Rob was a law professor for 25 years, serving at three different universities. Among other subjects, he taught Constitutional Law, Constitutional History, Advanced Constitutional Law, and First Amendment. He is also the Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Montana Policy Institute.
Rob is especially known for his studies of the Constitution’s original meaning. His research has carried him to libraries throughout the United States and in Britain, including four months at Oxford. The results have included several break-though discoveries.
I suppose this means that the state and local can be taxing the Fed just like they tax other property holders.
At a glance, his points seem reasonable. However, this sentence is the killer:
“One position, which is current U.S. Supreme Court doctrine, is that the federal government may acquire and own any land it wishes for any governmental purpose, not just for its enumerated powers.”
That has been the consistent approach taken by the US Supreme Court since at least 1911.
That doesn’t mean it is right, but as a practical matter, the court will rarely overturn 100+ years of consistent precedence. If it does so, from what I’ve seen, it only does so to move in a liberal direction - because liberals don’t mind ignoring the Constitution, while conservatives are constrained by it.
If the Bundy or Hage case went before the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas is probably the only justice with the intelligence AND integrity to truly apply the Constitution to the situation, regardless of how that affected the outcome. Scalia might, but he is not as clear headed as Thomas. I’d bet the other 7 wouldn’t even hesitate to find for the government.
In fact, I’d bet Thomas would be the only justice on the Court who would consider taking such a case, which means it would not be heard. And until then, all lower courts are required to follow the precedent set by the Supreme Court for the last 100 years.
Thus, it comes back to the idea that only CONGRESS can do anything, and Congress does not want to. John McCain - one of my two supposedly reppublican senators - could end these abuses by the BLM & USFS this week if he wished. He has enough influence to get serious oversight hearings started, and to pass legislation that would require the BLM & USFS to pay at least some attention to multiple use.
Will he? Not a chance in hell! McCain wouldn’t lift a pinkie to help Tombstone get the water it needs to prevent the town from burning, although the USFS doesn’t really have a legal leg to stand on. A famous TOWN, not a rancher, in his state, with an obvious and critical need to do what they have been allowed to do for over 100 years...and McCain won’t lift a finger!
That is why I won’t vote for ‘whatever republican wins the primary’ any more. I don’t see any difference between McCain and Dingy Harry. I don’t doubt they get along fine, and McCain would vastly prefer to eat dinner with Dingy Harry than with Jim Robinson!
It might be that it will take civil disobedience to make the alphabet agencies wary enough that they won’t continue total abuse of their power. I was opposed to backing Bundy, and I still think his legal argument of not being a US citizen stinks...but the more I think about it, the only hope I see in getting ANY action is civil disobedience. I don’t think there are 5 genuine conservatives in the Senate, and probably no more than 20 tops in the House.
The STATES are negligent in their responsibilty to exercise their POWER provided to them in the CONSTITUTION. Congress is negligent in exercising its Constitutional authority in checking a runaway unconstitutional executive branch and federal bureaucracy. Seems the feds never gave the land to Nevada in the first place as they were required to do and Nevada hasn’t made any demands or taken legal aciton to protect its rights. In any case the local sheriff is THE LAW and he too was negligent in exercising his rights and duties..
AND NO ONE IS BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE........ as usual. Plus now we have the PRAVDA MEDIA not doing its job and merely being an arm of the libtard regime.
The Endangered Specious Act cites numerous environmental treaties for its authority. They could just as easily have taken Cliven Bundy's land for that, and paid for it.
Note: Do not presume that I believe said treaties are constitutionally legitimate.
The very idea that one particular parcel will remain suitable for a particular species in a dynamic system is based in this delusional idea that "Nature" is unchanging. What needs to happen is that a contract is let is for maintenance of said species. For example, Cliven Bundy's property was ideal for the desert tortoise. Hence, he would be in a favorable position to win that contract.
It is as I said: The Feds can only have land that they need to perform the functions they were authorized to do. Common sense was a founding father strong suit.
Great post!