• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

What's next OT...

A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
...you going to continue to claim the Feds, stole the land from the Natives, but would never steal it from the Ranching settlers? :lol:

Nope- but its interesting that you think the Feds can't own land- as so did some back in 1803 when Thomas Jefferson and the US Congress "bought" the Louisiana purchase... Even Jefferson was a little skeptical about the constitutionality of the federal government owning or purchasing land- BUT felt there was an overriding benefit to "the people" (public lands)...

So we have over 200 years of un-overruled "precedent"- and (at least in my area) much of this current federally owned land was acquired thru that purchase....
So just like with the last election Obama's birther issue became a dead horse anymore- the constitutionality of federally owned land is much more so (about 200 years more) ......
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
...you going to continue to claim the Feds, stole the land from the Natives, but would never steal it from the Ranching settlers? :lol:

Nope- but its interesting that you think the Feds can't own land- as so did some back in 1803 when Thomas Jefferson and the US Congress "bought" the Louisiana purchase... Even Jefferson was a little skeptical about the constitutionality of the federal government owning or purchasing land- BUT felt there was an overriding benefit to "the people" (public lands)...

So we have over 200 years of un-overruled "precedent"- and (at least in my area) much of this current federally owned land was acquired thru that purchase....
So just like with the last election Obama's birther issue became a dead horse anymore- the constitutionality of federally owned land is much more so (about 200 years more) ......

You sure on that? 200 years, eh, of unlimited land ownership? I'll let you think on that for a bit and then let you let us know tomorrow, when the precedent/interpretation of the Constitution changed...when it comes to the ownership of federal land, and when it was warranted...and any Constitutional limitations put on federal land ownership.

Or you can admit that you are incorrect now, before I once again make you look stupid...

Did I state the Federal government was not to own land, or that there were limitations on that ownership?




Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1885), is generally consistent with this conclusion. There, Justice Stephen J. Field wrote that the authority of the federal government over territories is "necessarily paramount." But once a territory is organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal footing with other states, the state government assumes general sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government has the rights only of an "individual proprietor." The federal government can exercise rights of general sovereignty over property only if there has been a formal cession of sovereignty by the state under the Enclave Clause


200 yrs of precedent, my ass...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
The judicial vision of how much power the Property Clause confers on the federal government has hardly remained constant. To the contrary, it has evolved significantly over time. In the first half of the nineteenth century, the clause was understood to be primarily a source of authority for establishing territorial governments. Once new states were admitted to the Union, the federal government became a mere trustee of any remaining federal lands, holding and protecting them, pending their sale to private persons. Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan (1845). With the infamous decision of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) the Court went further, holding that the Property Clause does not permit the exercise of police powers by the federal government in territory acquired after the Founding, and in particular that it does not permit the federal government to prohibit slavery in such territory. Dred Scott v. Sandford. Because the Northwest Ordinance had included a similar prohibition, and the Property Clause was designed to constitutionalize the Northwest Ordinance, Dred Scott is contrary to the original understanding in this respect.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You are correct- technically the Federal Government does not own that property- "the public"- we the people- own that property-- just as Jefferson said... But the federal government (as representatives of the public/ we the people) over the last 200+ years has had to develop guidelines, rules, and laws thru their representatives (Congress/President) to manage that public land...

Remember- we the people are the government...

By the people - we vote for our elected officials

For the people - elected officials represent their electorate

Of the people - anyone can become an elected official
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
You are correct- technically the Federal Government does not own that property- "the public"- we the people- own that property-- just as Jefferson said... But the federal government (as representatives of the public/ we the people) over the last 200+ years has had to develop guidelines, rules, and laws thru their representatives (Congress/President) to manage that public land...

Remember- we the people are the government...

By the people - we vote for our elected officials

For the people - elected officials represent their electorate

Of the people - anyone can become an elected official

The entirety of the "BLM" ARE NOT elected officials. They are Bureaucrats under the guise of an out of control administration. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
You are correct- technically the Federal Government does not own that property- "the public"- we the people- own that property-- just as Jefferson said... But the federal government (as representatives of the public/ we the people) over the last 200+ years has had to develop guidelines, rules, and laws thru their representatives (Congress/President) to manage that public land...

Remember- we the people are the government...

By the people - we vote for our elected officials

For the people - elected officials represent their electorate

Of the people - anyone can become an elected official

The entirety of the "BLM" ARE NOT elected officials. They are Bureaucrats under the guise of an out of control administration. :roll:

Not all public land is administered by the BLM either- we have parks service, federal fish and wildlife, and forest service involved- all under the Interior Secretary who was just appointed and approved by the Senate last year by an 87-11 vote...

And if the administration is "out of control" as you say, then where is our Congress with their part of the checks and balances-- or for that matter the SCOTUS... We have a SCOTUS made up of a majority of Republican appointees- and Congress is one of those that can ask the SCOTUS for direct intervention...
What I see is a dysfunctional partisan Congress that has spent the last half dozen years trying to unpass one law they have a childlike fixation on (Obamacare)- and done nothing positive - and a President using methods that have prior precedent so probably won't be overturned anyway, which leaves this partisan Congress scared to even appeal....

And it appears if you listen to the radical right- the Posse, Freemen, and militia type folks- the administration and these bureaucrats have been out of control since back in the early 80's... So neither Repub or Dem control seems to matter...
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
You are correct- technically the Federal Government does not own that property- "the public"- we the people- own that property-- just as Jefferson said... But the federal government (as representatives of the public/ we the people) over the last 200+ years has had to develop guidelines, rules, and laws thru their representatives (Congress/President) to manage that public land...

Remember- we the people are the government...

The entirety of the "BLM" ARE NOT elected officials. They are Bureaucrats under the guise of an out of control administration. :roll:

Not all public land is administered by the BLM either- we have parks service, federal fish and wildlife, and forest service involved- all under the Interior Secretary who was just appointed and approved by the Senate last year by an 87-11 vote...

And if the administration is "out of control" as you say, then where is our Congress with their part of the checks and balances-- or for that matter the SCOTUS... We have a SCOTUS made up of a majority of Republican appointees- and Congress is one of those that can ask the SCOTUS for direct intervention...
What I see is a dysfunctional partisan Congress that has spent the last half dozen years trying to unpass one law they have a childlike fixation on (Obamacare)- and done nothing positive - and a President using methods that have prior precedent so probably won't be overturned anyway, which leaves this partisan Congress scared to even appeal....

And it appears if you listen to the radical right- the Posse, Freemen, and militia type folks- the administration and these bureaucrats have been out of control since back in the early 80's... So neither Repub or Dem control seems to matter...

When Congress fails because it is part of the problem, the people are the ultimate check. You seem to forget that quite frequently. That is what makes it of the people, by the people and for the people. The federal government was to be limited with the states forming the majority of the governmental regulations. You keep spouting anti-government, mostly because I think you learn a new word and feel like you need to use it to show it off. But anyway, you couldn't be more wrong. The anti's as you like to call them, are not anti government, but pro-local government- state government, like the founders intended.

If you feel the need to call people names and belittle them because you don't grasp a founding concept, great. It's fun to return the favor to such a Dick- Wow your mama must of had a premonition.
 
Top