Posted on 04/19/2014 10:37:15 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
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?
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.
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.
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
Thank you for posting these videos B4Ranch.
Short cited. We need a training area.
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.
Try the Enlcave Clause
Article I Section 8 Clause 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
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.
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?
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
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.
>>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.
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.
Social engineering ?
That’s worth talking about.
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.
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.
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.
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.