Posted on 06/07/2015 10:14:54 AM PDT by redreno
BATTLE MOUNTAIN, Nev. (AP) Federal land managers say they won't immediately enforce drought-related grazing restrictions in northern Nevada so as to avoid confrontation with ranchers openly defying the order.
Conservationists say it's another example of the government caving in to scofflaw ranchers like Cliven Bundy, who continues to graze his cattle illegally in southern Nevada after the Bureau of Land Management backed down from an armed standoff last year.
Ranchers Dan and Eddyann Filippini have been notified they are violating the closure ordered in 2013 in an area covering more than 150 square miles near Battle Mountain about 200 miles northeast of Reno, Bureau of Land Management spokesman Rudy Evenson said Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at trove.com ...
Ask this question. If the federal government is allowed to OWN land, then why is it that all lands they hold, other than those listed in art 1 sec 8, are being managed under a trust? HUH? That, my friend is how they got around the constitution. Here is a fact for all of our federal this and federal that friends. The trust is being violated, and that trust can be disolved and given back to the states, the local counties, or townships.
How could the federal government organize territories if, as you say, it didn't own the land?
Then after application and being accepted, become states sovereign, joining the union of states. The federal government relinquishes all such, other than Indian lands. Indian lands are in fact a seperate entity within the federal government.
Read the enabling acts.
And your basis for this claim is what exactly?
If you repeat something often enough and use enough CAPITALS, it will eventually become true.
The section in question addresses the power of Congress to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over territory within a state purchased with the agreement of the state legislature.
Public, federally owned lands within a state are not under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress. If I kill somebody on BLM or National Forest land, it’s a state crime, not a federal crime. AFAIK, anyway.
Then why the need for Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2?
OK, so I bit the bullet and watched it. I think the money quote is about the 17:20 point where he says, "This is me. This is Stephen Pratt speaking." The whole thing is nothing more or less that his loony interpretation of the Constitution.
Do your own research. They are managed by the federal government under a trust.
No, any lands for defense purposes and such are constitutional. Which proves to me you have never read article 1 section 8.
And yet you can't identify that trust or what defines it. And you want me to do homework.
Oh I read it, while you seem to persist in ignoring Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2. In an case, Article I, Section 8 explicitly provides for forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings. I see nothing in their about airport runways, rocket launch sites, interstate highways, and the like. And since implied powers are not provided for by the Constitution, then by your definition such facilities are unconstitutional.
Pretty simple for you to do. What is the matter? Cant ring up the google thingy and search federal lands held under trusts?
“If I kill somebody on BLM or National Forest land, its a state crime, not a federal crime. AFAIK, anyway.”
It’s both, and the Feds have jurisdiction.
I wasn't the one making the claim about trusts and all, and I assumed you would be able to back up your statements. It appears I was wrong.
While we’re at it, did you ever read any of the enabling acts for the states in question?
Mr. Pratt substantiated most of his statements with excerpts from historical materials which included writings by the founders, constitutional clauses, references to the Articles of Confederaton, and Supreme Court case excerpts. So thank you for at least watching video. But I dont think that you were interested in hearing about possible constitutional problems with the land in question the first place.
Cant do research chum? Then all of your so called claims are false. No time for hacks like you.
Your correct. There are a few on this site who are big government hacks and I have had run ins with those in the past. These two are the prime example. Most likely, they make big money off from it..kinda like their hero, Harry Reid.
And there are just as many, if not more, that disagree with him. At the end of the day it's his opinion and his alone. That and a couple of bucks will get him a latte at any Starbucks.
But I dont think that you were interested in hearing about possible constitutional problems with the land in question the first place.
In all of this, not once have I heard either of you reference Article IV, Section 3. Neither of you have bothered to read any of the enabling acts. And I'm still waiting for an explanation on how, if the government cannot own land outside of D.C. then how it was possible for it to create territories and states on land you say it could not own?
Let the states manage these federal lands. Sure you’ll have corruption, but at least it will be local and growth oriented.
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.