Posted on 04/29/2014 10:31:41 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Ted Cruz feels the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) should be reducing claims on public lands. The Republican Texas Senator is among those lawmakers weighing in on the Red River Texas and Oklahoma boundary dispute with the federal agency.
As previously reported by The Inquisitr, the BLM Red River boundary dispute may cause approximately 90,000 acres of privately held land to fall into the hands of the federal government. Texas rancher Tommy Henderson has become the focal point of the BLM dispute. Supporters from around the country are rallying around Henderson, much in the same manner as protesters did for Cliven Bundy and the Bundy ranch standoff in Nevada. Armed BLM agents have not arrived in Texas as they did in Bunkerville, but the issue many are calling yet another “land grab” by the federal agency could ultimately evolve into a similar standoff.
US Senator Ted Cruz, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, and Governor Rick Perry have all commented on the plight of rancher Tommy Henderson and his neighbors along the Red River.
Cruz had this to say about the BLM attempting to claim land which is currently held in private hands with a legal deed in the Lone Star State:
“This is an important story that Breitbart broke and it is something that concerns me a great deal. In my view, the BLM already controls far too much land. We should be reducing the amount of federal land that the BLM controls and the amount of land that the federal government owns.”
(Excerpt) Read more at inquisitr.com ...
Why should we “sell”, or give more money to the government for something that was already in private holdings, before the BLM (government) forced its relinquishment by private citizens???
I mean, I am absolutely sure someone would tell me I am wrong, but I have a feeling that some of the “land” acquired by the government was done so under the guise of regulation, passed by congress, utilized for someone’s financial benefit, and NEVER questioned enough or fought against enough when it occurred...
So the latest round of BLM and government action to deprive citizens of their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is obviously only a minor stumbling block to the aforementioned government and its maneuvering conniving officials that work “deals” to benefit from these acquisitions...
Just look at the ties alleged about Harry Reid and the ChiComs, and the solar panel farm and factory on or near the Bundy ranchland...It is obvious the government isn’t making enough money on allowing a citizen to utilize that land for just grazing...So the solar farm and factory IS absolutely a viable and fiduciary boom for a few folks in on that deal...It makes sense...We may not like it, but it has to be that simple of a deal...
The natural resources underneath and around the Red River basin (easement makes sense too!!!It is a relatively challenging navigable stretch of waterway, which can be fixed by spending more tax revenue on a Corp of Engineering project to make it workable for transporting whatever they can up and down that waterway...
Historically, Texas has had extreme challenges in the use of its rivers, there is not a lot of “naturally” usable rivers, unless it is close to the coast, to use for commerce...
So I guess my point is multi-faceted...I believe there is ALWAYS a monetary benefit to the government using its BLM office to intimidate, under orders, citizens to just get them to comply, when the courts and other legal proceedings are refused, which has been very few times...But it is starting to really backlash and people are starting to question and fight back in those arenas...
A “standoff” as we have seen in Nevada, is only one of the most visible instances where we have seen how far each side is willing to go, in fighting against one another to see who can wee-wee up the wall higher than the other...
The government wasn’t prepared for that this time...
Guess what, they will not make that mistake again...
I do not believe the citizens will just go quietly next time...
The question is, “Who will be blamed for any violence, escalation, or outcome of the next encounter???”
I bet with the help of the MSM, including your semi-conservative FoxNews will be inundated with the governments side of the deal way before the truth does get out...
Our side needs to be smarter and prepared for that to be the initial opinion of the public...
The more cameras and recordings of ANY and EVERY encounter with government forces needs to happen from multiple sources...
So having those recording devices is as important as having “other” capabilities in hand as well...
This is only going to grow over time. Look at the following link for what
the BLM will be doing in TX/OK/KS in the next few years.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/219455667/OFO-Newsletter-Final-i
Read the 12th Amendment.
[ I would love to see President Cruz issue an executive order returning all federal lands not officially national forests or national parks to the states.
LOL the Dems could do nothing but cry and stomp their feet because they don’t have any standing. ]
To the Libs that would be grounds for Impeachment by their crappy standards...
What's the market value of an acre of the Mojave desert?
That’s a lot of acreage...
Resource Management Plan...
Please...
Revenue Manipulation Plan...That would be more to the truth...
Only 1.8% of TX is "owned" by the FedGov and I'm sure they want a much larger toehold, so they have room for their massive jack-boot!
He doesn't have the authority. Only Congress can do that per Article IV Section 3.
They wouldn’t make it past Waxahachie.
I say let them. Then we burn them down.
Background info on the Henderson case and the Oklahoma/Texas Boundary are noted below:
The ADAMS/ONIS TREATY of 1819:
http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Adams_Onis_Treaty_1819.pdf
SUPREME COURT CASES:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/260/606
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/457/172
Rule of ERROSION and ACCRETION: If a stream changes gradually due to natural errosion and accretion, the boundary changes. (With current day technology, I don't know that this is even necessary).
Rule of AVULSION: If a river suddenly leaves it’s bed and forms a new one whether by natural or some other means, the boundary does not change, even though the course of the river changes.
A brief description of each and how they impact Texas and the HENDERSON CASE.
This treaty of 1819 settled the boundaries of USA purchase/ownership of land. One of the issues was the boundary between current day Oklahoma and Texas.
Adams was determined to have the whole of the Red River belong to the USA. The Spanish representative wanted it to be the medial point of the River, but eventually aquiesed to Adams.(Note many states do use the medial line of a river as the boundary between them). If the medial point had been chosen, there would not have been as much contention.
Both parties agreed that the people of both nations could continue to use the Red River. Any islands in the River were to also be the property of the USA. Any grants made prior to Jan 24, 1818 to individuals were to be honored.
The Supreme Court relied heavily on the Treaty in their decision regarding the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma. There is also the treaty with the Indians to consider, which I haven’t had time to track down.
The various court rulings have resulted in the following:
1. Oklahoma Plaintiffs awarded the lands north of the medial line of the Red River.
2. Lands lying in the bed of the river south of the medial line are in trust for the Indians (owned by USA).
3. Lands of the south bank belong to Texas Land Owners subject to the rules of erosion, accretion, and avulsion.
4. The bank of the river on the south side was determined by the Supreme Court to be the high water mark - not the low water mark.(I agree with the dissenting opinion here - it should have been the low water mark).
The judge who ruled on the Henderson case relied on the prior court rulings and the rules of erosion, accretion, and avulsion. Here’s a link to the case:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/220303420/Currington-v-Henderson-1986
It sucks. I think if Henderson could trace the ownership back to an original Spanish Land Grant which included ownership to the medial point of the River, or even to the low water mark, he might have been able to prevail.
His family had ownership back to the later 1800’s, IIRC from his interview with Greta, but not back to 1818.
Note: In all the agreements and info I have tracked down so far, the rights of individual landowners have been acknowledged. However, the courts have apparently not recognized the deeds, looking instead back to the Adams/Onis Treaty.
I guess some one will have to give him a Pen and a Phone then.
I don’t know the answer to your questions especially as it pertains to individual states. I do know that a number of the original colonies ceded their ownership/interest in the western lands subject to the agreement that it would be opened to private ownership etc as per the Constitution.
Even when the USA purchased land from other nations, the funds they used, came from the various states of the Union, and were to be handled the same way. The USA can not constitutionally own all the land they do. They were to manage it for the public trust until statehood.
After statehood the US Government was to buy back only those lands for the specified purposes such as forts etc.
Apparently the US bought much of the lands now withing the National Forests located withing the State of Michigan. The US "owns" ~10% of Michigan, a relative high fraction for a State east of the Missouri.
Does the FedGov have ownership? It was settled between TX and OK decades ago as private land, titled to private citizens during the late 19th and early 20th century.
**********************************************************
See my post #51. The original boundary between Texas and Oklahoma was established by the Adams/Onis Treaty of 1819 between the USA and Spain.
Oklahoma and all of the Red River went to the USA, and Texas went to Spain. Even though private ownership of the land may be in question, it doesn’t get around the fact that constitutionally it should be.
Did they buy it, or just fail to relinquish it?
Agenda 21 requires Gov’t ownership and total control of most lands outside of cooperative cities and towns.
Obama may wipe his behind with the Constitution but I expect that Ted Cruz has more respect for it than that.
Michigan State Forest land was largely obtained by reversion to the State gov't by failure to pay property taxes.
“Careful what you wish for Senator. The BLM will end up selling it off to China.”
Seriously that is not a problem!
If china decides to do something nasty with it we can just eminent domain the land. Or pass local ordinances that put them out of business. Its not like china gets voting rights.
Im not pro-china, Im just telling you it doesn’t make a difference who outside of the Federal government Owns the land.
Any other player has to be on the market, because EVERY OTHER PLAYER is subject to State & local law and taxation!
Our goal should be to have Washington Sell off theses land holdings to ANYONE who can or will pay, and do it as quickly as possible.
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.