Bunkerville NV escalating.

[IndyDave1776]

Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2: Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1317--22

2: 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.

Let's see...we again have the same false dilemma all over again. Federal jurisdiction over territories is one thing. Federal jurisdiction over portions of states in some cases making up the majority of the land areas of those states is something entirely different.

I am surprised that you posted this, given that the author addresses only the proper administration of territories, not states, and expresses a fear of the federal government having too much money with which to cause mischief. I fail to see how this helps your argument. Federal control of land within states is not addressed so far as I can tell, as is the case with the portion of the Constitution cited.

 

[Destro]

Let's see...we again have the same false dilemma all over again. Federal jurisdiction over territories is one thing. Federal jurisdiction over portions of states in some cases making up the majority of the land areas of those states is something entirely different.

I am surprised that you posted this, given that the author addresses only the proper administration of territories, not states, and expresses a fear of the federal government having too much money with which to cause mischief. I fail to see how this helps your argument. Federal control of land within states is not addressed so far as I can tell, as is the case with the portion of the Constitution cited.

Arguments were made that the constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to own and administer land, and that it was only permitted to administer what was laid out in strict interpretation of Article 1/Section 8.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Let's see...we again have the same false dilemma all over again. Federal jurisdiction over territories is one thing. Federal jurisdiction over portions of states in some cases making up the majority of the land areas of those states is something entirely different.

I am surprised that you posted this, given that the author addresses only the proper administration of territories, not states, and expresses a fear of the federal government having too much money with which to cause mischief. I fail to see how this helps your argument. Federal control of land within states is not addressed so far as I can tell, as is the case with the portion of the Constitution cited.

Indian Reservations, federal or state property?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Arguments were made that the constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to own and administer land, and that it was only permitted to administer what was laid out in strict interpretation of Article 1/Section 8.

As a strict constructionist, I generally take this view. The primary exception that I accept comes in cases like the one you mentioned previously in which Jefferson was faced with a situation that the Constitution did not cover with congress not in session and not going to be in session in time to deal with it. In my reckoning, this is far removed from the more recent trend of ignoring the constitution out of convenience to the violator's preferences rather than out of a genuine need created by the lack of any reasonable alternative staying strictly withing the boundaries. In a matter of speaking, I see it as the difference between coloring outside the lines a little bit here and there and refusing to accept the notion that any lines exist.

I see the entire notion of the federal government transitioning from rightly administering territories which are not states to owning and controlling double-digit percentages of the land area of states analogous with someone exercising parental custody over their children indefinitely into adulthood. It gets frustrating that Manatee in particular can't grasp this distinction. Likewise, I can grasp that in 18th Century-speak, a 'needful building' could be most any construct other than a ship, taking in harbors, dockyards, and also things like airports had then been invented or foreseen. Forts, we may recall, tended to be complexes rather than single structures. There is a lot of leeway here. I just don't see it stretching to millions of acres or to commercial enterprises.

As for Bundy, it is a complex enough issue that I may well have made a wrong turn somewhere, but my understanding is that his grandfather or great-grandfather bought the grazing rights in perpetuity, just like buying mineral rights, which becomes the property of the owner permanently. After 50 or 60 years, the BLM comes along with this neat plan to maintain the land and render certain services for a fee, and Bundy Sr. says 'sure thing'. Fast forward to the 1990s, the BLM stops rendering the services, demands signing a new agreement which cedes the grazing rights, which are Bundy's permanent bought and paid for property, to the BLM, stops accepting the fees, and Bundy tells them to get bent. Then the BLM treats the situation like having a renter who quits paying. Then they duke it out in court, ending up in federal court which unsurprisingly sides with the government. Although I lack the lawyerly skills to sort out the ugly details of the court proceedings, my suspicion is that it is just as unbiased as when Lon Horiuchi was prosecuted for murder, used his position as a federal employee to appeal to Caesar and automatically have his trial moved to federal court which promptly dismissed the charges in spite of the fact he was clearly a cold-blooded murderer. After something like that, I have to wonder if there is any abuse aside from a few which distress the politically correct crowd which will ever be remedied in federal court.

 

[Manatee]

It sounds like you are backpedalling on Bundy….and well you should. Bundy's family has not owned the ranch that he claims has been in his family since the 1880's. In fact, his father bought the 160 acre ranch from Raoul Leavitt in 1948, 2 years after the BLM was formed. There is no other written documentation held by Bundy, the state of Nevada or the county records office that predates ANY claim to 1948. What Bundy claims is a lie and utter bs.

Any possible "historic and ancient claim" he has to the desert surrounding his ranch dates only to the middle of the 20th century, NOT the 19th century. I've got better historic and ancient claims than he has.

ps. his dad didn't start raising cattle until 1954.

Like I said, the man is a lunatic. Now, you can add fraud, grifter and deadbeat to the list. The Oathkeepers have been bamboozled.

The problem with being a strict constitutional constructionist is that your opinion of what the articles say is not any more valid than any other persons. That's why we have courts. It is up to the court to apply the law to the situation.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It sounds like you are backpedalling on Bundy….and well you should. Bundy's family has not owned the ranch that he claims has been in his family since the 1880's. In fact, his father bought the 160 acre ranch from Raoul Leavitt in 1948, 2 years after the BLM was formed. There is no other written documentation held by Bundy, the state of Nevada or the county records office that predates ANY claim to 1948. What Bundy claims is a lie and utter bs.

Any possible "historic and ancient claim" he has to the desert surrounding his ranch dates only to the middle of the 20th century, NOT the 19th century. I've got better historic and ancient claims than he has.

ps. his dad didn't start raising cattle until 1954.

Like I said, the man is a lunatic. Now, you can add fraud, grifter and deadbeat to the list. The Oathkeepers have been bamboozled.

The problem with being a strict constitutional constructionist is that your opinion of what the articles say is not any more valid than any other persons. That's why we have courts. It is up to the court to apply the law to the situation.

First, I am not backpedaling at all. As I have repeated several times, my position has nothing to do with the person of Bundy. It is about the feds involving themselves in things in which they have no business and no constitutional authority.

As for the person of Bundy, one of two things must be true: Either he legally acquired grazing rights at some point or he did not. In either case, the response is completely unacceptable. My guess, given the way the feds operate, is that if Bundy's position were completely lacking merit, he would have won a vacation to Club Fed a long time ago.

I also believe you are wrong about the Oath Keepers. I am satisfied that their position, like mine, does not rest on the person of Bundy but rather that their core purpose is keeping those who swear to uphold and defend the Constitution honest in doing so, and that you don't pull this sh*t regardless of circumstances.

You also seem to lack understanding of the Constitution, particularly from the perspective of a strict constructionist. One of the fundamental elements of this understanding is that if the Constitution doesn't say it, it damned well isn't there. Given that you believe in resting on the courts as final arbiter not only in practice but what you accept as objective truth, never mind that the courts have been shamelessly partisan for a long time and do not hesitate to pull contrived authority out of the white spaces between the lines, so far as liberty is concerned, you have already dropped your pants, bent over, and greased up.

 

[Manatee]

Delusional.

Let's just say that I would likely accept the court's opinion before I would accept yours on this matter.

I wonder if Bundy would loan you his flag? He seems to have rejected his association with the USA.

[/IMG]

 

[Liberty Sanders]

I got it!

Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2

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.

Property LEGALLY belonging to the United States. The standard by which they acquire it is still Article 1, Section 8.

 

[Manatee]

So, you object to the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo and want to give Nevada back to Mexico? Or to the Apache?

 

[jamil]

So, you object to the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo and want to give Nevada back to Mexico? Or to the Apache?

Will they take Harry Reid?

 

[Manatee]

Harry is a member of a religious group that believes some Egyptian papyrus from a book of the dead is the long lost Book of Abraham. There isn't much hope for people that are that delusional.

 

[HoughMade]

Harry is a member of a religious group that believes some Egyptian papyrus from a book of the dead is the long lost Book of Abraham. There isn't much hope for people that are that delusional.

I'll not attack the man for his religion (on this forum anyway), but what I will​ say is that I find it odd that his political stances are oft diametrically opposed to his claimed belief system.

 

[jamil]

Harry is a member of a religious group that believes some Egyptian papyrus from a book of the dead is the long lost Book of Abraham. There isn't much hope for people that are that delusional.

So you're saying they won't take Harry Reid?

I'm not going to judge a man by what he believes. I'll judge him by what he does. And, honestly, judging from his actions, I think his religious belief is that he should run the world.

 

[Manatee]

Belief ultimately impacts action, so it is with a jaundiced eye that look upon the activities of both of these men.

 

[jbombelli]

Harry is a member of a religious group that believes some Egyptian papyrus from a book of the dead is the long lost Book of Abraham. There isn't much hope for people that are that delusional.

Bashing religion now too are we?

 

[Manatee]

Bashing false premises. Religions based on a belief structure are one thing. Falsely claiming a document to be something other than what it is, is a symptom of a much different problem. Structuring dogma based on a provable falsehood….what would you call it? But, as a Scientologist, I assume you're much more tolerant.

 

[mrjarrell]

Harry is a member of a religious group that believes some Egyptian papyrus from a book of the dead is the long lost Book of Abraham. There isn't much hope for people that are that delusional.

How is that any more delusional than anything else any religion comes up with? It's totally irrelevant to his Rights. Folks are entitled to believe any fairy tale they wish. That's up to them.

 

[Manatee]

We appear to be moving off Bundy.

This thread has jumped the shark anyway.

Bye

 

[jbombelli]

Bashing false premises. Religions based on a belief structure are one thing. Falsely claiming a document to be something other than what it is, is a symptom of a much different problem. Structuring dogma based on a provable falsehood….what would you call it? But, as a Scientologist, I assume you're much more tolerant.

Lol. Where do you come up with this tripe? I'm neither Mormon nor Scientologist. Why would you think that?

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Just watched a funny clip from the daily show. They have video with Sean Hanity supporting Bundy in his "fight", and then they show video of Hanity condemning several other groups on other occasions for "deciding which laws to follow and which laws they can ignore". In another video Sean was telling an Occupy Wall Street protester that "You're camping on land that is owned by the government, they have every right to throw you out, it's GOVERNMENT land!"

And they had the clip showing the one "Militia man" who said their strategy was going to be to put all the women and children in the front lines so that "If those federal agents start to shoot, we'll have video to show the world that the U.S government is shooting women and children". Now, I can't be the only one who heard that and said "Huuhhhhhh?"

Anyway, I thought it was funny.