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.
Thanks for the additional information re: the Bundy family.
There are a few different issues involved & agree it's complicated.
Although the Bundys don't have any legitimate claim to the Malheur bird sanctuary do they?
The only entity who has any legitimate claim to the bird sanctuary are the local native tribes who occupied those lands forever.
The marshy land simply offered a subsistence living for a couple of small tribes, who lived on the wild birds, fish, and the camas and other vegetation. The tribes are related to those who settled on the west coast, and must have moved inland long before the first white men came.
The local tribes were the only ones who were negotiated with, after the land was given to them as a reservation by treaty earlier. As a refuge, the natives reluctantly gave it up, and the federal government agreed to protect all the burial sites and sacred places on the refuge.
That was why it was such an affront when a latrine was dug on a burial site.
Part of the transfer was a pledge the refuge would find and mark all of the Indian burials they could, and any uncovered graves were supposed to have their bones and artifacts removed and given back to the tribes for re-burial. The Indians occupied it for around 1,000 years- no one knows for sure how long the span is.
Surrounding lands are a checkerboard of public and private rangeland. I think the state owns some along with the federal govt.
I like how banjomike is giving this involved information about ranching etc.. and those who have probably never ranched a day in their lives, are arguing with him about how it works.
Have you read the 10th Amendment? Powers not granted to the government, remain with the state or the people...
Property Clause:
""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.""
It doesn't say they own it.
Article I is the place where one would expect to find a grant of power to Congress to exercise political sovereignty over federal lands.
Article IV, in contrast, which generally deals with issues of state-to-state relations (i.e., full faith and credit, privileges and immunities, extradition, repatriation of slaves, creation of new states, protection of states against invasion) would be an odd place to put such a power.
Moreover, it is inconsistent with the careful drafting of the Constitution to assume that the Framers included two overlapping grants of sovereign political authority over federal lands. These structural considerations make it doubtful that the broad police-power theory is consistent with the original understanding.
The Constitution simply does not authorize the federal government to own any of this land. All of it is being held unconstitutionally and all of it should be returned to the private property owners from which it was taken or to the states in which it exists, period.
The people already owned the land. Government just purchased their rights under the constitution, as Article IV decrees.
Keep beating that dead horse, the federal government tried to sell the land, no one wanted to buy desert land, now the federal government owns land.
Nothing in the Constitution says anything about the federal government not being able to own land because with every federal building the government owns, they typically own the land those buildings are on.
Keep beating that dead horse, the federal government tried to sell the land, no one wanted to buy desert land, now the federal government owns land.
Nothing in the Constitution says anything about the federal government not being able to own land because with every federal building the government owns, they typically own the land those buildings are on.
Isn't Puerto Rico a Territory of the USA? Does the US government own it? Or do the people of Puerto Rico?
Isn't Puerto Rico a Territory of the USA? Does the US government own it? Or do the people of Puerto Rico?
Um, I think this one might be confusing you because that isn't the same as the federal government owning land. Puerto Rico is essentially a state without any real say in Congress. The federal government did not purchase Puerto Rico from any other country.
Um, I think this one might be confusing you because that isn't the same as the federal government owning land. Puerto Rico is essentially a state without any real say in Congress. The federal government did not purchase Puerto Rico from any other country.
What is the basis for government owning land in the Constitution? There is none.
Read the Property Clause. It declares the people in the territories under the umbrella of the constitution. Government does not own private property the people own.
We the people allowed Government to only own what we granted them title. The people own the rest.
Washington DC and military bases, with ports being it.
What is the basis for government owning land in the Constitution? There is none.
Read the Property Clause. It declares the people in the territories under the umbrella of the constitution. Government does not own private property the people own.
We the people allowed Government to only own what we granted them title. The people own the rest.
Washington DC and military bases, with ports being it.
You contradict yourself. The Constitution doesn't say the federal government can't own land.
No one said anything about the federal government owning private property. In my state of Oregon, the federal government once owned all the land in this state, much of it was for sale and lots of people purchased land, most of that land purchased was with the intention to start towns so that those private land owners could make money selling off plots within the land they owned.
The land that wasn't purchased was still under ownership of the federal government. You can't change that fact with something the Constitution says nothing about. The only real argument I will accept is that much of the land the federal government owns should actually be owned by their respective native tribes.
"Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.""
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.
