Under what provision of the Constitution does the Federal Government have a right to own and control all the red areas east of the Mississippi?
The stuff east of the Mississippi is mostly military bases.
Posted on 01/02/2016 6:57:32 PM PST by Nextrush
Embattled Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy told OPB that approximately 150 militiamen have occupied Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Building on Saturday evening.
The militiamen are in Burns, Oregon to support Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven Hammond. They're ranchers convicted of arson, who are due to report to prison on Monday.
The militiamen broke in to the federal building with supplies, including food and a generator. Cliven Bundy spoke to his son, Ammon Bundy, on the phone after they occupied the building.
"He told me that they were there for the long run. I guess they figured they're going to be there for whatever it takes--and I don't know what that means," Bundy said.......
(Excerpt) Read more at opb.org ...
Under what provision of the Constitution does the Federal Government have a right to even own a “National Wildlife Refuge Building” in the State of Oregon?
The difference is that these people (and the Bundy’s) were given due process.
People itching for a fight would do well to pick their heroes and causes carefully.....
Obscure document from the media log looks to be the origin of this: water.
http://www.landrights.org/or/Hammond/Ranchers%20and%20officials%20feud%20over%20water%20rights.docx
Wrong.
Hiking North Carolina, 2nd: A Guide to Nearly 500 of North Carolina's Greatest Hiking Trails (State Hiking Guides Series)
I’ll answer... NONE.
Due process? Do you even have a clue about what that is?
Harry Reid wanted Bundys gone so his kid could do a solar deal with the Chinese.
Hammonds are trying to raise cattle on their own land (surrounded by and attacked by BLM/FWS).
Yeah, they have some govt. leases. You can get one too (at least you could in the past).
I too live out West, and daily experience more of ‘our’ public land put off limits by BLM (and enforced by armed rangers).
I’ll hang up now.
The nation owns the land - therefore the nation owns the buildings on it giving the government the right of protecting the property.
Bundy situation - adjudicated over and over with full due process
This situation - I don’t know as much, but this was adjudicated so there was due process and the right to appeal any further sentence still exists (due process again)
The common denominator? Outside groups referring to themselves as militia with an itch to fight the government in some kind of Rambo fantasy. No comparison and completely unfair to call someone a loyalist when the aggrieved parties in these two situations were given due process. Bundy was a thief IMO - he grazed on grass he did not own and he refused to pay for it. As I said over and over (I was also called a loyalist on those threads) during that situation - even Bundy admitted he was wrong in court. Furthermore, Bundy would have had a much higher moral standing in my mind if he had donated the exact amount of the fees to a charity of his choice instead of pocketing the money he should have spent on grazing rights like my neighbors who ranch.
How, exactly, would you expect the fruit to ripen? I vote sun. You vote tundra. Clobberin’ time is long overdue.
According to the Constitution, the State of Oregon owns the land. The Constitution is very clear about what kind of land and for what purposes the government of the United States can own land inside a sovereign state and what it can't.
A national wildlife preserve is not one of those purposes.
Under what provision of the Constitution does the Federal Government have a right to even own a “National Wildlife Refuge Building†in the State of Oregon?
= = =
For “Refugees”. It’s right in the building name.
I thought the post office was a private company ? At least that is what they always tell us. We all own government property. Impossible to break into it. Very poor and biased choice of words. But that appears to be the way the feddies are going.
What you call inciting rebellion is actually an effort to save the Constitution. Rule of law is for me, you... and the King. Get it?
A national wildlife preserve is a good place to put all the Muslims coming from Islamic countries.
Due process? Do you even have a clue about what that is?
Yes. They had their day in court with representation.
Don’t get me wrong - there are many areas of land usage and rights that are problematic here in the West where I live. However, the Bundy’s stole from the taxpayers yet many view them as heroes. I am not as familiar with this situation, but it has been adjudicated and there are still appeals.
Using the logic of some here on FR I should just be able to go cut every tamarack and fir tree I want for firewood in the national forests that surround me simply because I live here. That is a recipe for anarchy. However, I do believe it would be appropriate to give the state governments where federal lands are located more say and oversight about how they are used for the benefit of all.
You are confused. The federal government is a creature of the States making. It was created to serve the States. The land it is ALLOWED to own is DEFINED in the Constitution. Please show me where it says that the Feds (which is NOT the “nation”) can own land or buildings just for sake of owning them?
Not so at all, at least in the state where I reside.
I live in Maine, and people hike, hunt and fish on private land all the time, including land that my family owns.
People are supposed to have permission from the landowner, but hunting, fishing and other outdoor pursuits occur anyway. It’s tradition, and rarely does anyone make a fuss about the use of their land.
People who object to the use of their private land post the property. Some people do that, but most do not.
The timber and paper companies also own vast stretches of woods in northern Maine, and they allow public access for a variety of outdoor pursuits.
There are also numerous nature conservation groups in Maine that allow public use of the land under their control.
I’m not understanding how they can be tried (and sentenced) twice for the same crime under 2 different statutes? Isn’t that unconstitutional?
Under what provision of the Constitution does the Federal Government have a right to own and control all the red areas east of the Mississippi?
The stuff east of the Mississippi is mostly military bases.
The state of Oregon and the representatives of Oregon should have stopped the declaration of a wildlife refuge. I would be willing to bet they supported it wholeheartedly. You must not be familiar with the state of Oregon - the voters on the coast and in Portland would probably vote to make the entire state into a wildlife refuge if it were up to them.
These are always complex issues, but the way to change it is to follow the rules and work on representatives to change it. It’s not to break the rules then allow anarchists to hijack the situation and create a confrontation. These militia guys breed the kind of moron who killed so many at the Murrah building in Oklahoma City. A real blow for liberty there, huh?
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.