Bunkerville NV escalating.

[billt]

I know how big government is. And how it has been sucking the best out of the labor market for over a decade.

How can that be? Obama has never held a job in his entire life, and he holds the top spot ??

 

[hornadylnl]

How can that be? Obama has never held a job in his entire life, and he holds the top spot ??

Why he's perfectly suited for government employment.

 

[jamil]

There are about 2.65 million civil servants. But under Clinton we started adding contractors (sort of a backhanded way to have patronage). Under Bush and now Obama the contractors now make up nearly 8.5 million federal workers. If you do not understand how contracting works (think about how industry adds workers these days) then you cannot get a handle on how big the federal workforce is (over 10 million).

Yes, the 2.65M is employees, not counting contractors. I've done contract work so...

But even so, baby boomers retiring will have a way higher impact on government income than workforce availability.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Right out of Nevada's Constitution

Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;

 

[Trooper]

I just think that we might see thinks swing the other way.

The kids who are 14 and younger might be the ones to move it that way.

 

[jamil]

Right out of Nevada's Constitution

Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;

I've seen that. Their constitution reflects the US ass they had to kiss.

 

[Manatee]

Have you guys even read the 10th Amendment? Dave's right.

If it don't say it, and it don't prohibit it, it ain't the USG's, it's the state's or the people's. Period.

Unfortunately, you see the world as you wish it to be, not as it is.

 

[billt]

Sooner or later, these citizen / government showdowns are going to get bloody enough to make Waco and Ruby Ridge look like a day at the park. Both sides seem to have itchy trigger fingers, and there is more than enough hatred to go around.

 

[cobber]

Unfortunately, you see the world as you wish it to be, not as it is.

As the Founders intended, and not how the federal government has ignored the BoR.

You could say exactly the same thing about the 2d A. I guess we're already on that slippery slope, for some time now.



And it seems this was not BLM's first rodeo.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/144609491...sions-of-Law-and-Injunction-D-Nev-May-24-2013

They've been honing this to a fine art out west. I'm guessing if one peruses the BLM dockets and district court rulings, there have been many more of these situations. And in each one I'm sure the government tried to cast the ranchers as crackpots. As they try to do with gun owners.

 

[jamil]

Unfortunately, you see the world as you wish it to be, not as it is.

Huh? Okay, I guess you missed all the posts where I get slammed for my pragmatic views.

I know how the world is. You posted a vague disagreement to what what someone said about the constitution's intent, and I posted a paraphrase of the 10th Amendment that directly refutes your dissagreement.

Th reality is, the constitution is effectively just a meaningless historical document, without any true power to protect people from an overreaching government. The oligarchy gets to say that the constitution means whatever they want to do.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Huh? Okay, I guess you missed all the posts where I get slammed for my pragmatic views.

I know how the world is. You posted a vague disagreement to what what someone said about the constitution's intent, and I posted a paraphrase of the 10th Amendment that directly refutes your dissagreement.

Th reality is, the constitution is effectively just a meaningless historical document, without any true power to protect people from an overreaching government. The oligarchy gets to say that the constitution means whatever they want to do.

This really is one of the sources of the ills we find our selves confronted with, isn't it? The Constitution says what is says and means what it meant the day the ink dried (same for the amendments); not what current voters, politicians, and judges want it to mean. We, as a people, have decided it's easier to perpetuate the "living document" philosophy than amend it properly as we go.

 

[Destro]

You guys are NUTS!

You know why the constitution does not grant the authority of the Federal Government to own land? Because federal government ownership of vast areas of land PREDATES the constitution. Prior to the constitution we have today, we had the Articles of Confederation, which did NOT grant the congress authority to tax citizens. Needing $$$, Some of the founding fathers got together (led by Thomas Jefferson) and drafted the Land Ordinance of 1785. Under this, the Continental Congress was able to sell off land the government owned to raise $$$ until the ability to levy tax was included in the constitution.

I think we can agree that, in order to sell something you must own something. If the founders had intended the government not to OWN land, they would have written it into the constitution. They didn’t seem to have a problem with owning it prior to the signing of the constitution, what evidence is there it was the intent of the founders for the federal government not to own land, particular when there is ample evidence they DIDN’T have a problem with it?

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Right out of Nevada's Constitution

Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;

In other words, Nevada paid a ransom to the federal government in return for statehood.

That crap won't flush. Sleazy politicians can't barter away the rights of their citizens. All the land within the borders of the state of Nevada (and all states for that matter) that the federal government acquired by means OTHER than that specifically provided for in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution belongs to those states.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You guys are NUTS!

You know why the constitution does not grant the authority of the Federal Government to own land? Because federal government ownership of vast areas of land PREDATES the constitution. Prior to the constitution we have today, we had the Articles of Confederation, which did NOT grant the congress authority to tax citizens. Needing $$$, Some of the founding fathers got together (led by Thomas Jefferson) and drafted the Land Ordinance of 1785. Under this, the Continental Congress was able to sell off land the government owned to raise $$$ until the ability to levy tax was included in the constitution.

I think we can agree that, in order to sell something you must own something. If the founders had intended the government not to OWN land, they would have written it into the constitution. They didn’t seem to have a problem with owning it prior to the signing of the constitution, what evidence is there it was the intent of the founders for the federal government not to own land, particular when there is ample evidence they DIDN’T have a problem with it?

No, you have it completely backwards. If the Constitution does not grant the federal government authority to engage in a specific activity, it does not have that authority, plain and simple. Fact of the matter, this was the argument Alexander Hamilton used to demonstrate that the BoR was completely unnecessary, that the Constitution did not give the federal government any authority whatsoever to engage in violating any of the principles which became the first ten amendments.

Once again, the Constitution is an instrument of granting a limited amount of authority and nothing more, as opposed to being a list of prohibited actions.

Incidentally, you may notice that the federal government did not retain large portions of the states created from the Northwest Territory or the Louisiana Territory. If this argument were sound, one would have expected the same thing to have been done the same way.

 

[Destro]

No, you have it completely backwards. If the Constitution does not grant the federal government authority to engage in a specific activity, it does not have that authority

It's called an Inherent Power, and it's a real thing!

 

[IndyDave1776]

It's called an Inherent Power, and it's a real thing!

Then why was it necessary to fill Article I Section 8 full of stuff that governments necessarily do? Why do you think Hamilton, who was a participant in the process, didn't know what he was talking about?

 

[Destro]

Then why was it necessary to fill Article I Section 8 full of stuff that governments necessarily do? Why do you think Hamilton, who was a participant in the process, didn't know what he was talking about?

I think you are completely missing the point of what Alexander Hamilton was talking about.

Inherent Powers comes from Article 1, Section 8, clause 18.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Hamilton was a subscriber to the idea behind it because he knew congress couldn't possible account for all situations, congress needed to be able to carry out what is necessary and proper


Here are 2 quotes from Hamilton about the subject.

"It is conceded, that implied powers are to be considered as delegated equally with express ones."

"It will not be doubted that if the United States should make a conquest of any of the territories of its neighbours, they would possess sovereign jurisdiction over the conquered territory. This would rather be a result from the whole mass of the powers of the government and from the nature of political society, than a consequence of either of the powers specially enumerated."

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18: Alexander Hamilton, Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bank

 

[Kutnupe14]

Huh? Okay, I guess you missed all the posts where I get slammed for my pragmatic views.

I know how the world is. You posted a vague disagreement to what what someone said about the constitution's intent, and I posted a paraphrase of the 10th Amendment that directly refutes your dissagreement.

Th reality is, the constitution is effectively just a meaningless historical document, without any true power to protect people from an overreaching government. The oligarchy gets to say that the constitution means whatever they want to do.

Sad, but that is the reality of it. It's a 200 year old document that has changed only a few times. The word has gotten more complicated; the people and the govt. The document should have evolved to address legitimate issues with expanding govt and the change in the people governed. It's a faboulous document that had the provisions, contained within it, continually protect the people and smack down government overreach. Unfortunately we haven't let the govt live up to what it should, and can be.

 

[Manatee]

Then why was it necessary to fill Article I Section 8 full of stuff that governments necessarily do? Why do you think Hamilton, who was a participant in the process, didn't know what he was talking about?

You realize, of course, that many of Hamilton's ideas were specifically avoided by the majority of the founders and the states? What you intimate by name dropping and provision dropping is utter bravo sierra.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

I think you are completely missing the point of what Alexander Hamilton was talking about.

Inherent Powers comes from Article 1, Section 8, clause 18.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Hamilton was a subscriber to the idea behind it because he knew congress couldn't possible account for all situations, congress needed to be able to carry out what is necessary and proper


Here are 2 quotes from Hamilton about the subject.

"It is conceded, that implied powers are to be considered as delegated equally with express ones."

"It will not be doubted that if the United States should make a conquest of any of the territories of its neighbours, they would possess sovereign jurisdiction over the conquered territory. This would rather be a result from the whole mass of the powers of the government and from the nature of political society, than a consequence of either of the powers specially enumerated."

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18: Alexander Hamilton, Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bank

Why is the 10th amendment invisible here?

The "foregoing powers" and "all other powers" listed in that clause are the ones listed in Article 1, Section 8. Note that the clause says "Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States." It doesn't say ALL powers. The federal government doesn't have other powers just because they SAY they have them. They must be stated in the Constitution. Any that are NOT stated fall to the states, just like the 10th amendment says.

Some people are reading clause 18 as if it confers limitless power on the federal government. If that is the case, why do we even HAVE a Constitution???