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.
The Constitution clearly says, the US government cannot hold Territory and certainly no land, other than DC. and all military bases and ports.
No it doesn't.
"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."
Yes, during the start of the Progressive Era, the courts change to Precedent Law(case law), from Constitutional Law, to legislate from the bench more effective and lasting. It is Marxism, with politically appointed Judges.
Sorry, but there's no polite way of saying this: You do not operate in the real world.
The United States has operated under common law, not statutory law, since the nation was founded. And googledygook about "Marxism" and "Progressive Era" does not change that.
"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."
Article 4, section 3, clause 2.
Thank you. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the government from owning the public domain. Its just garbage that certain right wing groups keep bringing up.
The reason that so much land is owned by the federal government in the western states is an historical one. Following the Mexican War of 1846-47, the government of Mexico ceded the lands that constitute present day Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada and California to the United States. This was about fifty years before most of these places became states. The federal government gave the states certain portions of public lands for specific purposes. About 10% of the land in each state was given them to pay for and finance a public school system. Grants of land were also given to the states to build land grant colleges. Under mining law, people who develop a mining claim can obtain some land rights to the public domain and that has happened many times.
In any event, people who claim its "unconstitutional" for the federal government to own land in these states seem to have a very dim grasp of history. These lands were federal lands long before there were states. There is no legal theory upon which these lands could be owned by the states. I suppose the federal government could sell public land to the states, but if they did, I would want them to receive fair market value.
Cliven was happier in jail. I can understand his reasoning, sort of; if he's a completely innocent man, and should have never been arrested, I guess staying behind bars helps him become a martyr. All I know is if I was in his shoes, and believed as he does, I would want to be outside, where I could go talk to my lawyer any time, or call him without a big hassle.
And if I was as innocent as he claims to be, I wouldn't want to be a martyr to my cause. I would rather be free, if the freedom was offered, and live to possibly fight for my principles another day. In a much better place than a jail cell to fight for them.
The rest of them might as well be still there; the bail restrictions are effectively placing them under house arrest until the court re-convenes in December, but at least they can go to church, see their kids and spend some time with their wives. Nothing wrong with showing them a little judicial mercy this late in the game.
They were all flight risks. It was no surprise they were kept in detention.
As to all the rest of it, as always, the jury will decide. Whatever anyone else thinks about then now is totally immaterial.
They were finally released from jail yesterday.
The case against the Bundy's is falling apart quickly.
by Shari Dovale 11/29/2017
In a stunning reversal, Judge Gloria Navarro has ordered the release of Cliven and Ammon Bundy from detention during the remainder of their trial, currently underway in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Ammon should be the first defendant released, possibly as soon as tonight. Cliven Bundy, the family patriarch, has refused to be released unless all of the other defendants are released along with him
Defendant Ryan Payne is also expected to be released, though it could be next week before details are worked out through the Oregon court of Judge Anna Brown. Payne has made a plea agreement in the case of the Malheur Refuge Protest. Details are emerging as to the reasons Judge Navarro made this reversal and is allowing the defendants out of prison.
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.
