Interesting take. I'll look at that. It really is only interest.
Yesterday - Bundy Ranch
- Thread starter GoJazz
- Start date
Interesting take. I'll look at that. It really is only interest.
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
You are wrong on so many levels. Over 60% of Utah land is owned by the federal government, and it is a similar ratio in most of the West. Grazing rights may be gained on private real property by a prescriptive easement or by adverse possession. It does not apply to government owned land (federal, state, municipal...). If Bundy was allowed to graze on federal land, it was because it was allowed (gov't chose to not stop it). Much of this land was acquired early in the history of the United States as a result of purchases, wars, or treaties made with foreign countries. The federal government used this land to encourage growth, settlement, and economic development.
The sheer fact that grazing rights were never codified for many years caused a plethora of range wars to start in the West. However, in 1934, the Taylor Grazing Act formally set out the federal government's powers and policy on grazing federal lands by establishing the Division of Grazing and procedures for issuing permits to graze federal lands for a fixed period of time. The Division of Grazing was renamed the US Grazing Service in 1939 and then merged in 1946 with the General Land Office to become the Bureau of Land Management, which along with the United States Forest Service oversees public lands grazing in 16 western states today. Some grazing land was homesteaded, but not much in the West. Today, the federal government employs principles of land use planning and environmental protection to preserve the natural resources and scenic beauty found on public land. The land in question is unequivocally owned by the federal government. Permits have been issued here before the BLM existed. And yes, it sucks if they aren't improving the land as they said they would, but it is public land, and I would HOPE the government charges a business to use it.
In regards to principles of ex post facto laws, you are wrong as well. Laws can always change, but they apply prospectively. Here is a hypothetical: lets say grazing on federal lands was legal for 50 years but illegalized today. If you kept grazing tomorrow, you would be breaking the law and subject to penalty. The fact is, the law was never codified before the Taylor act, but when it was first grazed by Bundy's family it was a federal territory, subject to their control. And permanent grazing rights were never established, that is a large part in what allowed two district courts to rule the cattle could be removed.
Basic constitution courses should be taught to everyone somewhere between middle and high school. It is so sad what so many people incorrectly believe regarding basic constitutional rights.
I have many times stated I don't have a dog in the fight.. but some of these arguments are such a circle-jerk.
So the way we prove something is 'right' is through an act? The Taylor Grazing Act took lands that were intended/destined to be state held (with state tax base) and placed them in a quassi-permanent state exempt from ever being able to become private lands.
This is a clear violation of the intent, the expressed purpose and the explicit provisions, of the treaties, the ordinances, and the state compacts... and the constitution of the United States.
So the way we prove something is 'right' is through an act? The Taylor Grazing Act took lands that were intended/destined to be state held (with state tax base) and placed them in a quassi-permanent state exempt from ever being able to become private lands.
This is a clear violation of the intent, the expressed purpose and the explicit provisions, of the treaties, the ordinances, and the state compacts... and the constitution of the United States.
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
The Taylor grazing act only applied to federal lands that were not granted to states. It did not take away state land.
You are right in regards to the express purpose of the treaties and original state compacts, but you have to look at the historical context for those compacts. The U.S. Constitution addresses the relationship of the federal government to own land. The Property Clause of the Constitution 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....
People have argued that Equal footing laws should allow new western states to own most if not all of their land similar to states in the east. But for years courts have consistently ruled that this clause does not require the federal government to "any limitations on holding lands ceded by the original states did not apply to western lands acquired after the Constitution went into effect, and that the equal footing doctrine did not mean new western states were entitled to all federal lands in their borders".
The Constitution reserves to Congress the authority to decide which federal lands to sell or keep. And the rulings make a lot of sense. Prior to the constitution, the states in existence would have never joined the U.S. if they couldn't keep their Eastern lands. They did however give up lands owned to them at the time in the West (IIRC almost to the Mississippi, but was expanded as the federal government was held to own all territories as well). All of the states agreed that land to the west would be federal territories. As all of the western territories were federal territories that were not yet states, those wanting statehood with an already established government were on much different footing. When they agreed to statehood, the federal government determined how much land would be granted to them. Unfortunately as all of the states in existence at the time were in the East, their agreements had a major affect on state ownership in the west.
Thanks. Could you please reference the stated clauses? I mean this sincerely when I say you obviously know more in this than I do and I am a fact/context guy.. not one that twists words to fit an agenda, so I really am being sincere.
How does what your citing above reflect/line up with the Enclave clause? SECTION 1, ARTICLE 8, CLAUSE 17.
Yesterday was one of the most incredible things I have ever witnessed. Please let's keep the negative rhetoric to a minimum.. especially for those that haven't actually done something with a purpose in their lives. Tia.
That I know of, there were armed and organized militia from GA, TX, UT, NV, AZ, NH, TN, KY, and FL.
They became well organized as a unit and had a plan.. to the surprise of the federal agents.
As they approached the fed's compound and the confiscated cattle on horseback and most everyone with sidearms, the feds warned to disperse or they would chemical spray. The protesters refused to back down and kept coming fwd, but with hands up (mostly). They lulled the feds to sleep with their passive aggression... the feds kept coming closer as well...
It was then the feds found they had been flanked and their were armed malitia hiding in the k-bars of the overpasses and then the long guns (mostly AR's) emerged from the overpasses above and were trained on the feds.
The feds retreated and the cattle were taken back.
I have incredible footage of all this that has been uploading for 12 hours now (wtf).
I know it isn't over, obviously. But I loved watching Americans stick together and fight for a belief (whether they're right or wrong). These were good people and not a single one came off as some trigger-happy knuckledragging hero looking to make a name for himself.
It was a TENSE time, I will admit, but I never felt like someone was going to lose their cool.
That I know of, there were armed and organized militia from GA, TX, UT, NV, AZ, NH, TN, KY, and FL.
They became well organized as a unit and had a plan.. to the surprise of the federal agents.
As they approached the fed's compound and the confiscated cattle on horseback and most everyone with sidearms, the feds warned to disperse or they would chemical spray. The protesters refused to back down and kept coming fwd, but with hands up (mostly). They lulled the feds to sleep with their passive aggression... the feds kept coming closer as well...
It was then the feds found they had been flanked and their were armed malitia hiding in the k-bars of the overpasses and then the long guns (mostly AR's) emerged from the overpasses above and were trained on the feds.
The feds retreated and the cattle were taken back.
I have incredible footage of all this that has been uploading for 12 hours now (wtf).
I know it isn't over, obviously. But I loved watching Americans stick together and fight for a belief (whether they're right or wrong). These were good people and not a single one came off as some trigger-happy knuckledragging hero looking to make a name for himself.
It was a TENSE time, I will admit, but I never felt like someone was going to lose their cool.
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
Property clause:
https://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause
The enclave clause govens a very small subset of federal land like military bases. It does not conflict with the property clause. It also includes land that states voluntarily cede to the feds (courthouses, post offices etc)
Last edited by a moderator: