Posted on 01/03/2016 9:04:52 PM PST by Nextrush
Ammon Bundy emerged from a small brick building at the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge shortly after 11am.
He wouldn't say how many protestors were present at the site of the occupied federal complex, but fewer than 20 people were visible Sunday afternoon.
The leader of the occupation spoke in cool, calm tones as he explained why and other self-described militiamen broke into and took over the complex Saturday......
Protestor LaVoy Finicum, an Arizona rancher, said they're being careful not to damage the buildings or property. He claimed the protestors accessed the buildings after they found a set of keys. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service disputed that claim.......
When asked how long they plan to occupy the complex, Bundy would only say, 'for as long as it takes.'
Finicum said he plans to stay 'until the constitution is upheld." They brought food, fuel and supplies and local supporters visited the site Sunday adding to the stockpile.
Bundy said he hasn't heard from any law enforcement "since we made the stand." No officers were visible near the refuge, nor were marked police vehicles patrolling the remote ice-covered highways near the site.
But Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden said federal and local officers are paying close attention.
"They're following it literally by the minute and that's whey it's so important that we have this close coordination between the FBI, which of course takes the lead at the federal level, because of the wildlife refuge, and the state police and the Harney County Sheriff's Office," Wyden said.
Oregon state police told OPB that a joint command center of federal, state and local law enforcement offices will be established Monday.......
(Excerpt) Read more at opb.org ...
Do some searching & find the story of Wayne Hage of Tonopah, Nevada & his fight with the Feds.
Wayne won the long running lawsuit, and was awarded many millions of dollars. Last I heard, the Feds haven’t paid & the interest is piling up. That money is YOUR tax money, people.
It is a complicated story, but Hage had proof of Federal employees sabotaging his property & his grazing rights.
When it was a Territory it was not a State. Once it became a State with defined borders it became sovereign. The Feds have no more control over the Land within it other then what the US Constitution allows for in the enumerated power - such as for Forts, Docks, etc. and Navigable waterways.
As Such since it is a Sovereign State NOW Section 8 Paragraph 17 controls. Not what was from before it became a State per the US Constitution.
amazon (or whatever) drones would simply become targets for government snipers.
a theoretically better response would be catapults or compressed air cannons if civilians could get close enough (which the feds then might not permit).
(is this going to become another waco?)
no, it makes sense because that was essentially gandhi’s and mlk’s message.
it is more effective if everyone realizes that you had options readily available and you deliberately eschewed them. it makes you look that much more brave (in a sense). the feds are not supposed to incinerate or annihilate unarmed civilians.
Near sonic low flying drones....
And would you be okay with the Feds coming onto your land, where you owned the water rights, and fenced off the water source so your cattle could not get to water? Because the Feds did that to the Hammonds.
Nonsense. In just about every enabling act creating states in the west it is clearly stated what land was being transferred to the new state. All other land remained the property of the U.S.
As Such since it is a Sovereign State NOW Section 8 Paragraph 17 controls. Not what was from before it became a State per the US Constitution.
Nothing in that negates the Property Clause in Article IV, Section 3.
And you base this claim on....?
"(c) In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with "disturbing and interfering with" federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony). He spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland before he was hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.
(d) The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond's private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond's ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS.
(e) Shortly after the road & water disputes, the BLM & FWS arbitrarily revoked the Hammond's upper grazing permit without any given cause, court proceeding or court ruling. As a traditional "fence out state" Oregon requires no obligation on the part of an owner to keep his or her livestock within a fence or to maintain control over the movement of the livestock. The Hammonds intended to still use their private property for grazing. However, they were informed that a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, that the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law. "Those laws are for the people, not for them."
(f) The Hammonds were forced to either build and maintain miles of fences or be restricted from the use of their private property. Cutting their ranch in almost half, they could not afford to fence the land, so the cattle were removed...." More at source.
Acts inconsistent with the language of the Constitution are VOID. What you claim are acts not Constitutional limits which nullify such overreaches of the federal government no matter who passes them. Acts are inferior to the Supreme Law of the land and Acts inconsistent with it are void. Its that simple.
By your logic, an Act of congress can legally create slavery or ban guns, etc. regardless of what the Constitution says.
Are they now. Because you say they are?
By your logic, an Act of congress can legally create slavery or ban guns, etc. regardless of what the Constitution says.
No it can't because the 13th and 2nd Amendments say they can't. But nothing explicitly states that the federal government can't own lands within the states. The very fact that we've created 37 states since the ratification of the Constitution shows that.
US Constitution Article 8 section 17 specifically limits what land the federal government can own within a State (as contrasted with a non-State territory) and how it has to go about it.
No it doesn't. It says Congress has control over D.C. and like control over facilities acquired from the states. It says nothing about property owned by the federal government before the state was admitted. And nothing prevents the government from retaining that ownership after the state was admitted. That authority is in Article IV, Section 3.
No it doesn't.
"Nothing in that negates the Property Clause in Article IV, Section 3" - which states in relevant part:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Bootstrapping (They own it because they own it) and Circular (calling a State a Territory) logical fallacies are not honest debate.
"...and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings."
They are limited to land for needful buildings/docks etc aka incidental to physical necessary buildings and structures, Not nature reserves or anything else outside that Specific Limitation.
Nor does misinterpreting Article I, Section 8.
There was no misinterpreting here on my part
Selective interpretation then. You're big on explicit, well Article I, Section 8 explicitly says "all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be..." The intent of that if obvious; property obtained from the states is the sole and exclusive responsibility of the federal government. There is no shared ownership or divided authority over it. But the land in Oregon that we're talking about was not obtained through the consent of the state legislature. No such consent was needed because the property was never owned by the states, and the legislature never had authority over it. Such property, as Article IV, Section 3 states, was the property of the federal government before the state as created and remained the property after the state was admitted. Only Congress could dispose of it, and only Congress, or its designated agents, can make any rules or regulations impacting it.
give it up, the parsing and selective editing will not negate the part about what they can have land for. Just because you do not like it will not make it go away.
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.