for usually some endangered specie issue. Can any business close for 5 years and stay in business?

The reason I find it interesting that the government does not seem to try to change the allotment number of cattle that the ranchers grazing rights call for, they instead change the number allowed on the lease for some “temporary” reason. That makes me wonder if the government lawyers think if they try to change the rancher’s actual grazing rights numbers/allotment numbers, animal units that go with a ranch, etc. then legally the government might lose in court because these grazing rights go back pretty far in law. By changing the lease itself and claiming it is temporary- for say 5 years or the remainder of the lease or until xyz happens- however they decide to word it they can win in court because the rancher violates that lease. If the rancher will not sign the contrived lease then he is in violation if he has more cows on the land even if his grazing rights allow it. If a rancher does not agree to the conditions of the lease, they cannot pay the lease because the government will not take the money. This is how they get the ranchers that want to take a stand on this- if they continue to run the cows they are allowed by their grazing rights without a lease they are in violation. The government will not let the rancher pay fees based on his grazing rights if he won’t sign a lease agreeing to the new conditions the government is imposing. So the government can say- cattle are trespass, rancher doesn’t have a lease or rancher didn’t pay his lease.

This is tricky to understand but there can be a difference between the number of animals a rancher has grazing rights for and the number the government will give them a lease for. The real problem is even if a rancher were financially secure enough to play the game when the government starts this shenanigans there are other issues in play. Sometimes grazing rights and water rights on ranches can be lost if they are not used for a certain number of cattle or not at all. So if a rancher plays the game and keeps signing and following the leases the government is changing the rules on he can lose his grazing rights and water rights for not using them correctly. The upshot is if the government wants your cows off of your ranch they can regulate you off.


37 posted on 04/19/2014 2:11:06 PM PDT by Tammy8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta
wrong word- remove 'some', insert 'something. How cansomething that has 2,690,000 hits on Google be a conspiracy? ________________________________ Check out this site. http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/
38 posted on 04/19/2014 2:23:41 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Name your illness, do a Google & YouTube search with "hydrogen peroxide". Do it and be surprised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Tammy8

Coming to a business near you.

0bamacare dictates that if a business has 50 or more employees than that business must provide HC benefits for them.

That business not only needs, but actually loves their employees as they are the heartbeat of what they do.

The ACA forces these business owners into a choice between providing HC and possibly going out of business if they are unable to pass the cost on to their customers, or reducing the number of people they employ.

I can’t for the life of my believe these folks are that transparently hell bent on the destruction their actions will cause.

I simply think that they have no clue, and are going through their ideological motions so they can feel good, as they can project how much they care.

Not a conspiracy.

Idiocracy.

Whether it’s the ACA or the Desert Tortoise, these people have no clue how the real world works.

And they don’t seem to care, as long as they get MSM cover for having superficial feelings.

BTW, if they don’t have those superficial feelings, the MSM and their own party will destroy them.


39 posted on 04/19/2014 2:52:09 PM PDT by Zeneta (Thoughts in time and out of season.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta

According to this video the Taylor Grazing Act was supposed to be temporary...until land was “disposed of” Taylor Grazing Act is discussed at about 10:33 on the video but the whole video is about the issues of federal land belonging to states.

http://okanoganrlc.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/ken-ivory-explains-the-history-of-flpma-pilt-and-srs/

I am not a lawyer so don’t know if this man is correct in his analysis of all this but he convinced me. The sources he gives would be helpful in understanding this and looking further. I hope some genius lawyer is able to get the feds to give that land to the state as I believe was the founder’s intent.


40 posted on 04/19/2014 2:53:41 PM PDT by Tammy8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tammy8

Great video

Thanks


41 posted on 04/19/2014 3:11:40 PM PDT by Zeneta (Thoughts in time and out of season.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

bump


42 posted on 04/19/2014 5:03:47 PM PDT by GGpaX4DumpedTea (I am a Tea Party descendant...steeped in the Constitutional Republic given to us by the Founders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"So, was this in violation of the intent of the constitution or not? THAT is what I want to know."

The clear words of the Constitution are:

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.

From those words I gather that the intent of the Constitution is that 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. (I'm ignoring the words after the semicolon. They seem at second glance to be a wash anyway.)

To me, those clear words are not clear on whether or not Congress must turn over all land which in the boundaries of a newly created state to that state at the time of the state's creation, or ever. To clarify that, we'd probably have to turn to the penumbra and in order to do that we'd have to come to a common understanding of the penumbra to include whether or not penumbra even exist, since not everyone believes in them.

We'd also have to come to a common understanding of property and property rights. Those are discussed on this forum, but I don't remember seeing them defined very well.

And when I say "common understanding", I mean a common understanding of what the founders meant when they wrote the Constitution.

Without a reason to think otherwise, I'd have to say the answer to your question is "No", because the Constitution gives Congress the power to dispose, but doesn't say anything else about the disposition. It doesn't say all the territory within in boundary of a new state must, must not, can or can not be transferred to said state.

As to how this squares with the Tenth Amendment, the Tenth says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Therefore, I have to ask in what way is all this not square with the Tenth Amendment? I also have to point out that most of the new states entered the Union prior to the Seventeenth Amendment, at a time when senators where appointed by the State legislatures, so the States did have a say in the proceedings.

I have to go for the rest of the night.

43 posted on 04/19/2014 5:10:10 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the and breadth of "ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Was their intent in this clause for the Federal Government to own vast amounts of land for conservation and management?

No

-----

If not, what was the purpose of this article?

To pay off the public debt. At least, that's what the legal treatise written not long before the 'official' start of the Mexican/American War said.

§ 1320. As if it were not possible to confer a single power upon the national government, which ought not to be a source of jealousy, the present has not been without objection. It has been suggested, that the sale and disposal of the Western territory may become a source of such immense revenue to the national government, as to make it independent of, and formidable to, the people. To amass immense riches (it has been said) to defray the expenses of ambition, when occasion may prompt, without seeming to oppress the people, has uniformly been the policy of tyrants. Should such a policy creep into our government, and the sales of the public lands, instead of being appropriated to the discharge of the public debt, be converted to a treasure in a bank, those, who, at any time, can command it, may be tempted to apply it to the most nefarious purposes.
Joseph Story Commentaries on the Constitution

And HE was quoting the first legal treatise written after Constitutional Ratification

To amass immense riches to defray the expences of ambition when occasion may prompt, without seeming to oppress the people, has uniformly been the policy of tyrants. Should such a policy creep into our government, and the sales of land, instead of being appropriated to the discharge of former debts, be converted to a treasure in a bank, those who can at any time command it, may be tempted to apply it to the most nefarious purposes.
St. George Tucker View of the Constitution of the United States

---------

I'd like to note I'd posted Story's quote a few days ago on another thread and attributed it to Tucker. Apologies to anyone who might have been confused by the error.

44 posted on 04/20/2014 9:16:27 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as created by the Laws of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan; SeekAndFind
To pay off the public debt and the creation of New States.
45 posted on 04/20/2014 9:23:19 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as created by the Laws of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

I thin this started with the opening of the Northwest Territories

The congress sent surveyors into the area and then sold off a lot of land. The national debt from the revolutionary war was paid.

This was the model throughout the 1800s.

We should sell of most of the federal lands. It would pay off a few trillion.

Give the rest to the states.

Best wishes!


46 posted on 04/20/2014 9:27:32 AM PDT by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian

Source: The Fabric of America


47 posted on 04/20/2014 9:28:49 AM PDT by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian
I think this started with the opening of the Northwest Territories

It did start with the Northwest Territories, but this model is unconstitutional.

Nowhere in anything I've read from the Founding era to the early 1800's insinuates the federal government had the authority to either retain the land once the States were formed OR extort it from the States as a condition of Statehood.

We should recognize the land in the States as belonging to the States, and allow the feds to keep the property that falls under 'providing for the common defense'.

-------

Best wishes for you and yours as well! :-)

48 posted on 04/20/2014 12:49:59 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as created by the Laws of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

I think my plan if coupled with a balanced budget and return of remaining land to states would be best.

However I’m not up on constitutional law. I defer to you and others.


49 posted on 04/20/2014 12:54:23 PM PDT by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

I agree with your analysis completely.


50 posted on 04/21/2014 2:18:42 PM PDT by lakecumberlandvet (Appeasement never works.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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