Authority Of Feds to Own BLM Land

[Provincial]

The Oregonian newspaper, among other Main Stream Media outlets, has referred to a Supreme Court ruling to justify the authority of the Federal Government to own the Malheur Wildlife Refuge.

This case, KLEPPE v. NEW MEXICO, was about the authority of the US Government to manage wildlife on "public lands." The Court found that the Feds did indeed have that authority, based on Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, the "Property Clause."

It is important to note that the Court did not question the right of the Federal Government to own lands within State contrary to Article I, Section 8, nor did it justify such ownership. It completely ignored that issue.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/426/529.html

What is clear is that the case the MSM and the Environmentalists are using to justify Federal ownership of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge and the BLM land the Hammonds were convicted of damaging, does not address the question of whether the ownership is Constitutional, only that if it were "public land", the Feds would have authority over the wildlife on it.

That issue may have been litigated in another case. I have no knowledge of such a case. I would expect the MSM to cite that case if it indeed existed, so such a case probably was never litigated.

It appears that this is just another example of the Feds and Environmentalists using the "Big Lie" method of disinformation.

Read More

 

[nammac]

Yea, but look what's happening... It's taken nearly a month, but other ranchers are joining in now....

Looks like it's another case where the Feds have lost control and the upper hand, so to speak...

The people and ranchers have spoken... Feds go home...

 

[timac]

We are no longer following what was created 200+ years ago. The Constitution has been subverted and perverted by these unconstitutional court rulings. Politicians use these unjust rulings to expand and benefit the Federal government not, We the People.

Article 4 section 3
Refers to territories owned by the US. Once a territory is formed into a state, ownership and jurisdiction of land falls upon the state, not the federal government.

Article I, Section 8
Allows the Federal government to own no more than 10 square miles for their seat of government (DC) no more. If the federal government wants to own more land it may purchase land from the states. Only for Forts, arsenals and needful buildings. The state can refuse the purchase of of these lands.

 

[MikeE]

Please don't read this. It will make you 'patriots' feel sad:
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/demands_by_oregon_refuge_occup.html

 

[PaulB47]

We shouldn't be surprised that FEDERAL courts ruling on FEDERAL claims are not going to be particularly unbiased. What would be surprising would be if it went any other way.

Probably 80% or 90% of the Federal government is unconstitutional, by any reasonable reading. Constitutions don't seem to work as advertised. In fact they seem to be a fig leaf over what is really going on. People have the illusion that the constitution protects them, when it really doesn't.

"It is to be interpreted, as all solemn instruments are, by endeavoring to ascertain the true sense and meaning of all the terms; and we are neither to narrow them, nor to enlarge them, by straining them from their just and natural import, for the purpose of adding to, or diminishing its powers, or bending them to any favorite theory or dogma of party. It is the language of the people, to be judged of according to common sense, and not by mere theoretical reasoning. It is not an instrument for the mere private interpretation of any particular men."
-- Joseph Storey, Supreme Court Justice from 1811-1845, on the subject of the Constitution

 

[MikeE]

A Supreme Court Justice from 1811-1845, let's see, what was happening in the country back then? Oh yeah - slavery. Slaves were 3/4 of a person according to the original document, and Dred Scott decision held that "Black men have no rights that white men are bound to observe.' I assume that's you're position, along with all the other so-called 'constitutionalists'.

 

[PaulB47]

Oh, dear, someone calling me a "waaacist". Despite the fact I've had an interracial marriage for the last 35 years...

You need to read your history. The 3/5 (not 3/4) person provision was a concession by the slave-holding southern states; what they wanted was slaves considered as full persons so they could have more representation in the House.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

I'm not a constitutionalist; as I said, constitutions do not seem to work. Also, after the next revolution I will be fighting the imposition of any Constitution on myself, assuming I am still alive. But even given that, the Constitution does have a method for changes - the amendment process. There is no need to continue on with parts that do not work, and one does not become a "waaacist" for thinking so.

 

[timac]

A Supreme Court Justice from 1811-1845, let's see, what was happening in the country back then? Oh yeah - slavery. Slaves were 3/4 of a person according to the original document, and Dred Scott decision held that "Black men have no rights that white men are bound to observe.' I assume that's you're position, along with all the other so-called 'constitutionalists'.

Marxists will reduce every conversation to an accusation of white racism.

 

[kilimanjaro]

So what you are saying is the Patents from the General Land Office to all those homesteaders and ranchers west of the 13 Colonies wasn't legal, because the Government didn't own the land?

Upon statehood, all the Territories gave up all claims to the public land within their borders. Sorry, but the US took title to the land and sold most of it off to the citizenry. What they didn't sell became National Forests and Wildlife Refuges later on, things like that.

There's no 'Big Lie', or disinformation, to it at all. Either the private land you live on today was legally granted to you by the United States, or your title is void. You can't sell what you don't own. Which is it? Every acre west of the Alleghenies held in private hands became private land due to a Patent by the federal government, or recognition of a prior patent to actual settlers by French, English, or Spanish sovereigns. Either your house is built on legally acquired land, or it's not. Which is it?

We can all dislike a government that is intrusive or too powerful, but the land ownership issue touted by some is entirely bogus, without foundation in law or the Constitution. Congress clearly gets to determine how to treat the federal lands, and they have done so.

If you want to see reduced federal ownership of public lands in your state, petition your representatives for a transfer to state ownership. That would be a sensible approach. Promoting nonsensical proto-legal drivel about federal title is not.

 

[MikeE]

Marxists will reduce every conversation to an accusation of white racism.

Sorry if history is inconvenient. You are the one who cited the pre-civil war constitution...

 

[erudne]

A Supreme Court Justice from 1811-1845, let's see, what was happening in the country back then? Oh yeah - slavery. Slaves were 3/4 of a person according to the original document, and Dred Scott decision held that "Black men have no rights that white men are bound to observe.' I assume that's you're position, along with all the other so-called 'constitutionalists'.

As usual you are perverting history to your Statist ends. OABTW it's a shame that you were not present to see the DSA (democrat) over turned by the Republican Party at the cost of 640,000 lives, I'm sure you would have loved jeering the soldiers from far behind the Confederate lines, before you were executed for treason, that is

 

[erudne]

If you want to see reduced federal ownership of public lands in your state, petition your representatives for a transfer to state ownership. That would be a sensible approach. Promoting nonsensical proto-legal drivel about federal title is not.

Possession is 9/10ths of the law, I don't see you surrendering your property but then I guess you think your immune,,,your not

 

[PaulB47]

Upon statehood, all the Territories gave up all claims to the public land within their borders

.

If I'm not mistaken, this was an unconstitutional requirement placed on the territories to enter the Union - not required of eastern and midwest states. What should have happened is that the federal government should have given up all claims to land within the territories when they became states - and again if I'm not mistaken, that was the previous practice and the correct precedent. The land should have transferred to state control.

The federal government also imposed other unconstitutional requirements, such as that the states would have government schools. That is why these glorified indoctrination centers are specified in western state constitutions, but not in those of eastern states, generally.

"Possession is 9/10ths of the law" - yes, until a bigger bully comes along. Civil asset forfeiture...

 

[MikeE]

As usual you are perverting history to your Statist ends. OABTW it's a shame that you were not present to see the DSA (democrat) over turned by the Republican Party at the cost of 640,000 lives, I'm sure you would have loved jeering the soldiers from far behind the Confederate lines, before you were executed for treason, that is

Typical cowardly from-in-back-of-the-internet threat. Doesn't really work on me.

 

[erudne]

Typical cowardly from-in-back-of-the-internet threat. Doesn't really work on me.

I know it must have been hard being wet nursed by your mom on a pair of falsies, buck-up that ended years, or months ago! Now it is time to pull-on your big boy pants and do for yourself what daddy never did, get a set of balls. Because despite what your Metro-sexual Professor told you, your not a man. If you were a man you'd be out in the streets fighting for your Marxist Utopia, except your not dedicated enough to be a Revolutionary. Yes I know, all the men in your life let you down as a child and so you're "their fault". Despite what your therapist says you see the lie in your own words, you've discovered that no matter how much EST you study, no matter how much Media Matters/Special Snowflake you consume you feel the haunting suspicion that your viewed as a Useful Idiot, a fool, a schmuck, a patsy. So you come here to attack because you know that there are Men here, Men who have done something with their lives, men who have sacrificed sweat and blood to do the things Men are born to do. You are driven wild with envy and hatred, just as you were raised to be driven. All the promises that were made to you have been broken, even the promise that you would always have mom's falsies to nurse from were broken. You were educated/indoctrinated to believe it's "Men's Fault" that your broken. Your only mode of communication is through Cultural Marxism, it's the only language you have ever learned, and so you wheedle and whine in your passive aggressive manner, constantly shocked that it gets you no where with Men! But there is one place you can go, isn't there? A place where men will tell you how special you are, how much your needed. How by performing just a few special acts you can become a Superman for all eternity! If only you had the money for a flight to Syria!

With so much turmoil inside you you must be exhausted. Relax! Pull-on that red plaid Onesy, pour yourself a cup of coco, bring-up those Post-Op Pin-Ups that make you feel so good inside. Maybe later you can log on to The Madow Show blog and tell all your "friends" how you trounced the patriarchy! Then you can slip off to sleepy land and dream about a sheep wearing a suicide belt, you'll smile knowing that the hated patriarchy is protecting you from the real Boogeyman.

 

[MikeE]

I'm not debating you. I'm telling you.