Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dead Corpse

Well that is where we disagree.

There is a need for the federal government to own land, a military base being an example of that need. With the government owning a base, no state law, or county or city or private land owner is able to kick the government off of that land or restrict the use of that land.

Further, BLM is not abusing any authority. Rather it is asserting the private property rights of the federal government to use public lands in accordance with law. Specificly the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 and Title 43 of US code.


102 posted on 04/09/2014 11:15:00 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]


To: taxcontrol

Art 1 Sec 8 gives the precise list of what the FedGov can own. Post roads and post offices, .mil bases, and 10 miles square for DC.

That’s it. Period. End of story.

The BLM arbitrarily took grazing land away from ranchers in this area because of a f**king turtle. One that may actually be better off with the ranchers using said land.

http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/?p=80

I would also remind you that the NFA is no more Constitutional than your Grazing Act and for exactly the same reason. The length of time an unConstitutional Act has been on the books in no way lends it veracity or value.


103 posted on 04/09/2014 11:19:47 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (Tre Norner eg ber, binde til rota...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson