[brityank]

"Article IV was originally included in the Constitution by the founders for the purpose of governing territories belonging to the union. In numerous instances the Supreme Court has said that Article IV jurisdiction is without limitation and does not afford citizens their constitutional rights and protections. Mistakenly, it is now assumed that Article IV jurisdiction can be applied to citizens within sovereign and admitted states to the union. Hence, all basic God-given constitutional rights and guarantees are denied citizens who are made subject to the authority under which the BLM and Forest Service operate namely Article IV. In other words, they are treated like citizens of a territory without constitutional rights instead of citizens of a sovereign and admitted state of the union with the full protection of the Constitution," explained Rancher Cliff Gardner, a long-time Constitutional scholar.

 

So could this explain why the BLM rides roughshod over the constitutional rights of the citizens it wishes to oppress?

[brityank]

Another brick for the pile.

[dixiechick2000]

Great post! Thanks for the update and the ping!
Since the Feds felt the need to pick on someone, I'm glad they found themselves up against a constitutional scholar.

Cliff Gardner bump!
(or should that be "rattled judge" bump?);o)

[Valin]

If anyone is putting together a bumplist for this please put me on it.

[swheats]

Seems Gardner is the fly in the ointment here. If they had to pick on someone I'm glad he's a long-time Constitutional scholar. There just seems to be something poetic about this.

[SuperLuminal]

BTTT

[The Man]

A couple of points.

One, if the federal government owns the land, it has the right to do with it as it pleases. If it has broken a leasing contract with Mr. Gardner, he has recourse in the federal courts to protect his rights.

Two, an Article III federal judge has jurisdiction to enforce the entire constitution. The issue is whether Mr. Gardner has any property rights that are being taken without compensation.

Three, the phrase "so-called" public lands might tip discerning members of this forum off that this so called constitutional scholar just might be a nutcase. These lands are either owned by the government or they are owned by someone else.

Four, it is well past time that the federal government sell these lands, as there is no real legitimate national interest in its keeping all of them.