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.
It does only so far as it restates the unbroken power of the United States to retain the rights over unappropriated states.
The fact the case actually was about the ownership of submerged lands, not in controversy between the state of Alabama and the United States but of a private citizen who claimed ownership of previously submerged based upon a land grant from the King of Spain.
But trying to argue this point is like trying to discuss land issues with the now deceased Mr. Finicum with his current state of comprehension. Bent will continue to selectively quote decisions, cite them out of context while ignoring them in their completeness. In short you and I to some extent have embarked on a fools errant.
Yup. & I believe you & I have discussed whether or not it demonstrates a certain amount of masochism on my part? Hah!
This is the part made explicit in the case of United States v. Gardner 1997:
"The claim by Gardners that it is the duty of the United States to hold public lands in trust for the formation of future states is founded on a case dealing with land acquired by the United States from the thirteen original states. In that case, Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212, 11 L.Ed. 565 (1845), the Supreme Court discussed the extent of the United States' authority over lands ceded to it from Virginia and Georgia to discharge debt incurred by those states during the Revolutionary War. The Court stated that the United States held this land in trust for the establishment of future states. Id. 44 U.S. (3 How.) at 222. Once those new states were established, the United States' authority over the land would cease. Id. at 221-23. This decision was based on the terms of the cessions of the land from Virginia and Georgia to the United States. Before becoming a state, however, Nevada had no independent claim to sovereignty, unlike the original thirteen states. Therefore, the same reasoning is not applicable to this case, in which the federal government was the initial owner of the land from which the state of Nevada was later carved."
Yup. & I believe you & I have discussed whether or not it demonstrates a certain amount of masochism on my part? Hah!
This is the part made explicit in the case of United States v. Gardner 1997:
"The claim by Gardners that it is the duty of the United States to hold public lands in trust for the formation of future states is founded on a case dealing with land acquired by the United States from the thirteen original states. In that case, Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212, 11 L.Ed. 565 (1845), the Supreme Court discussed the extent of the United States' authority over lands ceded to it from Virginia and Georgia to discharge debt incurred by those states during the Revolutionary War. The Court stated that the United States held this land in trust for the establishment of future states. Id. 44 U.S. (3 How.) at 222. Once those new states were established, the United States' authority over the land would cease. Id. at 221-23. This decision was based on the terms of the cessions of the land from Virginia and Georgia to the United States. Before becoming a state, however, Nevada had no independent claim to sovereignty, unlike the original thirteen states. Therefore, the same reasoning is not applicable to this case, in which the federal government was the initial owner of the land from which the state of Nevada was later carved."
The 9th Curcuit... pft.. The court with the most overturn decisions ever in the history of the USA...
Tossed it, because this case had nothing to do with water, when it clearly outlined the plaintiffs position to a tee in the ruling. The liberal tree hugging court, neglected the why it was unconstitutional in 1845. They didn't even look at the text of the ruling, they tossed it before it even came into evidence. This is how the TEXT is never read and followed, It is a Liberal judge, deciding even though it says one thing, it really should say this.....
Where in the US constitution do We The People authorize them the government to own anymore than we authorize?
Quote:
Within the District of Columbia, and the other places purchased and used for the purposes above mentionedthe national and municipal powers of government, of every description, are united in the Government of the Union. And these are the only cases within the United States in which all the powers of government are united in a single government, except in the cases already.
Once they gave probable cause - armed federal criminal trespass, they were most cerrtainly 'wanted.'
Criminal trespass is the new law to prevent protests... Lock them up!!
This was not private property.
Nothing criminal about an open protest.
Nothing criminal about being armed.
Nothing criminal about being armed & protesting.
The Constitution is very clear about that. That is why they are right up front, in the bill of rights.
The 9th Curcuit... pft.. The court with the most overturn decisions ever in the history of the USA...
Tossed it, because this case had nothing to do with water, when it clearly outlined the plaintiffs position to a tee in the ruling. The liberal tree hugging court, neglected the why it was unconstitutional in 1845. They didn't even look at the text of the ruling, they tossed it before it even came into evidence. This is how the TEXT is never read and followed, It is a Liberal judge, deciding even though it says one thing, it really should say this.....
Where in the US constitution do We The People authorize them the government to own anymore than we authorize?
...In 1988, the Forest Service issued a ten-year grazing permit to Gardners, which allowed a portion of Gardners' cattle to graze on certain allotments of the Humboldt National Forest subject to the terms and conditions of the permit. A clause in the permit stated:
...In August of 1992, a fire burned over 2,000 acres of the Mica C & H and Mica Creek Addition Allotments. The Forest Service and the Nevada Department of Wildlife reseeded the majority of the burned area in October and November of 1992. The Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan specifies that reseeded areas must not be grazed by livestock for a two year period, to give the vegetation time to grow. Accordingly, in September 1992, the Forest Service advised Gardners that the burned area would be closed to grazing during 1993 and 1994. Gardners did not graze livestock in the affected area during 1993.
On May 13, 1994, Gardners sent a letter to the Forest Service stating that they intended to resume grazing on the burned area within 3 days. On May 18, 1994, the Forest Service observed Gardners' livestock grazing on the burned area. On May 19, 1994, the Forest Service hand-delivered a letter to Gardners advising that they were violating the terms and conditions of the permit by grazing cattle in the burned area, and requiring that the livestock be removed from the burned area by May 22, 1994. Gardners did not remove the livestock.
The Forest Service subsequently revoked Gardners' permit, and told Gardners that they would be billed for the unauthorized grazing at a rate of $6.12 per “head month.” Additionally, the Forest Service informed Gardners that the cancellation decision could be contested through an administrative appeal. Gardners opted not to administratively appeal the decision.
Gardners continued to graze livestock on the burned area throughout the 1994 grazing season. Gardners also refused to pay the fee for the unauthorized grazing, assessed at $4,473.72, to the Forest Service. ..."
- See more at: UNITED STATES v. GARDNER | FindLaw
Sound familiar? There are more just like & all cite Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan.
I did... Thus the reference to them saying the 1845 ruling had no bering in the case, because it was over water rights. They neglected the part of why and it was not all about just the water in the 1845 ruling, and then like the 9th always does, ruled from the bench, changing the US. constitution and the soil we the people authorize them the government to have. Certainly they cannot take it, with eminent domain, unless something change from 1845 to now..
And, if an express stipulation had been inserted in the agreement, granting the municipal right of sovereignty and eminent domain to the United States, such stipulation would have been void and inoperative, because the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere
Within the District of Columbia, and the other places purchased and used for the purposes above mentioned, the national and municipal powers of government, of every description, are united in the Government of the Union. And these are the only cases within the United States in which all the powers of government are united in a single government, except in the cases already.
Nothing new.
Nuns understand this every time they protest a nuclear silo.
Apparently your boys aren't so bright. But then - we knew that.
Which is what makes it armed federal criminal trespass.
You know - being a federal facility and all.
No where in the constitution do we tell the government they can restrict our protest.
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.
