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

To: squarebarb

Every Freeper should acknowledge that these ranchers and their supporters have highlighted a serious issue that normally gets little attention. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO HOLD LANDS WITHIN A STATE UNLESS IT CAN SHOW A SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL REASON TO DO SO.


5 posted on 02/11/2016 9:06:51 AM PST by freedomjusticeruleoflaw (Western Civilization- whisper the words, and it will disappear. So let us talk now about rebirth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: freedomjusticeruleoflaw; johnsmom; Jeff Head; squarebarb; lacrew; Hieronymus; tumblindice; ...
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO HOLD LANDS WITHIN A STATE UNLESS IT CAN SHOW A SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL REASON TO DO SO.

Yes. The feds are in the wrong here and hold this land illegally and unconstitutionally. The ONLY reason I know of in the Constitution fro the feds to hold state lands is

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 (Art i, Sec 8, Cl 17).

National Parks and the like are patently unconstitutional. Unconstitutional federal acts are by definition acts of tyranny. The National Parks that Teddy Roosevelt started could be called "feel-good tyranny." Sooner or later, as here, tyranny will not feel good but will feel deadly.

This cannot be fought on an individual or small group scale alone. They MUST have state backing. Here it's up to the state of Oregon.

States must reclaim their own lands and kick the feds out. PERIOD!

94 posted on 02/11/2016 10:53:11 AM PST by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | 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