Posted on 08/28/2015 7:45:43 AM PDT by Hojczyk
And the Seventh.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
Paging Henry Bowman!
“I hate the EPA and am particularly outraged by their recent egregious attempt to control America’s waterways but Reno might have a point. When I read the article, my first thought was ‘I bet there is more to this story.’ It seemed very one-sided.”
You would be well-advised to go read up on all the abuses by the BLM as regards grazing “rights” in Nevada. For years, they have made a concerted effort to drive ranchers off “government (read our)” land. One family in Northern Nevada went through two generations to finally prevail in court. The main problem is that the Feds use your money against you prosecuting you until you finally give up. The Bundys were addressing the bigger problem which is “Federal ownership” of nearly 90% of Nevada. This Federal government took “land bribes” for statehood in the West. $hit, they own more than half of California. It is nothing less than criminal for them to have any more Western state’s lands than is actually needed for their purposes as enumerated in the Constitution. We need to get back to the premise on which this country was founded, United STATES, with the states having most of the power ( as was intended by the Founding Fathers).
” Sorry, I like that 82% of the land is public and that I can travel and hike and visit it all without fences and no trespassing signs.”
Try much of that and you may be arrested by the BLM, or worse yet, shot!
He tried to pay Clark county grazing fees, saying he doesn’t recognize the right of the Federal gov’t to charge Nevadans for land usage was they have owned for over a hundred years. The Feds claim they are just trying to sa e tortoises.
If you like the federal gov’t owning 82 percent of the land in your state, maybe you should find someplace where the gov’t owns 100 percent. It would be utopia where their is no pesky private property laws.
I would cheer.
But the facts showed he was grazing on public lands and he did not, nor did his family have the century of claims. These were not true. It was a story that sounded good until the details came out and at the end of the day he was a kook that wanted to not recognize the federal govern while freeloading on federal lands.
Like I said, he recognized the right of the county in his State, not the Fed gov’t, to collect grazing fees. I guess you like the fact that a big central federal gov’t can own and rule everything, and I think it belongs to the states and the people.
Correct, but incomplete.
The laws that the EPA was created to enforce were passed by Congress and signed by various Presidents between 1955-1970. Those laws are broad in scope, grant enormous powers to the Executive Branch, and do not give the President authority to ignore them.
The EPA was a cost-saving measure, so that multiple Executive departments weren't wasting resources to enforce the same laws.
It's the laws that are the problem.
As long as the APA exists, and is paid any mind to, as far as I am concerned there is no such thing as PRIVATE lands in the Adirondacks.
Those were federal lands NOT state lands. He stole from US taxpayers, wanted his free handout. No different than people getting welfare, free Obama phones, etc.
What do documented BLM abuses in Nevada have to do with this case in Wyoming involving the EPA? That doesn't make this landowner right nor the EPA wrong. My point was that the report seemed very biased and one-sided. As other posters have stated, apparently, this issue isn't so clear.
The agencies are given broad authority to make up regulations to enforce those laws. These bureaucrats need to justify their existence so they make up problems and then regulations to solve those problems, going way over the intent of the law. I don’t know, but I doubt if everyone that voted for the clean air and water acts thought it would turn into a war on global warming and a person not being able to build a fish pond on his own property.
No, of course not, but they were indifferent to the consequences of the laws they wrote and they did it so they could look good to LIVs.
The Bundy stand-off in Nevada has induced several people to ask me about the extent to which the federal government can own land, at least under the Constitution’s intended meaning. As it happens, in 2005 I studied the issue in depth, and published the following article: Federal Land Retention and the Constitution’s Property Clause: The Original Understanding, 76 U. Colo. L. Rev. 327 (2005).
In a nutshell, here’s what I found:
(1) Most commentators on the issue have staked out one of two polar positions. One position, which is current U.S. Supreme Court doctrine, is that the federal government may acquire and own any land it wishes for any governmental purpose, not just for its enumerated powers. The other polar position is that the federal government may own land only for the purposes enumerated in the Enclave Clause (the national capital and “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”) and that the “equal footing doctrine” requires that all other federal land within a prospective state be handed over the state government upon statehood.
(2) In fact, both polar positions are false—and very clearly so.
3) The Constitution grants the federal government authority to acquire real estate and other property to carry out any enumerated purpose, either in the exercise of a core power (such as “maintain a Navy”) or through the implied powers memorialized in the Necessary and Proper Clause. Thus, Congress may acquire land to build “post Roads” (limited access highways), house tax collectors, and build lighthouses under the Commerce Power.
(4) Further, the Constitution’s Treaty Power authorizes the federal government to acquire territory.
(5) However, land acquired—through, for example, the Treaty Power—may be held only for enumerated purposes. Land not needed for such purposes must be disposed of within a reasonable time. The federal government should have disposed of BLM grazing land long ago.
(6) In fact, for the federal government to own a large share of American real estate (currently about 28 percent) is directly contrary to certain values the Constitution was designed to further.
Non-enclave land owned by the federal government is held under the Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2), and should be held only for enumerated purposes. Grazing, for example, is not an enumerated purpose.
(12) Non-enclave federal property within states is subject to state law. Contrary to current Supreme Court doctrine, when the federal government owns non-enclave land, the federal government usually should be treated like any other landowner, so long as the state respects the discharge of legitimate federal functions.
And that needs to be fixed, one way or the other.
This situation is way beyond what the Founders intended but today’s bureaucrats deem their power from government. I believe that every bureaucrat ,bottom to top, needs to be made responsible for such Constitutional offense. As a person with years of ‘government’ involvement I have long advocated that any person should have the right without cost to have judicial action by/against such perverted government ‘servants’.
My comments were directed to a poster named “reno” who was pi$$ing and moaning about the Bundys and how he likes to hike on the government’s protected and open lands. But FYI, the EPA and the BLM are out of the same bag of crap we call the Federal Government, so they all need to be discussed here.
But Bundy is issue beyond this as he knowingly didn't honor his contract to graze his cattle on public lands, depriving taxpayers of that revenue, preventing the government from leasing it to someone else, and he pockets the extra profit in the process--welfare by theft.
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.