Replies

"How do you know this rancher's rights weren't grandfathered from a time long before the existence of the BLM and that what the gov't has done here essentially constitutes a taking?"

If I understand the history right (And I'm no expert. I googled for 10 minutes.) The Federal government acquired these lands by paying Mexico for them. Then the government allowed homesteading but didn't allow big enough tracts to be homesteaded to be viable. So settlers homesteaded the tracks near water supplies and grazed their cattle on the public lands still owned by the Federal government.

Initially grazing was free, but then the Federal government began imposing grazing fees some 25 years ago.

The homesteads aren't as valuable without the grazing rights. But at the same time, I doubt that the Feds ever promised to allow grazing indefinitely. That was a risk that the homesteaders took.

If it was Citizen B that owned the land, we would stand with Citizen B as having the right to repurpose the land as he chooses.

On the other hand, one might successfully argue that the government knew the homesteads were not viable without the grazing rights and that constitutes an implied promise of continuence.

The Constitution outlines the purpose of the Federal Government and this is a good explanation:

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/private-property-and-government-under-the-constitution

Quote from body of writings:

‘The Founding Fathers upheld the economic view of property. They believed that private property ownership, as defined under common law, pre-existed government. The state and federal governments were the mere contractual agents of the people, not sovereign lords over them.

All rights, not specifically delegated to the government, remained with the people–including the common-law provisions of private property.’ the end of quote.

The Federal Government purchased lands with taxpayer money are actually owned by taxpayers, and should be public property, because the Feds are only property managers not owners according to the Framers of the Constitution, imho.
Of course, the control freaks would disagree. Leftist Judges would disagree...however, the intent and known statements of our founders are clear.