Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe YOU can point to the part in the Constitution where it says that it can't? But my guess is you will try a straw man tactic or try to forget it.
The Constitution says what the federal government can do. The federal government cannot do anything that is not specifically mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino
Conversely the state of Nevada wasn't created out of federal territory, purchased by The People of the United States from the Republic of Mexico for $15 million in 1848 to own any more land than was claimed when Nevada was admitted to the Union in 1864! That fact was recognized by the people of Nevada when they ratified their constitution in 1864:
That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.
You will find similar disclaimers in almost every other western state.
As for your question as to where in the Constitution does it one find the power of the federal government to own public lands... look no further than 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.
And that ain't an opinion.
Well, you did a good job there.
However, my original statement still stands.
There is NO good reason why the federal government should own 80% of the land in Nevada and more than 50% in other western states.
Congress needs to act to put an end to what amounts to internal imperialism and a garrison state in the west.
The very idea that this would be allowed to continue is obscene.
If ranchers want to fight a civil war over this, they have good cause.
Why don't they just cut off supplies and mail to these criminals who are demanding people be given property? The government has been more than patient. Also cut off the electricity, water and wi-fi.
"The occupiers have grown increasingly bold in their denunciations of the government, from accusing it of using family members as "hostages" to posing as members of Bundy's group in an attempt to confuse the public.
Their long-term plans for the standoff remain unclear, though Bundy has repeatedly said the group won't leave until the refuge is divvied up among area landowners or they feel confident that local residents can accomplish that goal on their own."
The Constitution says what the federal government can do. The federal government cannot do anything that is not specifically mentioned.
Well, you did a good job there.
However, my original statement still stands.
There is NO good reason why the federal government should own 80% of the land in Nevada and more than 50% in other western states.
Congress needs to act to put an end to what amounts to internal imperialism and a garrison state in the west.
The very idea that this would be allowed to continue is obscene.
If ranchers want to fight a civil war over this, they have good cause.
Your original statement doesn't stand.
You just did one of the best jobs that I have ever seen of refusing to acknowledge that you're wrong. Denial takes all kinds of forms. One I'm starting to see a fair amount of in this country is denial that the law is something other than what you want it to be.
The Constitution sets forth the powers of the federal government and in clear and unmistakable language it gives Congress the power to create and manage federal lands. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that all federal lands within a territory become part of a state when statehood is granted to that territory. Therefore, the specific language of the Constitution that gives Congress the right to manage federal lands and property prevails.
FTR, the US Supreme Court has the job of interpreting the Constitution. The court has said twice that power over public lands is vested in Congress and "without limitation". See U.S. v. Gratiot, 39 US 14 (1840). U.S. v. City and County of San Francisco, 310 US 16 (1940). Until and unless the Constitution is amended that ends any real question about this matter.
People who think that the states should own these lands despite these facts....well...they live in a right wing dreamland. I wonder if the next argument I will hear is that "the Supreme Court doesn't know how to interpret the Constitution"?
Last edited by markg91359; 01-18-2016 at 03:15 PM..
Evidently his ranch, that he refuses to pay the lease on, is rather small. His main source of income is being a professional foster care parent (a needed profession). He is then reimbursed at a fixed rate per child, per day by the State of Arizona.
I guess the title of "Cowboy" is far sexier to his target audience than "foster parent". Though I do have sympathy for these western ranchers as a collective whole, they need to pay their lease fees (and the vast majority do), and the last people they need to take advice from is people like "Cowboy" Lavoy.
Evidently his ranch, that he refuses to pay the lease on, is rather small. His main source of income is being a professional foster care parent (a needed profession). He is then reimbursed at a fixed rate per child, per day by the State of Arizona.
I guess the title of "Cowboy" is far sexier to his target audience than "foster parent". Though I do have sympathy for these western ranchers as a collective whole, they need to pay their lease fees (and the vast majority do), and the last people they need to take advice from is people like "Cowboy" Lavoy.
It seems the closest to being a "rancher" any of these militia nutjobs are is Ammon Bundy ... a son of a rancher. My guess is that ol' Ammon thinks he can get himself a free ranch ...
My guess is that ol' Ammon thinks he can get himself a free ranch ...
That is how it works in the failed states of Somalia, east Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq:
- See a public resource that you want (pasturage, harbor facilities, schools, highways etc)
- Raise a militia and sieze it citing: "ancestoral rights", ethnic ownership, past wrongs, "just because" etc.
Though I do question whether the wild life refuge truly needed to be expanded, the actions of these fake ranchers is far more like "Somalia", than "Oregon".
That is how it works in the failed states of Somalia, east Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq:
- See a public resource that you want (pasturage, harbor facilities, schools, highways etc)
- Raise a militia and sieze it citing: "ancestoral rights", ethnic ownership, past wrongs, "just because" etc.
Though I do question whether the wild life refuge truly needed to be expanded, the actions of these fake ranchers is far more like "Somalia", than "Oregon".
Great point. It sickens me that they wrap themselves in the American flag to act in this way.
And another one bites the dust.. "A protester believed to be involved in the Malheur refuge standoff crashed on a road near Hines early Sunday, but he was uninjured. Darrow Burke, 57, of Ukiah, California, was driving on Greenhouse Lane about a mile east of Oregon 20 and failed to navigate a 25 mph curve in his white 2003 Ford van. He traveled off the road and crashed through a barbed-wire fence, ending up about 150 feet off the roadway, said Lt. Bill Fugate, an Oregon State Police spokesman."California man believed part of Oregon standoff crashes van on icy road | OregonLive.com
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
:
Though I do have sympathy for these western ranchers as a collective whole, they need to pay their lease fees (and the vast majority do), and the last people they need to take advice from is people like "Cowboy" Lavoy.