Militia? Standoff? Harry Reid?? Turtles? Firefight??

[Gunther]

Boy, here I am converting to liberalism and you're still arguing with me. In this case i think you should believe the big news stations, especially MSNBC and stuff, the local news, the Arizona Legislature and stuff should just keep their mouths shut. In fact they should be forced to. Our president needs to pass an executive order against the right wing news and people because it will be better for everyone. Our Government needs to become even more like Nazi Germany. After all Hitler had close to the right idea, we need to control the Jews. His problem is he didn't go far enough, he needed to control the Christians too. I am so sick of the right wing and what they stand for, freedom, family values, personal responsibility. I am trying to get enlightened, if possible I am going to be a bi sexual even. This might be difficult as I have never been attracted to dudes but that's probably the oppressive way I was brought up. You know to be tolerant of people that didn't share the progressive views like us. I might have to start out with a 3 way with Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus. They aren't the same person right? This way I can kinda ease into it. Even though I played catcher most of my life I'll probably have to start out pitching, just to get used to it. This whole thing about state rights sucks also. I think every law should be federal enforced, this isn't a Republic for goodness sake. I am loving being liberal, I used to have to try to think sometimes, now I don't have to think at all. Now I can just listen to MSNBC and they tell me what I need to know. It now longer have headaches because I can just turn my brain totally off for the most part. I really wished I had discovered this years ago. No stress, no muss, no fuss.

[Thumper]

Well, I for one, miss your input around here and wish you'd drop in more often Gunther ... BUT ... in this thread, it seems you're simply spouting gobblety-gook and blowing a bunch'a worthless hot air. There are things that the State controls and there are things the Federal Government controls. This guy is claiming the State has control of this particular Federal land. It does NOT. He "claims" (which I seriously doubt) that he's tried to pay the State of Nevada. Huh? When I bought my house, I financed it through First Federal. They sold the loan to Nations Bank. Next thing I knew, Washington Mutual had the loan ... then they were bought out by Chase Bank. I now send my mortgage payments to Chase. According to this douche bag, I should be sending my payments to First Federal ... I'm sure they'd simply tell me to send them to Chase, but as far as I'm concerned, I've done my part, so I'll just KEEP the money.

That makes just as much sense as what this bozo is claiming.

[Captain]

WOW!!!

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[BarryBobPosthole]

If this wasn't taken seriously and treated as gospel truth by so many people, it was be almost a parody of what truth is. But it is the condition of information in our day and age. There's no real institutional credibility any more. Anybody can hang out a shingle on the innerwebs and it seems like the more crackpot you are, the more followers you get. I personally can't stand Obama. But he gets WAY more credit than he is due for his grand master master plans to dismantle shit in our good old nation. I don't think he has a plan to do anything except look good while he's doing it. Which is bad, but the far right makes him out to be some sort of criminal mastermind.

Anyway, here's a link to what the uber-right is treating as the gospel. Not the sane conservative people mind you, they've been fairly quiet on it. Sean Hannity seems to be making a living off of Cliven Bundy this past week but that's expects from that parasite.

BKB

http://www.independentsentinel.com/c...e-white-house/

[airbud7]

WOW!!!

You know what, that Thump is a Fart Smeller...oops...>I mean Smart Feller

[BarryBobPosthole]

He'll do in a pinch, won't he?

BKB

[Gunther]

Damn Uber right! Nobody outside the major networks have the truth. You know they would never spin the news. These are the same people that want voter ID, to stop undocumented workers at the border and to deny people using their totally rightful welfare benefits to get tattoos. Nothing but a bunch of haters. Unlike all those conservatives I understand why the Post Office needs a bunch of ammunition. I don't understand why I'm getting attacked here, I'm agreeing with you all. So because of that I have to assume that you hate me because I'm Native American and trying to become Two-Spirited. You are a bunch of racist homophobes.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Well, now that you're an insider I guess we can teach you the secret handshake.

Post Office bought ammo? I thought it was DHS! I must've missed Rush that week.

BKB

[Gunther]

NOAA needs ammo too. And I totally understand that also. The department of education needs riot shotguns, Social Security admin needs ammo. And the 1.6 Billion rounds DHS ordered makes perfect sense if you put it in perspective. The military uses about 5.5 million rounds a month so if DHS needs to defend itself from these right wingers they can shoot 5.5 million rounds at them for about, well quite awhile. They're the government, they're here to help us. Secret handshake?? KEWL!!

[Gunther]

Can you believe this drivel? We NEED to get rid of the Constitution once and for all so we can be true Progressives!

Turtles and cows have absolutely no relevance to the situation in Nevada. Does the Constitution make provision for the federal government to own and control “public land”? This is the only question we need to consider. Currently, the federal government “owns” approximately 30% of the United States territory. The majority of this federally owned land is in the West. For example, the feds control more than 80% of Nevada and more than 55% of Utah. The question has been long debated. At the debate’s soul is Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which is know as the “Property Clause”. Proponents of federal expansion on both sides of the political aisle argue that this clause provides warrant for the federal government to control land throughout the United States.

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….

Those who say this clause delegates the feds control over whatever land they arbitrarily decide to lay claim to are grossly misinterpreting even the most basic structure of the Constitution.

It is said the Constitution is “written in plain English”. This is true. However, plain English does not allow one to remove context. Article IV does not grant Congress the power to exercise sovereignty over land. Article IV deals exclusively with state-to-state relations such as protection from invasion, slavery, full faith and credit, creation of new states and so on.

Historically, the Property Clause delegated federal control over territorial lands up until the point when that land would be formed as a state. This was necessary during the time of the ratification of the Constitution due to the lack of westward development. The clause was drafted to constitutionalize the Northwest Ordinance, which the Articles of Confederation did not have the power to support. This ordinance gave the newly formed Congress the power to create new states instead of allowing the states themselves to expand their own land claims.

The Property Clause and Northwest Ordinance are both limited in power and scope. Once a state is formed and accepted in the union, the federal government no longer has control over land within the state’s borders. From this moment, such land is considered property of the sovereign state. The continental United States is now formed of fifty independent, sovereign states. No “unclaimed” lands are technically in existence. Therefore, the Property Clause no longer applies within the realm of federal control over these states.

The powers of Congress are found only in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. With the exception of the less than two dozen powers delegated to Congress found within Article I, Section 8, Congress may make no laws, cannot form political agencies and cannot take any actions that seek to regulate outside of these few, enumerated powers.

Article I, Section 8 does lay forth the possibility of federal control over some land. What land? Clause 17 defines these few exceptions.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings– (Emphasis added).

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is known as the Enclave Clause. The clause gives federal control over the “Seat of Government” (Washington D.C.) and land that has been purchased by the federal government with consent of the state legislature to build military posts and other needful buildings (post offices and other structures pursuant to Article I, Section 8). Nothing more.

Being a requirement, state permission was explicitly emphasized while drafting this clause. The founders and respective states insisted (with loud cries) that the states must consent before the federal government could purchase lands from the states. Nowhere in this clause will you find the power for Congress to exercise legislative authority through regulation over 80% of Nevada, 55% of Utah, 45% of California, 70% of Alaska, etc. unless the state has given the federal government the formal authority to do so, which they have not.

If a state legislature decides sell land to the federal government then at that point the Enclave Clause becomes applicable and the federal government may seize legislative and regulatory control in pursuance to the powers delegated by Article 1, Section 8.

In America’s infancy, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Founding Fathers’ understanding of federal control over land. Justice Stephen J. Field wrote for the majority opinion in Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1855) that federal authority over territorial land was “necessarily paramount.” However, once the territory was organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal ground, the state government assumes sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government retains only the rights of an “individual proprietor.” This means that the federal government could only exercise general sovereignty over state property if the state legislature formally granted the federal government the power to do so under the Enclave Clause with the exception of federal buildings (post offices) and military installations. This understanding was reaffirmed in Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan (1845), Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the city of New Orleans (1845) and Strader v. Graham (1850).

However, it did not take long for the Supreme Court to begin redefining the Constitution and legislating from the bench under the guise of interpretation. Case by case, the Court slowly redefined the Property Clause, which had always been understood to regard exclusively the transferring of federal to state sovereignty through statehood, to the conservation of unconstitutional federal supremacy.

Federal supremacists sitting on the Supreme Court understood that by insidiously redefining this clause then federal power would be expanded and conserved.

With Camfield v. United States (1897), Light v. United States (1911), Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) and multiple other cases regarding commerce, federal supremacists have effectively erased the constitutional guarantee of state control over property.

Through the centuries, by the hand of corrupt federal judges, we arrive and the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. The Founding Fathers never imagined the citizens of a state would be subject to such treatment at the hands of the federal government. Furthermore, they certainly never imagined the state legislatures themselves would allow such treatment to go unchecked. The latest updates appear to show that Bundy has won his battle against the feds– for now. However, it remains a damn shame that the state of Nevada would allow for such a situation to arise in the first place.

What does Nevada’s Constitution say about property? Section 1, titled “Inalienable Rights,” reads: All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness (Emphasis added).

In Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution, eminent domain is clarified. The state Constitution requires that the state prove public need, provide compensation and documentation before acquiring private property. In order to grant land to the federal government, the state must first control this land.

Bundy’s family has controlled the land for more than 140 years.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is an agency created by Congress, claimed that Bundy was “violating the law of the land.” Perhaps the agency has forgotten that the law of the land is the Constitution, and the only constitutional violation here is the very modern existence of the agency’s presence in Nevada.

[BarryBobPosthole]

I only scanned. But still....me no tink so.

BKB

[Penguin]

Congrats Gunther, you have managed to discover a way to make the constitution mean exactly the opposite of what it says.... I think you have real potential as a liberal. Or a conservative. Both seem to have a gift at that sort of thing.

What they really meant by the property clause was "The US government has no right to own land. This is the sole right of the states."

Of course. Why didn't we see this before! :-)

[Gunther]

See, that's what I mean. We as liberals need to keep the people uninformed. They only need our side of the story. Otherwise they'll suffer like I used to.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Methinks some armpit with eyes is pulling on our collective chains.

BKB

[Penguin]

See, that's what I mean. We as liberals need to keep the people uninformed. They only need our side of the story. Otherwise they'll suffer like I used to.

~sigh~

Alright, let us inform ourselves a bit then.

1) The US was granted right to the untitled lands of Nevada under treaty with Mexico. They owned the land before Nevada was even a state.
2) In their state constitution the state of Nevada ceded any and all rights to this land to the US government.
3) Which was declared constitutional because the federal government already held title to it. Unlike the cases you mention of Georgia and some other southern states, Nevada was never a sovereign state and therefore could not claim title to the land. AND the land ceded by those southern states was done so in order to pay debt accrued in the Revolutionary War. IOW it was an agreement to pay their debt by giving land to the US which would in turn sell it. It was not a permanent transfer.
4) All of which occurred prior to a Mormon family by name of Bundy moving into a certain area of Nevada and running cows on this land.

Their kind of thinking was pretty common back in the old days. Even our western myths are filled with stories of powerful ranchers using brute force to lay claim to land they had no title to. And to use force to keep "squatters" from settling along creeks and waterways they needed to keep their large ranches viable. The ranchers resented it but the settlers were in the right. The legal way to own land was to buy it from previous owners if they existed, hold title prior to the land becoming property of the US government, or settle it 160 acres at a time.

That land belongs to US citizens, not the Bundy family. As it has been since Mexico relinquished title to it.

Will

[Thumper]

Agreed!

[Gunther]

See? That's the way to do it. Legislate by the courts. Just because the US Constitution is clear on it all we need is a couple Judges...........................

Also we really need to control the media. If folks see opposing views to CBS, ABC, NBC or MSNBC they might, just might start thinking for themselves and you know how dangerous that would be to our liberal agenda!

Here's an example.

http://www.infowars.com/unedited-vid...ican-comments/