Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How can it be a state if the central government controls 86% of its land and all of its resources?
April 22, 2014 | Jim Robinson

Posted on 04/22/2014 10:51:05 AM PDT by Jim Robinson

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-78 last
To: PapaNew
They should sell it off voluntarily or by Congressional legislation.

Only Congress can allow it to be sold...and there is no reason at all why Congress shouldn't do so. I'd like to see Ted Cruz author a bill requiring Congress to sell all federal land not being used for specific purposes like military bases, parks, interstate highways, etc.

61 posted on 04/22/2014 1:47:09 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

That says Congress in in control of disposing of new territories. It doesn’t say it’s supposed to keep control of them.

And, by the way, Congress has permitted its power to be usurped by the Executive....the Interior Deptmt and the BLM.


62 posted on 04/22/2014 1:47:36 PM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
Agreed. The sooner the better.

Obama would veto it or refuse to enforce it. He isn't apparently concerned about being impeached so he acts like he'll do whatever he wants regardless.

63 posted on 04/22/2014 1:54:36 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
"Why are you defending BIG government"

I'm not defending anybody, I'm merely pointing out that there is history as to how things became as they are and you can't go back and change history.

Similarly, there is a history as to how the sub-merged lands on our coast came to be owned by who. The federal govt owns most of that. But the constitution doesn't say anything about that.

So, in reality, when the states entered the union, each state would negotiate a settlement with the feds about who owned what land.

In 1954, Eisenhower negotiated an agreement with the coastal states as to what part of the continental shelf belonged to the feds and what part belonged to the states. But before that, Truman issued a proclamation claiming the entire continental shelf for the feds(1945), and SCOTUS upheld him.

64 posted on 04/22/2014 2:02:33 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

No, but we can certainly change the now! And that’s our mission on FR!!

To hell with the lying tyrannical feds!!

And that takes us back to, “As long as the grass shall grow.”

Agreements with the feds ain’t worth the powder to blow them to hell. Stand by the constitution and if that’s not enough, go back to the founding document! Our rights and recourse when defied are spelled out in the Declaration in straight forward language that no federal lawyer can twist.


65 posted on 04/22/2014 2:08:26 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

Once upon a time the SCOTUS upheld slavery. And currently it upholds mass murder, homo marriage and ObamaCare (slavery II).

As our old friends used to sing, “It’s been a long time comin’, but a change gonna come.”


66 posted on 04/22/2014 2:12:34 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

More power to you.


67 posted on 04/22/2014 2:15:56 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Faux conservative journalist at Reuters attacks Bundy:

COLUMN-The Cliven Bundy in all of us
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/22/salam-bundy-idUSL2N0NE13L20140422


68 posted on 04/22/2014 2:16:17 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2M for Cruz and/or Palin's next run, what will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

“...land is being used as collateral...”

Bingo!


69 posted on 04/22/2014 2:27:07 PM PDT by ChicagahAl (Don't blame me. I voted for Sarah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: xzins
That says Congress in in control of disposing of new territories. It doesn’t say it’s supposed to keep control of them.

Wouldn't that fall under the "... and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States..." part of the clause?

And, by the way, Congress has permitted its power to be usurped by the Executive....the Interior Deptmt and the BLM

They gave the BLM the authority to manage the lands in 1976. They didn't give them permission to sell it.

70 posted on 04/22/2014 3:16:48 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
Obama would veto it or refuse to enforce it.

Then force him to do it.

71 posted on 04/22/2014 3:17:58 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Well, until we get the right folks into Congress, or SCOTUS I guess, selective enforcement is Obama’s MO.


72 posted on 04/22/2014 3:30:57 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

I see this federal land grab as a way to abolish the 10th Amendment which gives power to the states. I have to bite my tongue or I’ll get banned from FR for the way I feel about this regime and the RINOs currently in office.


73 posted on 04/22/2014 3:31:26 PM PDT by Catsrus (A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg; Noamie; Jim Robinson; Ben Ficklin
>>Do the Feds pay property taxes like us pleebs? <<

Payments in Lieu of Taxes - US Department of the Interior
www.doi.gov/pilt/‎ United States Department of the Interior, "Payments in Lieu of Taxes" (or PILT) are Federal payments to local governments that help offset losses in property taxes due to non-taxable Federal lands ...

_____________________________________________.

Ben Ficklin,

In posting this I am not to try to pass myself off as a constitutional lawyer. I am simply writing Stephen Pratt's thoughts on this issue.

Mary Davis's photo.

A quick background as to why the BLM should not be harassing Cliven Bundy. This issue goes all the way back to the Confederation Papers, prior to the writing of our US Constitution.

Please remember that the Supreme Court has reversed more than 150 of earlier Supreme Court decisions on natural law. Is that what you would consider as someone being consistent and reliable in interpreting the Constitution?

The Resolution of 1780, "the federal trust respecting public lands obligated the united States to extinguish both their governmental jurisdiction and their title to land that achieved statehood."

In the Constitutional Convention of 1787, The Charter of Liberty contained these words, "The new Federal Government is an agent serving the states.", "The delegated powers are few and defined", "All powers not listed are retained by the states or the people", "The Resolution of 1780 formed the basis upon which Congress was required to dispose of territorial and public lands", "All laws shall be made by the Congress of the United States". (not agency bureaucrats!)

That should be sufficient for you to determine who all public lands belong to, hint - NOT the Federal Government!

"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, it's meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted. it means now". So said the Supreme Court in South Carolina v United States in 1905

Articles of Confederation, Article VI, clause 1 All engagements entered into before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. In Article IX "... no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States."

Formation of a "more perfect union" does not absolve that union of prior engagements, including those obligations establish by the resolution of 1780 and the Articles of Confederation.

Our government system is established by compact, not between the Government and the State Governments but between the States as Sovereign Communities. By James Madison 1821 (This is what make the County Sheriffs the highest law enforcement officer in that County and gives him/her the authority to tell the BLM, the FBI or any other Federal Agency to get out of the County or they will be arrested and jailed.)

What I have written here is but a short piece of the process that the Founder went through to establish our Constitution and system of government.

Please view these videos and see if they don't change your mind about whether or not Cliven Bundy is in the wrong by defying the BLM.

1of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference

2of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference

3of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference

Here's one that shows why the Sheriff of Clark County is duty bound to keep the BLM and all Federal agents from arresting Cliven Bundy.

Steven Pratt, Bound by Oath to Support THIS Constitution,

74 posted on 04/22/2014 4:18:08 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Name your illness, do a Google & YouTube search with "hydrogen peroxide". Do it and be surprised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
You need to read: Federal Land Retention and the Constitution's Property Clause (Univ Colorado Law Review) The above is the Freeper thread:

The entire article is: http://constitution.i2i.org/sources-for-constitutional-scholars/federal-land-retention-and-property-clause/

75 posted on 04/22/2014 5:26:23 PM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: xzins

That changed in 1803 with the Louisiana purchase. Since most of the Founders were still around then and didn’t complain about it then I have to assume they were OK with the government owning it.


76 posted on 04/22/2014 6:00:32 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Professor Natelson disagrees with you.

He is one of America’s premier constitutional lawyers and scholars and an originalist. Here is a list of some of his publications.

CONSTITUTIONAL PUBLICATIONS

Now Available For Download Free: A Treatise on the Law of Amendment Conventions: State Initiation of Constitutional Amendments: A Guide for Lawyers and Legislative Drafters (2014)

New article: Does “The Freedom of the Press” Include a Right to Anonymity? The Original Understanding, 9 N.Y.U. J. of Law & Liberty (forthcoming, 2015)

* On the Constitution in General:

The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant (Tenth Amendment Center, 2010) (2nd ed., 2011) (book).

The Fiduciary Foundations of Federal Equal Protection (with Gary Lawson & Guy Seidman), 94 B.U. L. Rev. (forthcoming, 2014)

The Founders’ Hermeneutic: The Real Original Understanding of Original Intent, 68 Ohio St. L.J. 1239 (2007).

The Constitution and the Public Trust, 52 Buff. L. Rev. 1077 (2004).

A Reminder: The Constitutional Values of Sympathy and Independence, 91 Ky. L. J. 353 (2003).

The Constitutional Contributions of John Dickinson, 108 Penn. State L. Rev. 415 (2003).

* On Amending the Constitution:

State Initiation of Constitutional Amendments: A Guide for Lawyers and Legislative Drafters (2014)

Founding-Era Conventions and the Meaning of the Constitution’s “Convention for Proposing Amendments,” 65 Fla. L. Rev. 615 (2013)

The Article V Convention Process and the Restoration of Federalism, 36 Harvard J. L. & Pub. Pol. 955 (2013)

Proposing Constitutional Amendments By a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers (2d ed., 2013)

James Madison and the Constitution’s “Convention for Proposing Amendments,” in Union and States’ Rights: A History and Interpretation of Interposition, Nullification, and Secession 150 Years After Sumter (Neil H. Cogan ed., 2013) (book)

Proposing Constitutional Amendments by Convention: Rules Governing the Process, 78 Tenn. L. Rev. 693 ( 2011)

The State-Application-and-Convention Method of Amending the Constitution: The Founding-Era Vision, 28 Cooley L. Rev. 9 (2011)

Amending the Constitution by Convention: Practical Guidance for Citizens and Policymakers (Independence Institute, 2012) (updated and amended version of an earlier paper published by the Goldwater Institute)

Amending The Constitution by Convention: Lessons for Today from the Constitution’s First Century (Independence Institute, 2011) (updated and amended version of an earlier paper published by the Goldwater Institute)

Amending the Constitution by Convention: A More Complete View of the Founders’ Plan (Independence Institute, 2010) (updated and amended version of an earlier paper published by the Goldwater Institute)

* On Congressional Power – Commerce and Necessary & Proper Clauses:

The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (with Lawson, Miller & Seidman) (Cambridge University Press 2010) (book).

“Health Laws of Every Description”: John Marshall’s Ruling on a Federal Health Care Law, 12 Engage, No. 1 (June, 2011) (with Dave Kopel)

Commerce in the Commerce Clause: A Response to Jack Balkin, 109 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 55 (2010) (with Dave Kopel).

Tempering the Commerce Power, 68 Mont. L. Rev. 95 (2007).

The Legal Meaning of “Commerce” In the Commerce Clause, 80 St. John’s L. Rev. 789 (2006).

The Agency Law Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause, 55 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 243 (2004).

* On Congressional Power – Taxing and Spending:

Judicial Review of Special Interest Spending: The General Welfare Clause and the Fiduciary Law of the Founders, 11 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 239 (2007).

The General Welfare Clause and the Public Trust: An Essay in Original Understanding, 52 U. Kan. L. Rev. 1 (2003).

* On Congressional Power – Campaign Finance:

The Original Scope of the Congressional Power to Regulate Elections, 13 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 1 (2010).

* On Congressional Power – Money:

Paper Money and the Original Understanding of the Coinage Clause, 31 Harvard J.L. & Pub. Policy 1017 (2008).

* On Congressional Power – Indian Affairs:

The Original Meaning of the Indian Commerce Clause, 85 Denv. U. L. Rev. 201 (2007).

* On Congressional Power – Federal Land:

Federal Land Retention and the Constitution’s Property Clause: The Original Understanding, 76 U. Colo. L. Rev. 327 (2005).

More in Chapter 6, pp. 106-110, The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant

* More on Congressional Power: Chapters 5 & 6, The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant

* On the Executive Power—Recess Appointments:

The Origins and Meaning of “Vacancies that May Happen During the Recess” in the Constitution’s Recess Appointments Clause , 37 Harvard J. of L. & Pub. Pol’y 199 (2014)

* On the Executive Power and Impeachment:

The Original Meaning of the Constitution’s “Executive Vesting Clause” – Evidence from Eighteenth-Century Drafting Practice, 31 Whittier L. Rev. 1 (2009).

More in Chapters 7 & 11, The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant

* On The States & Republican Government:

The Original Meaning of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, 43 Ga. L. Rev. 1117 (2009).

The Guarantee Clause, in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (2005).

Initiative and Referendum and the “Republican Form of Government,” in The Battle over Citizen Lawmaking (Carolina Ac. Press 2000).

The Enumerated Powers of States, 3 Nev. L. J. 469 (2003).

Statutory Retroactivity: The Founders’ View, 39 Idaho L. Rev. 489 (2003).

A Republic, Not a Democracy? Initiative, Referendum, and the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause, 80 Tex. L. Rev. 807 (2002).

More in Chapters 3 & 6, The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant

* First Amendment:

Does “The Freedom of the Press” Include a Right to Anonymity? The Original Understanding, 9 N.Y.U. J. of Law & Liberty (forthcoming, 2015)

The Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause, 14 Wm. & Mary Bill Rights J. 73 (2005).

More in Chapter 9, The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant

* Fifth Amendment:

Statutory Retroactivity: The Founders’ View, 39 Idaho L. Rev. 489 (2003).

More in Chapter 9, The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant

* Ninth and Tenth Amendments:

The Enumerated Powers of States, 3 Nev. L. J. 469 (2003).

More in Chapter 10, The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant

* State Constitutions:

“No Armed Bodies of Men”—Montanans’ Forgotten Constitutional Right, 63 Mont. L. Rev. 1 (2002).

Blocking the Cure for Columbine: Implications of State Constitutional “Cartelization” (Independence Institute, 1999).

LEGAL HISTORY PUBLICATIONS (OTHER THAN CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY)

“Magna Carta,” entry for the Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States (Macmillan Reference [Gale-Cengage] 2008).

Corpus Juris Civilis—an Internet Compilation of Classical Roman Law Sources, (2002-03).

The Government as Fiduciary: Lessons from the Reign of the Emperor Trajan, 35 Richmond L. Rev. 191 (2001).

Montana Estates in Land Statutes: History and Commentary (Univ. of Mont. 1991).

Running with the Land in Montana, 51 Mont. L. Rev. 17 (1990).

Comments on the Historiography of Condominium: The Myth of Roman Origin, 12 Okla. City L. Rev. 17 (1986) (digested and reprinted in 4 Common Ground (Sept., Nov. 1988)).

PUBLIC POLICY PUBLICATIONS

State Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth in the Rocky Mountain West (Independence Institute, 1998).

Tax and Spending Limits for Montana? Criteria for Assessing Current Proposals (Independence Institute, 1994).

Peyote, “Multiculturalism” and the Caricature of the West, 52 Mont. L. Rev. 453 (1991).

REMEDIES PUBLICATIONS

Montana Remedies Law (course book, 1988).

Mending the Social Compact: Expectancy Damages for Common Property Defects, 66 Or. L. Rev. 109 (1987).

REAL PROPERTY PUBLICATIONS

Lateral and Subjacent Support, in Powell on Real Property (Matthew Bender 2001).

Conveyances of Real Property Not By Deed, in Powell on Real Property (Matthew Bender 1999).

Boundaries, in Powell on Real Property (Matthew Bender 1998).

Condominiums, Reform, and the Unit Ownership Act, 58 Mont. L. Rev. 495 (1997).

Modern Law of Deeds to Real Property (Aspen Law & Bus. Supp. 1997).

Modern Law of Deeds to Real Property (Little, Brown Supp. 1996).

Modern Law of Deeds to Real Property (Little, Brown Supp. 1995).

Modern Law of Deeds to Real Property (Little, Brown Supp. 1994).

Modern Law of Deeds to Real Property (Little, Brown Supp. 1993).

Law of Property Owners Associations (Little, Brown Supp. 1991).

Montana Estates in Land Statutes: History and Commentary (Univ. of Mont. 1991).

Consent, Coercion, and Reasonableness in Private Law: The Special Case of the Property Owners Association, 51 Ohio St. L.J. 41 (1990).

Law of Property Owners Associations (Little, Brown Supp. 1990).

Running with the Land in Montana, 51 Mont. L. Rev. 17 (1990).

Law of Property Owners Associations (Little, Brown Supp. 1989).

Mending the Social Compact: Expectancy Damages for Common Property Defects, 66 Or. L. Rev. 109 (1987).

Keeping Faith: Fiduciary Obligations in Property Owners Associations, 11 Vt. L. Rev. 421 (1986).

“Buyer Brokerage:” Does It Still Exist After Velten v. Robertson?, 55 U. Colo. L. Rev. 83 (1983).

Modern Law of Deeds to Real Property (Little, Brown 1992) (606 pp.).

Law of Property Owners Associations (Little, Brown 1989) (749 pp.).

Real Property (course book, 1991, 1995, 1997, 2001).

How to Buy and Sell a Condominium (Simon & Schuster 1981) (popular trade paper back).

Real Estate Law Columnist, Denver Rocky Mountain News (1982-84).

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

Literally hundreds of other op-eds, CLE materials, and short articles since 1967 on various subjects, including law, policy, and real estate.


77 posted on 04/22/2014 6:06:14 PM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; Ben Ficklin; xzins
48 posted on 4/22/2014 3:04:47 PM by Jim Robinson: “And along with the land, they’ve locked up all natural resources. Can you imagine if the federal government had locked up all the natural resources in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee or Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, etc? For one thing, the industrial revolution would never had happened. And another, America would never had been the land of plentiful or the richest most powerful country on earth.”

49 posted on 4/22/2014 3:05:59 PM by Ben Ficklin: “But out in the western deserts nobody wanted that land. Nevada has the most federal land because it has more desert than any other state. If its free I'll take it, but only if you give me low cost grazing on this other 15,000 acres.”

Jim, I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Ben Ficklin’s point is that this situation of massive federal retention of land ownership in the West happened because, until relatively recently, nobody wanted the land. Most of it wasn't useful for much of anything, and with open range laws, having private ownership of hundreds of thousands of minimally productive acres of grass for grazing wasn't necessary, wasn't helpful, and due to fencing problems and winter/summer pasture issues, may not even have been possible in many places.

Letting homesteaders purchase relatively small parcels of land on which they would build their homes and barns and make improvements, while letting them use mostly unwanted land for grazing, made sense when the federal government wasn't interested in hassling ranchers. It was probably a good deal for all involved.

But by letting the federal government retain so much land, it opened the door to abuse.

We're now seeing the door open and smack long-time users on their rear ends. That is wrong and something needs to be done about it. Clearly we can no longer trust the federal government to act in the best interests of rural residents who have lived on the land for generations.

But fixing the problem is easier said than done. Governments do not typically give up power once they have gotten used to exercising it, and while a wholesale transfer of federal land to state authority might work well in many Western states, I hardly think it would produce positive results in places like California. As bad as federal bureaucrats can be, there's a better chance of Congress calling them to account than the California legislature doing so.

78 posted on 05/02/2014 11:32:17 PM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-78 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson