If you would like more information about what's happening in Oregon, please FReepmail me.
Please send me your name by FReepmail if you want to be on this list.
Posted on 04/26/2016 1:33:30 PM PDT by Nextrush
Ammon Bundy's lawyers intend to argue that the federal government doesn't have the authority to prosecute protestors who took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, claiming that the federal government lacks control of the land.
The U.S. Constitution granted 'very limited powers' to the federal government, and that once Oregon became a state, the federal government lost a right to own land inside the state's borders, his attorney Lissa Casey wrote in a court motion filed late Friday......
(Excerpt) Read more at oregonlive.com ...
Ammon Bundy was returned to Oregon yesterday after being in Nevada for a hearing on those charges.
Bundy should claim to be BLM and the Oregon protesters would then be let go, even if they burned the place down.
LOL! Yeah, that'll get him really far.
once Oregon became a state, the federal government lost a right to own land
inside the state’s borders, his attorney Lissa Casey wrote
*************
Does the article say what she is basing that conclusion on?
Wonder if Levin will render his opinion about this.
That is, if he can spare some time away from shilling for Cruz.
So Bundy will be challenging the fed .gov types by appealing to a court staffed by fed .gov employees? Not a proposition that I would bet to be successful.
They look after their own.
There is usually some clause in the statehood grant that indicates this. I know this is the case here in CO, however, there is ALSO a clause that gives FedGov access and, unfortunately, jurisdiction, at least, on public lands.
Interesting. Bundy is giving the courts a chance to enforce the Constitution — something he knows they will not do. That should make it clear that it’s time for WE THE PEOPLE to enforce it.
Bundy isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed. It looks like that extended to his legal team.
Yes. It is a shame that the courts have been disregarding the Constitution for so very long. It’s time for We the People to stand up and start enforcing it.
He’s right, of course. All of the public lands should have been turned over to the state, when the territory became a state.
But there’s no way the courts will agree with him.
I don't think it would make any difference if there were. While I sympathize somewhat with the argument, I know that no court is going to agree with it. See Unites States v. Texas (1950).
Specifically:
(e) The "equal footing" clause prevents extension of the sovereignty of a State into the domain of political and sovereign power Page 339 U. S. 708 of the United States from which the other States have been excluded, just as it prevents a contraction of sovereignty which would reduce inequality among the States. Pp. 339 U. S. 719-720.
If I'm reading that correctly it doesn't matter what kind of deal a state makes when it joins the union. Once it's in the union its rights are the same as any other state.
Aside: when I was young I used to think the label "indian giver" was supposed to be a slur against the Indians.
He is no longer contaminating my air waves.
He’s going to miss a few blackberry pickings with a defense like that.
Arguably he has a Constitutional question.
Oregon is not a Territory but a State so US Constitution Section 8 Paragraph 17 defines what land the federal government is allowed to own inside a State.
“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
There were no Forts Magazines etc. there.
Oregon and other western states may want to get in on this as it is a USSC issue.
Oregon did take take this to SCOTUS in 1935 and lost. (See the link in post #8 above).
Article 1, section 8, cl. 17 doesn't limit what property the federal government can own within a state; it limits the places where the federal government has exclusive, rather than concurrent, jurisdiction. The Malheur Refuge was established pursuant to Article IV, section 3, clause 2, which gives Congress the power to "make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United states."
“Defendant Ammon Bundy intends to provide evidence to the Court to prove lack of jurisdiction over the refuge property due to issues with title which are in conflict with the United States Constitution. Given the complexities of the evidence involved, it is not a simple legal argument that can be briefed and expedited for the Court,’’ Casey wrote. “Evidence must be taken, and witnesses will likely need to be called.
If you would like more information about what's happening in Oregon, please FReepmail me.
Please send me your name by FReepmail if you want to be on this list.
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.