Posted on 04/19/2014 11:28:48 AM PDT by Texas Fossil
When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other.
Other Forest Service officials were busy nailing similar notices on fence posts along the highway and informing neighbors that after Feb. 11, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property.
Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. That day has arrived.
(Excerpt) Read more at teapartytribune.com ...
Its not meaningless, they have to be read in conjunction with each other and as always the specific overrides the general.
Nonetheless, the enclave clause as you can see does more then the District - it tells what is allowed and how to obtain it from within the States.
You are talking about the surface rights issue.
Those rights can only expire by failure to continue their use.
Prescriptive surface use is the highest class of ownership there is.
.
I don’t know about New Mexico - but they do in Nevada.
Yes, you did mean to cause the reactions - you did not post your first in good faith. You posted to elicit a squabble.
The argument made by editor-surveyor does not depend on grazing rights existing in perpetuity, it rests on the fact that the transfer to the US government made in the treaty was not one of property rights (of which grazing is one), but a transfer of governmental authority.
It would behoove you to read what others say, and understand it, before you start constructing all of your strawmen.
Bundy stated exactly that at the town meeting video.
And for your information Agenda 21 is not a conspiracy theory. It is a real thing.
At the bottom of the above article in the statement by Rand Paul he mentions a bill dealing with land etc that Harry Reid has not let come to the floor for even discussion.
Time to file ethics complaint Get Reid removed from position of authority
Contact information here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3145893/posts
You state it well, as far as it goes. One point that you missed is that many of the grazing rights existed prior to the feds taking “possession”. The feds had no authority to charge grazing fees - in these cases they were termed “management fees”.
As managers, they operate at the will of those who own what is being managed. When they began managing for the environmentalists instead of the grazers they were guilty of mismanagement and in violation of their enabling legislation - and many ranchers set about to fire them.
No the 10 square miles refers to DC. There would be no need to talk about forts, arsenals, dockyards etc. in land already owned in DC. The enumerated purposes spelled out in the remainder of the enclave clause refers to land held by the inidiviual states which may be sold by state legislatures to the feds for those specifically defined uses.
Puts an end to the type nonsense we see in the West where certain states have become nothing more than vassals to DC as they’re in effect owned by the feds. AS I noted earlier, the feds can’t owne these vast swaths of land for non enumerated uses.
FEDgov is limited to very specific enumerated powers, everything else is vested in the people and states.
I understand your position, however I don’t think there has been some directive from “on high” that is directly responsible for these actions.
That is conspiracy territory, and there is no need to go there.
What we are talking about is government bureaucracy and their ability to define or re-define what and how much authority they think they have.
What we have are Land Management agencies that are constantly being sued by “Non-Profit” environmental groups for not “protecting” some obscure creature that another Government agency has deemed “protected”.
The BLM, USFS etc, are losing these lawsuits and their only recourse is to restrict access to these lands by ranchers.
Unless of course it’s for some “Green energy” project.
This is what’s happening.
Elsewhere, there is quite a lot of evidence that the Feds have violated the original intent of the constitution by ignoring the state's rights to the land; and equal footing doctrines.
Legitimate Federal ownership and use-age of a state's lands is limited, and it certainly isn't supposed to be up to unelected bureaucrats to proclaim the laws, Congress is the only part of government that can pass laws.
I think part of the problem is how the federal government is trying to re-define "publicly owned lands" to "government owned lands".
This conceptual shift was evident during the partial government shutdown last year. In previous shut downs the government did not try to prevent citizens from walking on or visiting outdoor areas owned by the public. But this time they did.
From the viewpoint of our present administration, and their Democrat supporters, the land isn't collectively owned by the citizens of our nation, it is owned by the government itself, which they consider somehow separate from and above the citizens. That's the real problem.
Thanks,
I’m trying to discern the historical difference between “Grazing” rights and “Water” rights.
I’m certain that in New Mexico and parts of Arizona the historical claims of Ranchers occupying those lands at the time of these fed land deals where provided relief from Federal authority.
Not so much in Nevada.
Maybe a better question would be, who is supposed to own the property when a state has been admitted to the Union?
If you go to the link at the end the link used here which is at NRO the date is 2004.
Thats a good point.
That’s a relief. After all the furr that’s been flying up thread. Thanks.
bkmk
“I no longer think the Civil War will be postponed past 2014. It’s happening this damned year.”
I agree.
Really the Ballot box is one of the best ways?
Is that how we got Obama twice?
When the dead, and even pets are voting?
I have no desire for a shooting war, but this Ol Marine ain’t afraid of one either.
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.