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 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
The Supreme Court ruling you're looking for is probably Light v. United States - 1911.
The Text.... It is all in the Text.
The Constitution outlines, What is the "property" of the United States.
There is also a reason there are States and State boundary lines(that are to have meaning), or this would not be called the United States. It would just be called America.
The Constitution outlines, What is the "property" of the United States.
There is also a reason there are States and State boundary lines(that are to have meaning), or this would not be called the United States. It would just be called America.
And so we look at the state constitutions. (You like states, right?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevada State Constitution
All political power is inherent in the people[.] Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair[,] subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existance [existence], and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.
And of course
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevada State Constitution
Slavery prohibited; freedom of religious worship; taxation of certain property. [Effective on the date Congress consents to amendment or a legal determination is made that such consent is not necessary.] In obedience to the requirements of an act of the Congress of the United States, approved March twenty-first, A.D. eighteen hundred and sixty-four, to enable the people of Nevada to form a constitution and state government, this convention, elected and convened in obedience to said enabling act, do ordain as follows, and this ordinance shall be irrevocable, without the consent of the United States and the people of the State of Nevada:
First. That there shall be in this state neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment for crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
Second. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested, in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship.
Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, 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.
Sure looks like the Nevada Constitution completely recognizes the idea that the Federal Government can own land. Bit of a problem, eh?
And so we look at the state constitutions. (You like states, right?)
And of course
Sure looks like the Nevada Constitution completely recognizes the idea that the Federal Government can own land. Bit of a problem, eh?
Ya, there is no stipulation what state or where in that state, where a US. military base goes.
Ports would require states with navigable waters.
All State constitutions reflect that for the protection of the nation from foreign threats.
The Constitution outlines, What is the "property" of the United States.
There is also a reason there are States and State boundary lines(that are to have meaning), or this would not be called the United States. It would just be called America.
Is this why Mr. Brown claims to reside in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina?
Quote:
Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his "more precious than rubies" wife, father of 10 "mighty arrows", jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim is also an affiliate for the Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle.
Personally, I wonder if Mr. Brown identifies as an American? Or maybe as a Confederate-American? Or ... Even more ridiculous, does he identify as a sovereign citizen reflecting the oxymoronic logic of the sovereign citizen movement?
The Constitution outlines, What is the "property" of the United States.
There is also a reason there are States and State boundary lines(that are to have meaning), or this would not be called the United States. It would just be called America.
America, actually North America is the continent, not the country.
Ya, there is no stipulation what state or where in that state, where a US. military base goes.
Ports would require states with navigable waters.
All State constitutions reflect that for the protection of the nation from foreign threats.
You're not addressing the point. Not that it matters overly much - it has been settled law for over a century.
You're not addressing the point. Not that it matters overly much - it has been settled law for over a century.
[quote]This is no different from Russia seizing Crimea.
The Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) when Alabama became a state in 1845. The question presented was concerning a clause where it was stated:
“that all navigable waters within the said State shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said State, and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said State.”
The Supreme Court held that this clause was constitutional because: “it conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.”
The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states:
The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.
So, in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.
Sorry, but to all the left-wing and establishment commentators who call Bundy a tax-cheat and an outlaw, be careful of what you speak for the Supreme Court has made it clear in 1845, that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with for the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minimum, it became state land – not federal.[/quote
The lines were drawn for statehood. If the state didn't want it, it was to remain a territory and not called and tax as part of the state.
The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states:
The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.
So, in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.
Sorry, but to all the left-wing and establishment commentators who call Bundy a tax-cheat and an outlaw, be careful of what you speak for the Supreme Court has made it clear in 1845, that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with for the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minimum, it became state land – not federal.
The lines were drawn for statehood. If the state didn't want it, it was to remain a territory and not called and tax as part of the state.
Is Martin Armstrong aware you're copying his work ad verbatim?
After effects and unintended consequences of not being able to pass the 13th amendment, are in full effect.
One only has to look how and why AZ. was made a state to see, within the provisions of the Statehood Act of March 21, 1864 that brought Nevada into the voting fold, we see the source of the problem today.
This Statehood Act retained the ownership of the land as a territory for the federal government.
In return for the Statehood that was really against the law(there was not enough people residing in the state, to become a state), the new state surrendered any right, title, or claim to the unappropriated public lands lying within Nevada.
Moreover, this cannot be altered without the consent of the Feds.
Hence, the people of Nevada cannot claim any land whatsoever because politicians needed Nevada for the 1864 election but did not want to hand-over anything in return.
This was a typical political one-sided deal.
In 1845 the Supreme Court ruled this could not happen. https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/u...n-nevada-nope/
I see you edited your post to include the attribution. Nice. A little late, but nice.
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.
Even more ridiculous, does he identify as a sovereign citizen reflecting the oxymoronic logic of the sovereign citizen movement? 
