Rebane's Ruminations
April 2014
S M T W T F S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

When tyrannies make the laws, all opponents of tyranny are then seen and treated as criminals.

The ownership and control of our public lands is a mess, both legally and constitutionally.  Save for military bases (an arguably constitutional provision), why does the federal government claim ownership – laughably in the name of ‘the public’ – of large parts of the country?  Save for preserving certain particularly scenic locales as public parks, why do states need to own land?  (I find federal ownership of land for parks and recreation to also be constitutionally unfounded.)  Yes, there are reasons for state governments to share control of ‘infrastructure land’ that contain navigable rivers, flood control dams and levees, and water reservoirs, but owning thousands of square miles of open range, mountains, and forests, the case for such has no reasonable constitutional basis.

PublicLands
(Recall the definition of ownership, you ‘own’ something only to the extent that you can dispose of it as you wish.)

Due to the Bundy Ranch gathering of citizens concerned with the jackboot behavior of various fed and state agencies, the BLM has decided to withdraw in order to regroup and replan their next assault, because they apparently expected none of what happened – e.g. consider the set aside of a little ‘First Amendment Rights’ pen for the few people who might show up to quietly protest as permitted by their betters.

I was heartened that this event finally demonstrated what can happen when citizens ‘just say NO!’, both in their courage to unambiguously state that a limit to overreach had been broached, and also by the rapid gathering of supportive citizens who were willing to take an unknown risk against militarized government units armed with machine guns, snipers, and helicopters.  I hope that this might set an inspiring example for locals all over the country to resist the next diktat that comes down from above to perfunctorily limit more of what/how/when people can do, say, wear, eat, build, travel, stay, read, watch, learn, work, recreate, worship, display, spend, receive, join, … .  If the Bundy standoff can serve as the starting point for Americans everywhere to change their recently inbred docile acceptance to one of critical examination and consideration before compliance or its rejection, then this will have been a productive milestone on the road back to liberty.  (Nevada County electeds please take note.)

As to resolving the grazing on public lands matter, I expect that the feds will be back after an appropriate media propaganda blitz that will demonize the Bundys and others who may have similar thoughts.  Here we can hope that this will raise the country’s awareness of the public lands issue, and after appropriate debate, lead to a resolution that gets the feds out of the land management business and, perhaps, shuts down a tax consuming bureaucracy.  Important and exciting times ahead.

[19apr14 update]  Contrary to the somewhat bombastic interpretations of our progressive constitutional pundits, the legitimacy of federal retention of vast tracts of western lands is being called to question by lawmakers in western states (more here).  The historical legality of such federal retention which I and a number of other observers have criticized is now coming to the attention of some of our conservative political leadership.  The bottom line is still that the feds have usurped the states’ intended rights to own and control (i.e. dispose of as they will) public lands within their borders, and a progressive judicial system has made mockery of the clear original intent of the Constitution in this matter.

Perhaps now a reasoned debate can start on the most appropriate process through which we can erase the overwhelming amount of the western red areas in the above map.  To be sure, the big government collectivists will fight tooth and nail to retain as much central control of domestic policies in Washington as possible.  America’s historical standards of liberty and self-determination demand the devolution of such central controls to the states and counties where the people live.

Posted in , , , ,

318 responses to “A Takeaway from Bundy Ranch (updated 19apr14)”

  1. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Here you go George, perhaps this will help you brush up a bit on your Constitution:
    http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL34267_12032007.pdf

    Like

  2. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    All I can find in the Constitution about their “ownership” of property at the Federal level is in Section 8,
    “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;–And”
    So perhaps the lands of America are all private except for the above it appears to me. Please SteveF, produce the admission papers which proves your point for California. I am curious if you can.

    Like

  3. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    What the hell do you mean ‘admission papers”? It is right there in the Constitution.
    “The U.S. Constitution addresses the relationship of the federal government to lands. The Property Clause, Article IV, § 3, Clause 2, gives Congress authority over the lands, territories, or other property of the United States. It reads:
    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.
    This provision provides broad authority for Congress to govern the lands acquired by the federal government as it sees fit, and to exercise exclusive authority to decide on whether or not to dispose of those lands. The U.S. Supreme Court has
    described this power as “without limitation,” stating that: while Congress can acquire exclusive or partial jurisdiction over lands within a State by the State’s consent or cession, the presence or absence of such jurisdiction has nothing to do with Congress’ powers under the Property Clause.
    Absent consent or cession a State undoubtedly retains jurisdiction over federal lands within its territory, but Congress equally surely retains the power to enact legislation respecting those lands pursuant to the Property Clause…. And when
    Congress so acts, the federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause.”
    When California was admitted to the Union we agreed to be governed by the las of the United States of America, and ceded our rights to dominion over public lands.
    Here is the relative portion of the Compromise of 1850, that admitted California into the Union, and the relevant section regarding the ownership and disposal of public lands:
    “Section 3
    And be it further enacted, that the said state of California is admitted into the Union upon the express condition that the people of said state, through their legislature or otherwise, shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the public lands within its limits, and shall pass no law and do no act whereby the title of the United States to, and right to dispose of, the same shall be impaired or questioned; and that they shall never lay any tax or assessment of any description whatsoever upon the public domain of the United States, and in no case shall nonresident proprietors, who are citizens of the United States, be taxed higher than residents; and that all the navigable waters within the said state shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of said state as to the citizens of the United States, without any tax, impost, or duty therefore: provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed as recognizing or rejecting the propositions tendered by the people of California as articles of compact in the ordinance adopted by the convention which formed the constitution of that state.”
    Reference: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/An+Act+for+the+Admission+of+the+State+of+California+into+the+Union
    Which just goes to show you that just because you can’t find it doesn’t mean it isn’t true!

    Like

  4. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    The thing that really bugs me about all you guys who post from a “Conservatarian” perspective here is that you claim to be Constitutionalists, but you really don’t know shit about the Constitution, nor do you do the work to research why and how decisions have been made relative to the Constitution. That is what the biggest lie of the Tea party is, it is not the Constitutional faction, it is actually the anti-Constitutional faction.
    By the way, Bundy is a trespasser of federal land who has not paid his rent in 21 years. He is a criminal and should be evicted. His family never owned the land in question; the land has been owned by the United States since it was ceded to us as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; renting land 20 years ago does not give anyone proscriptive rights to it today.
    Bundy is stealing the property of the United States of America, against direct orders from two federal courts. What about the property rights established in the Constitution for the federal government? Those property rights don’t matter I suspect?

    Like

  5. George Rebane Avatar

    Stevenfrisch 240pm – You misunderstand, and start your argument with the assumption that today’s attributed public lands are the public lands intended in the Constitution. With that a priori, the rest of the case for the disposal of such ascribed lands is indeed as easy as you make it. But that is not the point I have made, nor the point that has been made by the many who have come before me. My contention is that these ‘public lands’ have been usurped by the federal government from the states and the people. As your citation – The Property Clause, Article IV, § 3, Clause 2 – points out, it only gives Congress authority over lands that are considered public by the Constitutional provisions which precede the Property Clause; and therein lies the rub.
    http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause
    Perhaps it’s again time to lapse into name calling 😉

    Like

  6. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Please tell us all Steve Frisch, what property did the Federal Gov own in the Independent sate of California in 1850? Please give us all the details. Article 4 Section Three does not list the lands “owned” so where do you come up with your fantasy?

    Like

  7. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Oh and one more thing. If the Constitution limits the Feds ownership to those listed how do you square that? Looks simple to me and most Americans.

    Like

  8. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    George I do not presume anything; the lands in question where purchased by the United States of America or ceded to them by treaty.
    A full list of land acquisitions can be found here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_territorial_acquisitions
    Once those lands became the property of the United States constitutional law applied, thus under Article IV, § 3, Clause 2 they could be disposed of as the Congress of the United States saw fit. They could not be usurped from the people because they fell under Article IV to begin with.

    Like

  9. Walt Avatar

    YUP,,, It’s “public land” until some government “official” with a title has his minions close the gates. The “State” closed public lands due to insufficient funds. Then got caught crying hunger as they stashed money under a rock.
    More “public” land was closed with the sequestered funds, then “O” and Co. told the likes of BLM ” Make it hurt”.
    Public lands are not that “public”. How much of Greenhorn BLM is really “open to the public”?
    A few cows is far less destructive than all the illegals trampling state and FED “land” down on the boarder. There is a sign down there warning us citizens to stay the hell out because of illegal activity. Even the fed. police don’t go in there.. It’s easier to pick on an old cow poke.

    Like

  10. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 13 April 2014 at 03:03 PM
    Todd, the federal government automatically owned all lands not privately owned under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

    Like

  11. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 13 April 2014 at 03:04 PM
    Too incomprehensible and vague to respond to. See above list of lands purchased by or added to the United States by treaty.

    Like

  12. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: Walt | 13 April 2014 at 03:17 PM
    None of this is relevant. Under law the land is owned by the United States…they can with it as directed by Congress.

    Like

  13. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: George Rebane | 13 April 2014 at 02:51 PM
    “Perhaps it’s again time to lapse into name calling ;-)”
    You could set the rules to eliminate name calling if you so chose as the host of the site. You have consistently declined to do that, thus name calling will continue until you step in to enforce decorum.

    Like

  14. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    No Steve Frisch, your interpretations are just that. I am surprised you never mentioned the Spanish Land Grants which encompassed most of the property. You are slipping.

    Like

  15. Russ Steele Avatar

    Feds are on a roll:
    FEDS SEIZE FAMILY’S RANCH-Property owners fight government ‘land grab’!!!
    When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other.
    Other Forest Service officials were busy nailing similar notices on fence posts along the highway and informing neighbors that after Feb. 11, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property.
    Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. That day has arrived.
    Laney insists the land in question belongs to him; the Forest Service says it belongs to the federal government. So far, the federal court is on the side of the Forest Service. But Laney is not willing to throw in the towel and give up the land that has been in his family since long before there was a U.S. Forest Service.
    Moreover, in New Mexico, there is a “brand law” that says, essentially, no cattle may be sold or transported out of state without approval from the State Livestock Board.
    Local sheriff Cliff Snyder has notified the Forest Service and other state and federal officials that even though the Forest Service has a court order authorizing the confiscation of the Diamond Bar cattle, they “cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute.”
    His memo also says “I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county.”
    More Here: http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/12/feds-seize-familys-ranch-property-owners-fight-government-land-grab/
    I like the Sheriff, wonder were the Sheriff was in Nevada? Oh, yea he is a personal friend of Harry Reid.

    Like

  16. fish Avatar
    fish

    What about the property rights established in the Constitution for the federal government? Those property rights don’t matter I suspect?
    Other than the land required for it’s offices and installations why would the federal government need to “own” the majority of land in any state?

    Like

  17. Walt Avatar

    So Steve,, just what’s “your” definition of gov. Tyranny?
    Seems your content with Fascist government control of every blade of grass
    in the name of the “people’s land”. Ever since LIB infested government agencies got to work, “the people” have been systematically barred and/or outlawed from “using” said land. First it was us miners, then the loggers, now cattlemen. Even recreationists are being “removed”. ” Can’t do this,, can’t do that.”
    “This aria is now closed to the public ”
    Government “ownership” of land has increased, by leaps and bounds. State AND Fed… CA. is 60% owned by the government. ( state, FED, etc.) No property tax generation there.
    Seems government has way more than “their fair share”.

    Like

  18. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Nice job Todd
    Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 13 April 2014 at 04:12 PM
    No data, no references, no case. I cited specifics and you just bloviate on…..meaningless.

    Like

  19. Russ Steele Avatar

    The Diplomad has some thoughts on the BLM action:
    Note to the leftards running our government: the American people are fed up with and do not trust “environmentalists,” and the image of agents with guns, tasers, helicopters, and police dogs does not convey a warm and cuddly green enviro-message.
    A commenter ask an important questions:
    What is the name of the BLM employee who authorized this action? Is this miscreant still in a decision making position?
    This is not over.

    Like

  20. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: Walt | 13 April 2014 at 04:56 PM
    Actually Walt government ownership of land has not increased by leaps and bounds. The total amount of land owned by the federal government as a percentage of total US land area has actually gone down as new territories were added, with the exception of the Treaty of Guadalupe. As new lands were added lands were consistently released through land patents, grants of state lands (especially in the west where they are part of the state school funding mix) and private sales or grants (like the lands released to the railroads as an incentive to build track). But even much of the land ceded to the US under Guadalupe was released to private ownership through the Homestead Act.

    Like

  21. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    of course even though some disgruntled people are “fed up with and do not trust “environmentalists,” those environmentalists are citizens too, and the law is the law, until the law is changed. So bitch on; changes will have to go through Congress and the President, and I suspect that is going to be very hard.
    A brief peruse of the Las Vegas papers shows me sentiment in this case is running high against the Bundy’s as well, particularly from ranchers who do follow the law and comply with the terms of legal BLM grazing leases. The Bundy’s are giving them a bad name and they don’t like it.

    Like

  22. George Rebane Avatar

    A major interpretation of Article IV has been that when a US territory becomes a state, then all the federal (not privately owned and not federally set aside as for military reservations and naval bases) lands within the boundaries of that territory shall become the property of the state for it to dispose of under its laws. If that were not the intended case, then the drawing of state boundaries would be a cynical exercise since the state would have no jurisdiction over major parts of the real estate within said boundaries (see map above for what silly season looks like today). When the Constitution was drawn up and the states east of Appalachia were sovereign within their borders, this was not a point of contention. It was still not a point of contention when lands east of the Mississippi became states – there was no huge residual ownership of such states’ territory by the feds because people immediately moved in, settled, and filed claims with their states for private ownership.
    The problems really started when large tracts of western lands were acquired and remained as US territories for a generation or more before becoming states. At that time there was no constitutional question as to ownership, and the feds could and did hold ‘land rushes’ to attract people into regions with the offer of ‘free land’ to begin populating future states. It was at that point, especially in the trans-Rockies semi-desert and mountainous regions hostile to large populations, that federal bureaus like BLM somehow retained ‘ownership’ of lands within the borders of new states. But nobody cared then, because the land could be disposed of at will by the residents of the states for ranching, homesteading, mining, forestry, … by just establishing primacy and without federal government interference.
    It is only recently that our overreaching government has started to devote its attention to the use of America’s wide open spaces, and perversely exercising it legacy prerogatives in a pernicious manner that corresponds to its general desire to impede liberty in every corner open to bureaucratic penetration.

    Like

  23. Walt Avatar

    Yet Carter could give away the Panama canal with the stroke of a pen.
    Gov. is “acquiring” land all the time, yet never sells it on the “open market”.
    I have seen where 12,000 acres went to BLM all because someone had a meth house
    on the parcel. I guess government lawyers could prove the out of state owner had knowledge of the tweeker den. That property today is still in BLM hands after 25 years. ( Nice score… Right?)
    Ever been to the “state park” property in Cedar Ridge? I bet you didn’t even know there was one there.. I sure didn’t… Until I found the fence doing a job on an adjacent property.
    BTW,, Isn’t the BLM land down on Greenhorn Creek pretty much “closed”?
    The people’s use of that land is pissing off other people.

    Like

  24. Ryan Mount Avatar

    I find the State’s Rights issue coming out of this run-in with BLM. I’ve heard it over and over again.
    It’s a legitimate argument, a 100 years ago before the Federal government started putting everything under Federal jurisdiction. I happen to like stronger and more sovereign States, but it hasn’t been that way for quite some time, and I don’t see the 9th and 10th Amendments ever being enforced ever again. Shame, really.
    So you can see how an issue like this cuts America in half. (or maybe in quarters at least). For those Paleo-Conservatives who want to move power out of Washington and back to the States, this is their poster child issue. In fact, they raced there wrapped in the 2nd Amendment.
    But for people who dig more central planning, they best you’ll get out of them is, “Sorry Charlie, that’s the way it is. Us central planners will take over from here. And please fill out this ‘How did we Do?’ survey before you leave. Have a nice day.” And the worst, of course, is this creepy armed activity. (it’s REALLY creepy, even if one agrees that Mr. Bundy is a criminal).

    Like

  25. Walt Avatar

    “Paleo-Conservatives” HHuummmmm ,,,, That’s got a good ring to it. ,,, Wait a minute.. ???? WHAT!! ?? Knuckle dragging Bill of Rights supporters is the distilled definition? … Still works for me. It beats Troglodyte-Leftist.

    Like

  26. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: Walt | 13 April 2014 at 06:19 PM
    Carter did not ‘give away the Panama Canal with a stroke of a pen”, we had a treaty with Panama that allowed US control of the Canal Zone in perpetuity, which was renegotiated in 1977 into two treaties, one giving sovereignty to Panama effective Jan 1 2000, and the other giving the US the permanent right to defend the canal from any threat that might interfere with its continued neutral service to ships of all nations.
    Those treaties were approved by the Congress of the United States as called for in the Constitution.

    Like

  27. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: George Rebane | 13 April 2014 at 06:02 PM
    George, you will note that the situation of lands within the states and territories east of the Mississippi River were fully explained in the legal analysis I posted.
    Your statement that “… the land could be disposed of at will by the residents of the states for ranching, homesteading, mining, forestry, … by just establishing primacy and without federal government interference” is incorrect. Land disposals had to be approved by Congress, and much of it was disposed of by act of Congress as I noted above.

    Like

  28. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    40 acres and a mule. Hmmm. Where have I heard that?

    Like

  29. Walt Avatar

    Justify it all you like. It was still a giveaway. Look what happened after the fact! Manuel Noriega ring a bell? ( and how the left bitched when we sent troops in to bag the bastard) We built the damned thing. Care to look up the meaning of “perpetuity”? It was our territory.
    With that thinking, “O” could “renegotiate” things with Russia where Alaska is concerned. And with the Congress we have today, they would vote for returning AK. back to Russia because we didn’t pay fair market value.

    Like

  30. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 13 April 2014 at 07:55 PM
    You heard that as part of the American mythology of land rights granted to slaves after the Civil War. The thing is, it was never granted. Some land was granted to freed slaves during the war by military Governors to maintain agricultural production, but Congress never passed an Act giving freed slaves “40 acres and a mule.”
    Some freed slaves did participate in the Homestead Act.

    Like

  31. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: Walt | 13 April 2014 at 08:05 PM
    I am neither justifying it nor critiquing it; it is a fact of law under the Constitution; Article II, Section II, Clause II
    “…[The President] shall have Power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”

    Like

  32. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Constitutionalists….HA!

    Like

  33. fish Avatar
    fish

    A brief peruse of the Las Vegas papers shows me sentiment in this case is running high against the Bundy’s as well, particularly from ranchers who do follow the law and comply with the terms of legal BLM grazing leases. The Bundy’s are giving them a bad name and they don’t like it.
    Ahhh….I was wondering about those “quislings” you mentioned earlier. Thanks for the clarification.

    Like

  34. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Fish, now that’s funny. The Frisch is a big government guy so his stuff is always in favor of more and bigger and less freedom for the individual. I pay him no heed.

    Like

  35. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 13 April 2014 at 09:20 PM
    Not only do you pay me no heed, which I welcome, you are incapable of making a cogent argument for your case. I am bringing information to the table and your contribution is a dull wit and empty quiver.

    Like

  36. George Rebane Avatar

    Stevenfrisch 751pm – I think you’re limiting ‘disposing’ to transfer of ownership. I use the word in its general concept of utilizing the land. People were able to utilize public lands at will, but not transfer ownership since no individual owned the land that he utilized. You are correct in that only Congress could affect transfer of ownership (which it failed to do properly when a territory became a state, thereby giving rise to today’s troubles).

    Like

  37. Ryan Mount Avatar

    Isn’t it strange that the Federal Government “owns” almost 90% of Nevada? Sorry for being captain obvious here, but I had’t really thought about it. (here is the number of times per month I think about Nevada: 0.)
    I guess in return they get their “States’ rights” for prostitution and gambling. Screw everything else.
    Why even bother with them as a State? Maybe we could sell Nevada to the Chinese* to help pay off the debt. Sure, there’s a lot of nuclear wasteland but with our good, old-fashioned, American marketing know-how, we could turn it into a Chinese vacation paradise.
    *note: we keep Las Vegas. And the silver. They can have Reno…for free.

    Like

  38. fish Avatar
    fish

    “Paleo-Conservatives” HHuummmmm ,,,, That’s got a good ring to it. ,,, Wait a minute.. ???? WHAT!! ?? Knuckle dragging Bill of Rights supporters is the distilled definition? … Still works for me. It beats Troglodyte-Leftist.
    Troglodyte-Leftist consolidates nicely to “Proglodyte” or if the mood strikes you….”Progtard”.

    Like

  39. Bob Hobert Avatar
    Bob Hobert

    The discussion on any topic in this forum never changes much. And Frisch appears always eager to concede to big and bigger government. Where is the line, sir?

    Like

  40. fish Avatar
    fish

    The discussion on any topic in this forum never changes much.
    Yeah…that why it’s important to be entertaining.
    And Frisch appears always eager to concede to big and bigger government. Where is the line, sir?
    Probably just on the other side of a failed bond auction.

    Like

  41. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Frisch is a syayus quo guy. He is not even interested in making the country better, just give me my grant and I’ll be a good boy. That is the problem in our country. People keep the government honest as long as the government fears the people. Now we have lackeys like Frisch populating every nook and cranny of our government and our schools are churning them out. Brainwashed people who never knew what true freedom means from government over activity. I saw it in building departments in California. If you are a builder of many homes you see the mess they have made on your rights but if you do just one, a owner builder, you have no knowledge of the reach the government has on your residence. Try to do anything with your private property and see wjat I mean.
    But boy, the government lackey’s like Frisch can pir pages of support for his position, of course, government made the pages. Too funny.

    Like

  42. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Funny thing is you have contributed exactly nothing to this thread Todd. No cogent case, no links to other data, no original ideas, no legal rationale, nothing. Sure, I post links and legal analysis, that is what a rational person does, they research issues and use data to support their point. As opposed to emotional claims and ceaseless ill informed opinions. I think you really are proving just how shallow a moron you are Todd.
    The case I am making is that federal ownership of land is entirely within the bounds of government activity as laid out in the Constitution; it has ALWAYS been a part of our national governance; as land was added to the nation much of that land was privatized; and if you have a beef with what the federal government is doing it is NOT a Constitutional beef.
    You can stomp your feet all you want over here at the mouthpiece of the baby state, but that don’t make it so.
    That is why I repeat…”Constitutionalists…Ha!” You guys would not know the Constitution if it bit you in the ass.

    Like

  43. fish Avatar
    fish

    You can stomp your feet all you want over here at the mouthpiece of the baby state, but that don’t make it so.
    “Good. Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Let the hate flow through you”‘
    Hell Steve… drop a few pounds and you even look like Emperor Palpatine.

    Like

  44. fish Avatar
    fish

    Hey Steve…..check out the Armstrong & Getty podcast (8:00am hour)….Roger Hedgecock is making your argument. I may….may….. owe you an apology!

    Like

  45. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Steve Frisch, we all know why you are such a defender of big government, so you can stop whining. In the Constitution it says just what I said that the only property they can own is listed and there is not much more than DC and some forts. So, I have already made my case and you have not. Your opinions are vacuous and mine are rock solid.
    You can stomp your feet and cry the blues and name call all you want but you are simply wrong.

    Like

  46. Brad Croul Avatar
    Brad Croul

    On what side of the fence do the Teatards stand regarding the State selling the Empire mine property? Are y’all planning to unite and picket Virginia Brunini at SPD?
    The reason the BLM manages the public lands is because, historically, the cowtards, logheads, and other “users” of the public lands were thrashing the lands in pursuit of profit through overgrazing, over cutting, contamination, etc. The permit fees pay for the staff required to evaluate the health of the grazing lands and determine the carrying capacity of the grazing lands so they do not turn into bigger dust bowls than they already are.
    I think you can also compare the regulation of the electromagnetic spectrum in the “public land” debate. Air is free, right? I should be able to set up a big EMP blaster – so what if it fries your radios and telephones or jams Fox News?

    Like

  47. Walt Avatar

    Still waiting on Steve’s definition of Tyranny. Let me guess. Those defying the government were the tyrants.
    Government will become tyrants in “his” mind when Conservatives take over.
    The Tyranny will be defined as Conservative government cutting off the free flow of grant money to questionable ” NON PROFITS”.
    Yup,, Conservatives will be the new face of Tyranny.. ( as Progressives see it.)

    Like

  48. Gary Smith Avatar

    George:
    What happens when the government closes military bases, who owns them? I know Mcclellan, and Mather AFB now have civilian use but who owns the land?
    Thanks

    Like

  49. George Rebane Avatar

    GaryS 932am – According to my lights the land should revert to the state which then will dispose of it according to its laws. Thoughts?

    Like

  50. fish Avatar
    fish

    The reason the BLM manages the public lands is because, historically, the cowtards, logheads, and other “users” of the public lands were thrashing the lands in pursuit of profit through overgrazing, over cutting, contamination, etc. The permit fees pay for the staff required to evaluate the health of the grazing lands and determine the carrying capacity of the grazing lands so they do not turn into bigger dust bowls than they already are.
    Yeah…..and Uncle Stupid has done such a fabbo job of protecting the environment that a significant percentage of the facilities they own and operate are Superfund sites.
    You may now return to jerking off over the most recent edition of “Modern Government Monthly”.

    Like

Leave a comment