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.
Just wondering what your take is on this, thanks.
The federal courts have unlimited funds. Does he?
an Article III federal judge has jurisdiction
See post #22.
These lands are either owned by the government or they are owned by someone else.
Nevada became a state 31 October, 1864. "Our property, our livelihood, our ranch which has been in the family since 1862 ..." He owns the land, not the federal government..
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.
Something we can both agree on. Do a search on Klamath Basin Crisis or CARA for more info.
Well, ya know what? You just brought up the crux of the whole matter! Times have changed. The settlers, be they ranchers or farmers did our government a huge favor in taming a wilderness our government was way over it's head in governing!
Now that the blue noses in the blue zones think they've got the whole world by the ass, so they can just spit on these people that have been some of the best Americans in taming the "wild wild west" while eaking out a living of sorts with all of their improvements. It's been kinda like a "triple net lease" deal. Their descendents aren't voluntarily leaving the improvements behind... they're being forced to, sometimes at the point of a bunch of armed Federal Agents like Mr. Hage was! It's criminal IMHO!
Now the smart-assed enviro-whackos have decided that they're gonna infest our GovernMental agencies with their EnvironMental totalitarianism, using the NGO EnvironMental litigators, pushed by EnvironMental allegators, alleging just what you are saying, except they want the land socialized, supposedly for "the good of all!"
It's a load of crap and nothing but GOVERNMENT BY WHIM!!!
I just knew this kind of renegging would start, the minute John Wayne died and Ronald Reagan lost his health! This all sucks major canal water and stinks to high heaven!
Nobody likes a renegger and the US Government is being made into one of the biggest reneggers in world history, toward the best of it's own people... western ranchers and farmers!!!
Here we thought the indigineous peoples were screwed by the US Government, now look what's happening. It's beyond shameful!
The original colonies became separate states in a confedration afterthe Recolutionary War. They each inherited all the sovereign lands that had formerly been owned by the king. (Sovereign lands include wastelands not settled as well as bed and banks of navigable streams up to high or low water mark depending on tidal influence.) The "wastelands" could be patented to individuals by the state.
The "western wastelands" east of the Mississippi were in disputed ownership. The money from their patent to individuals would be used to settle the state's war debt. The solution was to deed much of these lands to the new corporate federal entity created by the new Constitution. These were ruled by Congress as if they were colonies under plans that allowed for the creation of new states and admittance at a certain population level. Congress sold the unused wastelands to individuals for the money. It kept no lands in federal ownership.
The area west of the Mississippi was not deeded to the corporate Congress. For the most part, it was aquired by treaty from European Countries or Mexico. The rule there under international law was that the old country's laws would continue until supplanted by new. They were treated like a territory in the Courts.
The wastelands, however, did not belong to the federal government. They belonged to the nation as public domain. The definition of "public land" is actially land that has been surveyed and is ready for disposal into individual hands.
The West was governed under derivatives of Roman property law. This recognized the equitable principals of "first in time, first in right," occupancy and continuous beneficial use. Homesteaders established equitable rights to water and land, perfect among men on the State level, but not perfected with a title against any claims of "the Sovereign."
What this means, is that the federal government had to issue a patent on land, which served as its quit claim and tribunal judgement that Indian occupancy was extinguished and there was no international treaty obligation upon the land. (There has been a ruling that the federal government cannot fail to issue a patent if there are no outstanding national obligations and the claim has been perfected.)
Old grazing allotments are property under equity that the federal government has refused to issue a patent on. (The grazer generally also owns the water use right which is a property dependent upon state law.)
The grazer is taxed for his exlusive right to use by the state with a possessory tax. The IRS also taxes the market value of the grazing allotment as part of the total ranch operation under estate taxes.
Under the "Equal footing" doctrine, all states were to be admitted on an equal footing with the original 13. This has not been the case. The federal government has "withdrawn" large areas of the public domain into federal ownership by declaring them off limits to individual acquisition. They have done this by refusing to issue a patent. (The public domain lands were a trust while the lands were in territorial status for the benefit of the future citizens of the new states that would contain them. Instead, the trustee has kept the benefit of the trust for itself. East of the Mississippi, federal lands were either purchased or donated and deeded to the federal government.)
The "Federal lands" inside the Western states are held by the corporate federal United States as belonging to all the states. The laws governing them are made by all the states in Congress. The Courts for those rules are administrative courts. Under Kleppe v. New Mexico, SCOTUS denied the supremacy of local police powers as applying to these "federal lands." Although the Constitution does provide for exclusive federal legislation in forts, arsenals, etc., absent a deed of cession of jusrisdiction from the state, legislative exclusivity was never intended to apply to vast areas inside a state. (The West was not part of the United States when the Constitution was written.)
Anyway, that is some of the basis for Cliff's claim. He is basing his claims on possessory, equitable rights good against all men to continue grazing the land as was done before the trustee "withdrew" the lands. He is questioning the feds right to preempt state jurisdiction and oust his Constitutional rights. (Did you know that in a Administrative law court you can't bring in your own evidence, cross examine witnesses or get a jury trial?)
It is obvious that the Western states are not on an equal footing with the eastern states.