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.
James Madison once wrote: "I believe there are more instances of
the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent
encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden
usurpations." And so it is with those "certain unalienable rights"
mentioned by Thomas Jefferson. From the misdirected antics of federal bureaucrats at the
Headgates of Klamath Falls to the usurping of our rights by the
proposed Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA), from bureaucratic
war on the farmers and ranchers out West to the constant harassment
of landowners along the Appalachian Trail, federal agencies are
constantly overstepping their Constitutional authority and violating
the third in the trinity of our unalienable rights: our right to
property. This text describes the limits to the authority given the federal
government to acquire, hold and regulate real property located within
the boundaries of any of the several States. Current U.S. Supreme
Court cases are quoted to more clearly define the limits of the
federal government's authority and remedies are outlined for
prosecuting federal agents who violate the civil and property rights
of local residents. Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution instructs
the federal government on how it may regulate land usage: "The Congress shall have power 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." That's rather clear. If a State gives the federal government
permission to purchase property for use as a military base, dock
yard, or other needed building, the Congress may make all laws, rules
and regulations governing the area. That is, congress may "make all
laws" if, and only if, the State cedes jurisdiction of such lands to
the federal government. Otherwise, all jurisdiction remains with the
State. But note that there is no mention of parks, biospheres, dams, or
wilderness areas in the Constitution. Only the military bases, dock
yards and office buildings necessary to conduct those tasks
authorized to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution
are mentioned. So, we move on to Article IV, Section 3: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but
no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of
any other State; nor any State be formed by the Jurisdiction of two
or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the
Legislatures of the States concerned as well as the Congress. "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." Which means, the federal government may make all laws governing
the properties owned by it, including Territories like Puerto Rico.
That makes complete sense. The problem is, excluding territories and D.C., the property
Constitutionally allowed to the federal government seems to be
limited to only that needed for the "Erection of Forts, Magazines,
Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings." We can find no Constitutional authorization for the federal
government to control lands within the boundaries of any State for
hatcheries, fisheries, dams, parks, biospheres or wilderness
areas. Yet, the federal government claims control over more than 25% of
the land mass of the United States(1). Territories are said to become
States and enter into the United States as a State on equal footing
with all other States. However, that didn't always happen. The thirteen original States
have no large land areas owned by the federal government. Whereas,
most of the States joining later have massive areas of "public lands"
controlled by the federal government. For instance, Alaska is said to
be our largest State. In truth, it is not. Not really. Most of the
land area of the State of Alaska is actually controlled by the
federal government. Therefore, the people of Alaska may not use vast
areas of their own State. Federal agencies often act as though they have complete regulatory
and police power over public lands, but that does not make it true.
For instance, in Arizona, the State has jurisdiction over federal
lands in the public domain -- that State not having ceded
jurisdiction of that property to the U.S.(2) As attorney Lowell H. Becraft, Jr. points out in a very
informative brief simply titled "Federal Jurisdiction,"(3) there are
numerous instances where the federal government seems to be exerting
regulatory and police control over "public lands" with somewhat
dubious legal authority to do so. In Pollard v. Hagan(4), the U.S Supreme Court declared:
"[B]ecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity
to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain,
within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in
which it is expressly granted ... Alabama is therefore entitled to
the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her
limits, subject to the common law." In Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe(5), the U.S. Supreme Court
ordered: "The consent of the states to the purchase of lands within
them for the special purposes named, is, however, essential, under
the constitution, to the transfer to the general government, with the
title, of political jurisdiction and dominion. Where lands are
acquired without such consent, the possession of the United States,
unless political jurisdiction be ceded to them in some other way, is
simply that of an ordinary proprietor. The property in that case,
unless used as a means to carry out the purposes of the government,
is subject to the legislative authority and control of the states
equally with the property of private individuals." So, we see that the federal government may, under certain
circumstances, acquire, own and make all law pertaining to properties
within the boundaries of a State. However, the Constitution limits
that accumulation of real property within a State to that land
necessary for "the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards
and other needful Buildings." Furthermore, the Legislature of the
State must first authorize the federal government to purchase the
property and the State Legislature may or may not cede regulatory and
police authority over that land to the federal government. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No law may
supersede the Constitution. Only a Constitutional amendment my change
a Constitutional right. Therefore, any violation of the Constitution
must be a serious breach of the law -- a violation much more serious
than a breach of the laws passed by Congress. In fact, a law, executive order, rule or regulation contrary to
the Constitution cannot be a valid "law." And, in The Federalist
Papers No. 78, Alexander Hamilton tells us exactly that: "There is no position which depends on clearer principles than
that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the
commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act,
therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this
would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal;
that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the
people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by
virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize,
but what they forbid." One sentence there sums it up nicely: "No legislative act,
therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid." When
government violates the Constitution, government then becomes an
illegal entity and relinquishes its Constitutional authority. This
places the burden of correction squarely on the shoulders of the
people. We must look to recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court to
properly define the legal jurisdiction and balance of power between
the different branches and levels of governments today. The Court has
been clarifying the relationship between State governments and an
overreaching federal bureaucracy. Lately there have been some
important developments in the case law. Below is a short compilation
of applicable opinions of the Supreme court. In Alden et al. v. Maine(6) the Supreme Court admonishes: "The text and the structure of the Constitution protect various
rights and principles. Many of these, such as the right to trial by
jury and the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures,
derive from the common law. The common-law lineage of these rights
does not mean they are defeasible [capable of being annulled --
ed.] by statute or remain mere common-law rights, however. They
are, rather, constitutional rights, and form the fundamental law of
the land." . . . "By the same token, the contours of sovereign immunity [of the
States] are determined by the founders' understanding, not by the
principles or limitations derived from natural law." . . . "The Constitution, after all, treats the powers of the States
differently from the powers of the Federal Government. As we
explained in Hall: 'In view of the Tenth Amendment's reminder that
powers not delegated to the Federal Government nor prohibited to the
States are reserved to the States or to the people,' the existence of
express limitations on state sovereignty may equally imply that
caution should be exercised before concluding that unstated
limitations on state power were intended by the Framers." . . . "The Federal Government, by contrast, 'can claim no powers which
are not granted to it by the constitution, and the powers actually
granted must be such as are expressly given, or given by necessary
implication. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, (1816); see also City of
Boerne v. Flores, (1997); United States v. Lopez, (1995)." . . . "We believe, however, that the founders' silence is best explained
by the simple fact that no one, not even the Constitution's most
ardent opponents, suggested the document might strip the States of
the immunity" . . . "Our historical analysis is supported by early congressional
practice, which provides contemporaneous and weighty evidence of the
Constitution's meaning." . . . "By 'splitting the atom of sovereignty,' the founders established
'two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its
own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the
people who sustain it and are governed by it.' Saenz v. Roe, (1999),
quoting U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, (1995) (concurring
opinion). 'The Constitution thus contemplates that a State's
government will represent and remain accountable to its own
citizens.' When the Federal Government asserts authority over a
State's most fundamental political processes, it strikes at the heart
of the political accountability so essential to our liberty and
republican form of government." In New York vs. U.S.(7), the Supreme Court explains why the
federal government may not order States to act: "States are not mere political subdivisions of the United States.
State governments are neither regional offices nor administrative
agencies of the Federal Government. The positions occupied by state
officials appear nowhere on the Federal Government's most detailed
organizational chart. The Constitution instead 'leaves to the several
States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty,' (The Federalist No.
39), reserved explicitly to the States by the Tenth Amendment." . .
. "Whatever the outer limits of that sovereignty may be, one thing
is clear: The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact
or administer a Federal regulatory program." . . . "Congress has vast power but not all power. When Congress
legislates in matters affecting the States, it may not treat these
sovereign entities as mere prefectures or corporations. Congress must
accord States the esteem due to them as joint participants in a
federal system, one beginning with the premise of sovereignty in both
the central Government and the separate States. Congress has ample
means to ensure compliance with valid federal laws, but it must
respect the sovereignty of the States." . . . "Although the Constitution begins with the principle that
sovereignty rests with the people, it does not follow that the
National Government becomes the ultimate, preferred mechanism for
expressing the people's will. The States exist as a refutation of
that concept. In choosing to ordain and establish the Constitution,
the people insisted upon a federal structure for the very purpose of
rejecting the idea that the will of the people in all instances is
expressed by the central power, the one most remote from their
control." . . . "We have always understood that even where Congress has the
authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or
prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the
States to require or prohibit those acts. ... The allocation of power
contained in the Commerce Clause, for example, authorizes Congress to
regulate interstate commerce directly; it does not authorize Congress
to regulate state governments' regulation of interstate commerce." .
. . "But whether or not a particularly strong federal interest enables
federal regulation, no Member of the Court has ever suggested that
such a federal interest would enable Congress to command a state
government to enact state regulations. No matter how powerful the
federal interest involved, the Constitution simply does not give
Congress the authority to require the States to regulate." . . . ;"Where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States,
therefore, the departure from the constitutional plan cannot be
ratified by the 'consent' of state officials. An analogy to the
separation of powers among the Branches of the Federal Government
clarifies this point. The Constitution's division of power among the
three Branches is violated where one Branch invades the territory of
another, whether or not the encroached-upon Branch approves the
encroachment. ... The constitutional authority of Congress cannot be
expanded by the 'consent' of the governmental unit whose domain is
thereby narrowed, whether that unit is the Executive Branch or the
States." The U.S. Supreme court continued on with that thought and slapped
the federal government's overreaching regulatory hand yet again in
Printz, v. U.S.(8) "Much of the Constitution is concerned with setting forth the form
of our government, and the courts have traditionally invalidated
measures deviating from that form. The result may appear
'formalistic' in a given case to partisans of the measure at issue,
because such measures are typically the product of the era's
perceived necessity. But the Constitution protects us from our own
best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches
of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to
concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the
crisis of the day." . . . "We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to
enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that
Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the
State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue
directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor
command the State's officers or those of their political
subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.
It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case-by-case
weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are
fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual
sovereignty." . . . "The Federal Government may not compel the States to implement, by
legislation or executive action, federal regulatory programs. ... We
warned that this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal
command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations,
'The Federal Government,' we held, 'may not compel the States to
enact or administer a federal regulatory program'." And so is the supreme law of our land today. The Constitution
limits the real property that the federal government may own and make
law for to "the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards
and other needful Buildings." But, the federal government must first
apply to the applicable State Legislature for permission to purchase
said property and can be refused. Furthermore, we learned that, often, the federal government does
not necessarily have plenary authority over land it happens to be
using. Therefore, whatever laws, rules and regulations the federal
government makes will not necessarily apply on that land. Rather,
State law and regulations would apply and State law enforcement
officers would be required to enforce that law. Then, we saw that State governments are sovereign entities. Which
means, except for that short list stipulated within the Constitution,
the federal government should not and may not coerce or order State
governments to pass or enforce any law, rule or regulation. Which means, much of the "public lands" now "controlled" by
federal agencies are possessed and regulated with no Constitutional
authority. And, in many cases, federal agents are acting contrary to
the Constitution when they perpetrate rules and regulations
concerning that land on the American people. That the federal government took possession of vast tracts of land
while the areas (now States) were Territories, and demanded ownership
of these lands as a condition of the Territories becoming States, is
notwithstanding. Since the admission of Tennessee in 1796, Congress
has included in each State's act of admission a clause providing that
the State enters the Union "on an equal footing with the original
States in all respects whatever."(3) The "equal footing" doctrine is a limitation only upon the terms
by which Congress admits a State. That is, States must be admitted on
an equal footing in the sense that "Congress may not exact conditions
solely as a tribute for admission, but it may, in the enabling or
admitting acts or subsequently impose requirements that would be or
are valid and effectual if the subject of congressional legislation
after admission."(3) Which means, Congress cannot legally tell a Territory that they
must cede vast areas of their land to the federal government as a
requirement for becoming a State, for that would not be a valid
"subject of congressional legislation after admission." That
happened, to be sure. But it was also unconstitutional because the
new State would then not be entering into the United States as a
State on equal footing with all other States. The Constitution also gives us the means of protection of our
State and individual rights. Article VI states: "This Constitution,
and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance
thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;
and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the
Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary
notwithstanding." Any other law or State Constitution notwithstanding, all judges in
every State shall be bound to rule according to the U.S. Constitution
-- and, hence, the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution by the
U.S. Supreme Court. This, then, includes all Court cases cited
above. In truth, current federal law encourages citizens to take
overbearing federal regulatory agents and bureaucrats to court. The
law of interest is 5 USC 706, which describes the scope of judicial
review allowed of federal agencies: "To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the
reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret
constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or
applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court
shall -- "(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably
delayed; and "(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and
conclusions found to be -- (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to
constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (C) in excess of
statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of
statutory right; (D) without observance of procedure required by law;
(E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections
556 and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an
agency hearing provided by statute; or (F) unwarranted by the facts
to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the
reviewing court. In making the foregoing determinations, the court
shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party,
and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error." We should pay close attention to section 2, parts A and B. "The
reviewing court shall" . . . "hold unlawful and set aside agency
action, findings, and conclusions found to be" . . . "arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion" or . . . "contrary to
constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity." Congress wrote this law and a President signed it. Therefore, at
one point in time anyway, we can assume that they meant it to be
enforced. That being the case, we citizens have cause for some very
serious discussion with the federal regulatory bureaucracy. "The reviewing court shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside
agency action . . . contrary to constitutional right." Which simply
means, courts "shall" enforce Constitutional rights -- all of the
rights, Constitutional provisions and Supreme Court opinions stated
above. By extension, this also means that each and every elected
official, in all levels of government, is also bound by their oath of
office to do the same. Because, there is also a federal law barring "conspiracy against
rights" (18 USC 241) that can be very applicable here: "If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
intimidate any person in any State, Territory, or District in the
free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him
by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his
having so exercised the same; or "If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the
premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -- "They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in
violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an
attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or
both, or may be sentenced to death." So, if a regulator, without legal jurisdiction in an area,
conspires "to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person . .
. in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured
to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, . . . they
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both." There is also a "deprivation of rights under color of law" statute
(18 USC 242), which, under general conditions, applies better to
government agents overstepping their authority: "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation,
or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, or
District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United
States, . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than one year, or both . . ." According to "Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution of
the United States, Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court
of the United States,"(9) prepared by the Congressional Research
Service of the Library of Congress (page 920), State courts are also
bound to enforce all of the above: "The Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States are as
much a part of the law of every State as its own local laws and
constitution. Their obligation is imperative upon the state judges,
in their official and not merely in their private capacities. From
the very nature of their judicial duties, they would be called upon
to pronounce the law applicable to the case in judgment. They were
not to decide merely according to the laws or Constitution of the
State, but according to the laws and treaties of the United States --
the supreme law of the land. "State courts are bound then to give effect to federal law when it
is applicable and to disregard state law when there is a conflict;
federal law includes, of course, not only the Constitution and
congressional enactments and treaties but as well the interpretations
of their meanings by the United States Supreme Court." We see, therefore, that State courts have jurisdiction to hear
local matters that pertain to illegal acts of federal agents just as
federal courts do. Which means, a local judge may also rule on 5 USC
706 and enforce 18 USC 241 and 242 when local citizens have been
harmed by the illegal actions of federal regulators. Because the
State courts are often much more responsive than federal courts, that
would seem to be the best place to bring such local matters. 1. http://www.yourland.gov/newindex.cfm 2. State v. Dykes, 114 Ariz. 592, 562 P.2d 1090 (1977) 3.
http://www.uhuh.com/laws/fedjuris.htm -- also see: 4. Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845) 5. Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525 (1885) 6. Alden et al. v. Maine No. 98-436 (1999) 7. New York vs. U.S. et al 488 U.S. 1041 (1992) 8. Printz, v. U.S. 95-1478, 1997) 9.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/art6.html
Any other law or State Constitution notwithstanding, all judges in every State shall be bound to rule according to the U.S. Constitution -- and, hence, the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court. This, then, includes all Court cases cited above.
Long, but good read...to put it succinctly, we're bein' fokked...Thanks for the post! FMCDH
Not to worry, President Bush is going to put a stop to all this property grabbin' business.
right?
Great job posting the constitutional basis for federal jurisdiction over sovereign citizens of the several states.
Finally, in this forum, there are discussions about the juridication of our federal government within the boundaries of a state. It is this issue of jurisdiction where we will recoup and retain our liberties. Now for the bad news.
It is Article VI, Section 2, that our federal government now uses to circumvent Article I, Sec 8 Clause 17 and subsequently exert juridiction over sovereign citiznes of the several states with the enactment of laws and regulations of the EPA, Social Security Act, Migratory Bird Act, Endangered Species Act, etc.
Article VI, Section 2:
2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
This treaty jurisdiction is the explanation why Clinton, Gore, and the Democrats want the Kyoto Treay ratified by the Senate. Without ratification of a treay, they no there is no jurisdiction over soveriegn citizens of the several states.
We have to exert our rights, enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Make sure your Senator does not ratify treaties which will give jurisdiction over your property and person to the U.S.
What is the lawful justification of the UN biospheres taking up entire National Parks. These UN biospheres many times, incudes the (non-federal) land in so-called wilderness areas with private property inside the states, kinda' just being grabbed "because they can". Are these entities also bound by treaty? I am puzzled about how this happens.
bump
Back in the Carter Administration there was an
international agreement which many countries signed onto.
The United States agreed, in part. And, as always, the
American taxpayer got stuck paying big bucks for something
that had zero benefit for the American public. The key word
there was "agreement." It was not an international treaty.
President Carter agreed to participate only in part, and
implemented that part of the agreement through an executive
memoranda. The administration then secured minimal program
funding from Congress.
This means, there never was anything they gave Congress any "lawmaking" authority on the subject and no laws were ever passed. Instead, the regulatory agencies passed their own regulations -- with zero Constitutional or Congressional authority to do so!
President Reagan saw the fallacy in the program
and cancelled the whole thing. However, federal bureaucrats
did not conform and continued making more biospheres -- and passing more illegal land use regulations.
On April 24, 1997, Rep. Coburn offered an
amendment to the National Science Foundation budget stating
that: "No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act shall be
used for the United States Man and Biosphere Program, or
related projects." Coburn spelled out the law for the House:
"It is important that the people recognize that
the Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage sites are under
the guidance of the United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization also known as UNESCO. The United
States withdrew from that Organization in 1984 because of
gross financial mismanagement.
"Over 68 percent of our national parks, preserves,
and monuments have been designated as United Nations World
Heritage sites, Biosphere Reserves or both. There are
currently 47 of those sites [97 actually] in the United
States, covering an area the size of Colorado. Under the
relative agreements, the United States is promising to
manage lands in accordance with international guidelines.
"Many times local governments, [and] private
property [owners] are never consulted in these management
plans. This is a clear violation of private property rights.
The biosphere programs, including the United States Man
and Biosphere Program, have never been authorized by any
Congress, never been authorized, but still received [funds]
this past year and this year will receive over $700,000 of
taxpayers' money. The National Science Foundation
distributed more than $400,000 in grants to this
unauthorized program despite the fact that the program has
never had a consideration or vote in Congress and has never
been approved by a body of the Congress."
That amendment easily passed, as did a number
of subsequent amendments to various budget bills
specifically defunding the biosphere project -- even though
the project never had authorization. Yet, the biosphere
reserves are still with us and third-world foreigners from
UNESCO are still wandering our nation with the intent of
directing our land usage.
Still today, the U.S. and UNESCO Man and Biosphere
Program (MAB) seems to be chugging along like the Little
Engine that Could. No matter what, it will not quit.
Legally, the Man and the Biosphere program does
not exist. Yet, an American citizen can still get arrested
for entering one of their many restricted zones. Congress
never funded the program, and even stated in a number of
bills that no money may be spent on it. Yet, the program
is still in full operation.
The program gets huge amounts of money by charging American citizens "user fees" to visit and/or use "public" lands. That is, of course, a gross misappropriation of funds. Under the law, that practice is a felony punishable by many years in prison. But, no one is doing anything about it.
Today, over 68% of public land -- land belonging
to the people of the United States -- the land in our
National Parks, Preserves and Monuments, is designated as a
United Nations World Heritage Site, Biosphere Reserve or
both. Worse yet, United Nations' land designations, such as
UNESCO Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites,
currently take place without the approval of Congress and
with no Congressional oversight. Nor are State and local
officials, or even private landowners, usually consulted.
By allowing these international land designations,
the U.S. is indirectly agreeing to terms of international
treaties, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, to
which the U.S. is not a party or which the U.S. Senate has
refused to ratify. That is, by agreeing to form UNESCO
biospheres in the United States, federal bureaucrats allow a
group of foreigners to make land-use regulations for our
property and the federal bureaucracy uses the guns of the
federal government to force the American people to obey
the foreign regulations.
So, although the United Nations has no direct
enforcement of land management -- they have no police here
yet -- decisions in the use and operation of Biosphere
Reserves or World Heritage Sites are set in accordance with
UNESCO rules and regulations. There is no treaty or
agreement. A group of federal bureaucrats took this power upon
themselves. Which means, they unlawfully gave the
international community an open invitation to interfere in
U.S. domestic land use decisions -- decisions which, as you alluded to, often
limit the use of privately owned property, and thereby
negatively impact on its value.
For instance, the actions of the World Heritage
Committee in condemning a proposed mining development on
privately-owned land outside the boundaries of Yellowstone
National Park, a World Heritage Site, provides an example of
the havoc these foreign programs can create. A member of
the World Heritage Committee, Adul Wichiencharoen from
Thailand (of all places), requested that a 12 million acre
(18,750 square mile) buffer zone be created around the
2 million acre Yellowstone National Park. Federal
bureaucrats are attempting to work that foolishness in, but
the pesky people living in the area won't cooperate. One
bureaucratic suggestion is that the people be removed so the
weeds, bugs and wild animals can live in peace.
According to the U.S. National Committee MAB,
as adopted on July 26, 1995: "The mission of the United
States MAB Program is to explore, demonstrate, promote,
and encourage harmonious relationships between people and
their environments building on the MAB network of Biosphere
Reserves and interdisciplinary research. The long-term goal
of the U.S. MAB Program is to contribute to achieving a
sustainable society early in the 21st Century. The MAB
mission and long term goal will be implemented, in the
United States and internationally, through public-private
partnerships and linkages that sponsor and promote
cooperative interdisciplinary research, experimentation,
education and information exchange on options by which
societies can achieve sustainability."
Never mind that the biosphere program is illegal -- Congress told them to stop it and made it illegal to spend any federal money on the program. They are still at it.
Another mission statement is available at the
Department of State web site. Their Environmental and Scientific
Affairs office also posted a page of informative links.
For more on exactly what a biosphere is, as per
UNESCO, and what they have planned for the American
People, see the Biospheres in a Nutshell FAQ at http://www.unesco.org/mab/nutshell.htm
Clearly, this is a gross misappropriation of funds.
Stealing of taxpayer money, in other words. That being so,
a few dozen bureaucrats should be fitted up with some prison
uniforms. That's the only way this nonsense will ever be
stopped.
You ask:
"What is the lawful justification of the UN biospheres taking up entire National Parks."
The answer is, we hope that our federal government has followed the U.S. Constitution for federal ownership and jurisdiction within the boundaries of a sovereign state.
For federal ownership to be constitutional, there is Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.
For federal jurisdiction to be constitutional, there is Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 and Article VI, Section 2.
However, when federal ownership and jurisdiction "incudes the (non-federal) land in so-called wilderness areas with private property inside the states," then the Fifth Amendment has to still apply: "...NOR SHALL PRIVATE PROPERTY BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION."
It is my contention that we U.S./State citizens have enumerated rights in the U.S. Constitution that can prevent and stop these so called land grabs and all we have to do is just start "exerting" our rights.
Thank you
Excellent post bump.
Bookmark BUMP, thanks for the effort.
Read the post again. Doug explains that treaties (including the UN, which is a treaty) Can NOT alter the Constitution. Then read Doug's post below.
I am confused by your reply to my post.
I know a treaty cannot alter the constitution.
All I was stating is how our federal government declares jurisdiction within the boundaries of a state, constitutionaly.
Due to the language of Article VI, Section 2, treaties are the main vehicle used by the communist and socialist (Democrats) in the U.S. to secure jurisdiction within sovereign states boundaries.
Treaties that are ratified by the Senate, do not alter the constitution. Treaties ratified by the Senate are constitutional and the laws the federal congress enacts to implement the treaties, become the "law of the land."
I contend that the laws that are enacted to implement the treaties are still bound to the provisions of our other enumerated rights, such as the Fifth Amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
Are we clear now on what I was trying to say?
"I contend that the laws that are enacted to implement the treaties are still bound to the provisions of our other enumerated rights, such as the Fifth Amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
Democrat: "It only applies to a republic we're a democracy so doesn't apply to me.
Socialist: "It's for the good of the children and the suckers... sucker fish."
Communist: "There is no constitution conrad. It's the USSA I love it here!"
Now repeat this class. "The government is never wrong and you don't really own anything."
Clever post, thank you.
This is a most important work by Doug Fiedor. It should be used as the basis for a legal brief to curb our bulging bureacracy. But fat chance right now with Bush declaring a national emergency.
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.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/TREATIES.html
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-436.ZS.html
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-543.ZS.html
http://laws.findlaw.com/US/000/95-1478.html
Much of the "public lands" now "controlled" by federal agencies are possessed and regulated with no Constitutional authority. And, in many cases, federal agents are acting contrary to the Constitution when they perpetrate rules and regulations concerning that land on the American people.
[
Reply |
Private Reply | Top | Last ]
To: forest
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: forest
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: forest
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: tahiti, doug fiedor
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 4 | Top | Last ]
To: forest, jeff head
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: the irate magistrate
What is the lawful justification of the UN biospheres taking up entire National Parks. These UN biospheres many times, includes the (non-federal) land in so-called wilderness areas with private property inside the states, kinda' just being grabbed "because they can".
You are correct, the whole Man in the Biosphere program is illegal and those involved should be sent to prison. They are forcing an illegal program on us at the point of a gun.
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 5 | Top | Last ]
To: the irate magistrate
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 5 | Top | Last ]
To: tahiti, Doug Fiedor, jeff head
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 8 | Top | Last ]
To: forest
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: forest
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
To: tahiti
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 4 | Top | Last ]
To: forest
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 12 | Top | Last ]
To: tahiti
NEVER GIVE UP YOUR FREEDOM!!
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 13 | Top | Last ]
To: VW-Cat-Man
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 14 | Top | Last ]
To: forest
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 15 | Top | Last ]
FreeRepublic
, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC