of the western lands. I don't know which and where but it appears the courts will become involved.
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 ...
If you have the law, argue the law.
If you have the facts, argue the facts.
If you don’t have either ....
Since Oregon is not a territory and its boot strapping to say they own so they can own it that argument does not fly against the plain language.
Its plain language argument and its not without its chance.
Maybe it should have been, but it wasn't. Read the statehood documents.
“Many irrigation projects at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge are behind schedule due to the occupation by armed militants. Thomas Boyd/Staff”
What a helpful little comment to show how evil those occupiers are. Why is the BLM ‘irrigating’ land they want left alone?!
He will lose that one. The Government can do as it damn well pleases, right or wrong.
Hopefully, Ammon will hire the right lawyer.
Levin may in fact shed some insight on that. Possibly bring up how Cruz wants to return Federal land where as Trump is all for leaving the BLM alone. There’s those pesky facts again.
Nothing requires the federal government from doing do, and the Oregon Enabling Act specified what went to the state and what remained with the government.
But there’s no way the courts will agree with him.
No reason why they should.
Navigable waterway is another section of the US constitution the US does have authority on. The issue here is the Park, which is not covered under Section 8 paragraph 17.
No it doesn't. That lists property acquired from a state through consent of the legislature. That has nothing to do with property that belonged to the federal government before Oregon became a state and which was not turned over to them when admitted.
Oregon and other western states may want to get in on this as it is a USSC issue.
A question which the Supreme Court has answered many times in the past.
"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."
It's hard to imagine anyone arguing (more than 200 years into this experiment) that the federal government has no right to own property. It's this kind of "Sovereign citizen" "original thinking" that gets these guys into trouble in the first place.
I’m sorry but the legal strategy of those involved in the Bundy standoff seems wholly inefficient to keeping them out of jail.
The granting of statehood did not magically transfer ownership of land acquired and owned by the federal government to the state any more than it transferred the ownership of privately held land to the state. That's the plain language of the matter, and pretending that courts are going to find otherwise now, after more than a century of contrary precedent, is just more evidence of Bundy's level of delusion.
So you argue the courts can negate language of the Constitution specifically the limitations of why they can own land limiting to military and other “needful” buildings.
Last I saw this narrow issue, aka reason for the land, has not been made. lots of waterway stuff, lots of military use stuff, etc. oh and Trump weighed in on the BLM issue awhile back.
http://dennismichaellynch.com/must-see-donald-trumps-position-on-the-blm/
If this doesn’t work, they have a million backup arguments. How about something like King George III was not a legal King and therefore there was no lawful authority for the Treaty of Paris (1783) and therefore there is no lawful basis for the “supposed United States of America.”
No such limitation exists. As Article IV, section 3 says.
The Constitution grants the federal government authority over “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” - and nothing else.
Facts aren’t ‘pesky’; never have been.
But it would help matters if you’d get your facts straight.
Read up a little more and get back to me later in the week.
No reason why they should.
Easy for you to say, writing from Missouri where the Feds own a wopping 3.0%.
It goes against the principals of equality and self-government.
Having grown up in a county that was over 80% federally owned, it matters. Why should most of the rest of the country run (and ruin) our lives.
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.