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

To: Mr Rogers

The language I quote is, as you point out, obiter dictum and not directly relevant to the holding of the case. But it still reflects the common understanding that that land which did become the property of the United States was only supposed to be held temporarily. Otherwise states like Nevada are not on an equal footing with other states; they are crippled by lack of control over most of the land within their borders.


38 posted on 04/19/2014 3:34:38 PM PDT by Buchal ("Two wings of the same bird of prey . . .")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]


To: Buchal

“But it still reflects the common understanding that that land which did become the property of the United States was only supposed to be held temporarily.”

False. The court noted that was part of the agreement between Georgia and the US. It was NOT part of the agreement between Mexico and the US.

THE PROBLEM IS CONGRESS, NOT THE COURTS.

The courts are following well established law.

It is CONGRESS that could, tomorrow, turn over all BLM & USFS land to the states. It is CONGRESS that could require the BLM & USFS to issue grazing permits equivalent to what was issued in 1965, and do it tomorrow! CONGRESS could repeal the Wilderness Act, and allow towns like Tombstone access to their legal water rights tomorrow!

Stop getting mad at the courts. Get mad at CONGRESS, because that is the only chance for change.

It is bastards like my two REPUBLICAN senators, McCain & McFlake, who are laughing while the BLM buttplugs ranchers! They are the ones who won’t lift a finger to help Tombstone get its water!

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/tombstone-loses-appeals-court-bid-to-repair-mountain-water-supply/article_f3a5f58e-6d12-5f51-9b68-33106a319011.html


39 posted on 04/19/2014 4:27:10 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

To: Buchal

“When asked in an interview why the Wilderness Act did not compel the U.S. Forest Service to block the city of Tombstone, Nick Dranias responded, “The Wilderness Act is subsequent to Tombstone’s rights. Tombstone has had these rights since 1881, and they are extremely well documented. The Wilderness Act explicitly says that it is subject to existing rights. Not only that, but the Forest Service manual says that customary uses and mechanized equipment can continue to be used under the Wilderness Act. In the past, they routinely allowed them to repair these water lines. In 1977 the lines were washed out, and they went in and repaired them. In 1993 the lines were washed out, and they went in and repaired them. In 2000 to 2001 they made repairs involving welding and the use of backhoes. This is the first time ever that the Forest Service has cited the Wilderness Act to block customary access to property rights that date back to 1881.”...

...There has been very little response outside of Tombstone itself from Federal elected officials. Tombstone is located in CD 8, formerly represented by Gabrielle Giffords. When asked if the interim office staff would respond to a request for help from, say, the mayor of Tombstone, a CD 8 representative said, “We can’t get involved in taking any positions until there is a new representative.” Raul Grijalva’s office did not return a telephone inquiry. Rep. Jeff Flake, from a congressional district to the north, did write a letter to the Forest Service demanding an explanation.”

http://soaznewsx.com/The-Territory/ID/52/US-Forest-Service-challenges-Tombstones-water-rights-under-the-Wilderness-Act


40 posted on 04/19/2014 4:30:50 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | 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