Posted on 04/16/2014 9:56:23 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
RE: The crux of the problem is that the federal govenment did not cede control of 86% of the land mass of nevada to the state when it was formed. hence the federal government violated the constitution which required the feds to do so
Well, it looks like Nevada has a constitutional case to bring to the Supreme Court to FORCE the USA to cede this to the state.
Who is going to bring this case to court?
The law is a religion practiced by priests (lawyers) and bishops (judges) according to the papacy (SC)
****************
At its best, law is a weapons system. Anyone who is a practitioner in it realizes that all of our current man made laws are written on wax. The law says what it means and means what it says until it doesn’t. It is a game.
At its worst, it is a racket.
I don’t know how many laws are on the books. Federal, state and local. I’ll take a guess. 250,000? I look at laws and regulations as two different entities. To me, laws, you can go to jail for. The law is definitely out of control.
What is that quote from “Atlas Shrugged”? Free men can’t be controlled...etc? Well, it’s spot on.
How can moral law be defined in 10 commandments but judicial law takes 250,000? Something has to be done
OK then. I stand by what I said before. Personal attacks on Bundy over his physical appearance amount to what? never mind attacking what was presented on FR without citing exactly what you call “confusing דרעק” (and then chiding me for not quoting you), and countering it with absolutely nothing.
Too many people think they get to be judge for a day whenever they want.
I tried reading up on the issue with Bundy to see how far up the court system it went, but almost everything presented so far on FR is just confusing dreck focusing on ‘the infamous they’, instead of the legal merits of the case from both sides.
Bundy should limit his pictures to the media. 50% of the people are just going to see a whining overweight white man in a cowboy hat.
You can only push people so far and then they don’t give a crap any more. At that point things become very dangerous. Cliven Bundy is not the only American who has lost all faith in government and our legal system.
Although my research is just know getting to this point in history, you conclusion is essentially correct.
From what I've read so far, what happened is the Territories became States with the proviso of them becoming States is that they turn around and ceed any claims over massive amounts of land to the federal government once they became States. Several bills in the Library of Congress show the feds were selling the States the land back....piecemeal.
What better way to plump the federal coffers? As long, of course, you can ignore the fact it violated more than one provision in the Constitution and that pesky little 'under duress' thing.
Wait you mean State Politiclowns and Federal Politiclowns have knowingly ignored/violated the Constitution?
Well we all know that is not possible. Politiclowns would never do such a thing... [/dripping sarcasm]
I don’t know how many laws are on the books. Federal, state and local.
*************
As you already said, the best answer is “too many”.
It is impossible to say precisely how many laws are on the books. Statutes and case law is ever shifting; never at rest. That is why when someone like the author of the drab essay opines about the fixity and inviolate nature of law, you know you are dealing with an ignoramus.
One could spend their whole life studying how all this came to be, it is not as simple as what you state. Federal land except for specific purposes was supposed to be turned back to the states, all of the states as far as I know. There were many steps with different outcomes, but way back the theory was that the federal government only had claim on land for specific purposes.
I do not pretend to be an expert but I think to really understand all of this requires digging and I found this interesting video that leads one to many places (documents, congressional and state actions, etc.) seems to be a treasure map to learning more about all this...
http://okanoganrlc.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/ken-ivory-explains-the-history-of-flpma-pilt-and-srs/
Art 1 Sec 8 sub 7 & 17. Explicitly lists what properties the FedGov may own.
86% of Nevada ain’t it...
Article 1 Section 8 Sub 17:
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
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
_________________________
The words by the CONSENT of the legislature of the State is very clear in the above.
Next question, was 86% of Nevada annexed by the USA with the consent of the State legislature of Nevada when Nevada entered statehood?
As for anything else, I’ll say this. You cannot have it both ways. You either believe in this government and are committed to fix it, or you don’t believe in this government and are committed otherwise.
In my opinion and my view, if you don’t believe in the Supremacy of SCOTUS as it applies to the law of this land, then you are committed otherwise, and I don’t mean agreeing with it I mean by abiding with it and seeking change from within. Because only our enemies seek to change us from without.
Incidentally I was looking up the word provocateur and came upon this definition from a well known dictionary:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/provocateur
Note the example. I thought it was wrong of them to use that as an example and have forwarded my thoughts to the web site. I would have commented but it requires facebook, I don’t do facebook.
Cheers
Really? Has the spirit of Henry David Thoreau been completely exorcised from America now?
False dilemma. When you have lawless types running the government, it becomes difficult to impossible to oust them by ballot—especially when fraud is evident at said ballot box.
And as for judges, it was foretold that we would have unjust judges that themselves subvert the law. Given that justices are appointed, it is always impossible to rectify that “from within”.
As for change “from without”, how do you think the USA was founded? Ever read the Declaration of Independence? That document plainly asserted that it is the “Right of the People” to throw off a government that has become “destructive of (the) ends” of preserving the people’s “inalienable rights”.
The BLM was formed by merging the General Land Office with the United States Grazing Service
Holding on to ownership of that land is not within Federal authority. Unless you can find a clause that allows the Fedgov to hold on to territory after it gains Statehood?
Amd 10 would seem to argue against that interpretation.
And yes, I’m aware there was already a 9th Circuit court case along these lines. US Vs Gardner. There, they used Art 4 sec 3 to say it was ok for the Feds to own most of an established State.
They are wrong. But the 9th is kinda known for that.
Roe V Wade, Wickard v. Filburn, Gonzalez v Raiche, Kelo, etc...
Yes, the judgement of the SCOTUS should never be considered “infallible”.
Ever.
we laugh about old 'blue laws' ... the kind that say
'no whistling between midnight and 6AM'
( I made that up),
but the real ones are just as weird and stupid
How about that guy in Boston that got hit with 'possesion of a hoax device' (rice cooker full of confetti)
All the structures that were destroyed by the BLM in their attempt to steal Bundy's cattle were built by Bundy without the financial assistance of the BLM, which had discontinued their financial obligation back in 1993 due to the tortoises.........
How about that guy in Boston that got hit with ‘possesion of a hoax device’ (rice cooker full of confetti)
*************
I hadn’t heard about that, but it is the sort of creeping totalitarianism that is engulfing us all right now.
There are many things I loathe about the trends in our laws now. First of all that the courts have kicked natural law and equity to the curb and embraced positive law. Obama used to talk about positive law quite a bit and for once knew what he was talking about. It is worth knowing the definition, as it has a specific meaning. Note the final sentence in particular: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Positive+Law
As a consequence of positive law, increasingly INTENT plays no part in whether or not one is engaged in ‘criminal’ behavior. It is instead based on status, such as the possession of what is construed as a ‘hoax device’, without reference to intent.
We are far more rotted from the inside out than the Republic of Rome in its dying days, and we will face far more perverse and cruel tyranny than did the Romans before this is over, whether through defeat or reversal.
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.