Bureau of Land Management vs Robert "LaVoy" Finicum, and the US Constitution

[Contumacious]

How is Section 2 relevant?

But please note that the Founding Fathers specifically delineated the courts subject matter jurisdiction.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—

So where the fuck did the get the authority to consider criminal cases where the authority was not specifically enumerated by the Constitution?

.

Check out the Property clause. And who gets to make the rules on Federal property.

Then check the passage you cited again. Specifically, the 'Law of the United States' part. With 'conspiracy' being one of those federal laws.

Remember, Cont....we're using the actual law here. Not what you imagine the law to be.

HUH?

Ohhhhh, its you.

Let me remind you that Oregon and the rest of the region are STATES

SO the motherfuckers inside the DC beltway can't go in and declare state lands to be federal lands willy nilly.

Remember , socialist comrade, we are using actual law, not your Communist Manifesto.


.

Using big fonts will not convince anyone your words are any less nonsense. The lands in question never belonged to the state. They were lands acquired via international treaties and later, treaties with native tribes. Jurisdiction of these lands was kept by the federal government when Oregon became a state.They have been protected and maintained at the expense of the federal government and taxpayers ever since.

USING SMALL FONTS WILL NOT CONVINCE INTELLIGENT PEOPLE LIKE CONTUMACIOUS THAT YOUR WORDS ARE ANY LESS SOCIALIST NONSE.

NOW PROVIDE A LINK THAT SHOWS THAT THE LANDS WERE ACQUIRED LAWFULLY, IE, CONSTITUTIONALLY (1787)


.

history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/oregon-territory

AGAIN

According to Article I, section 8, the "takings" power of Congress, and thereby of the federal government, extends only to the "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). Stated in more simple terms for the functionally illiterate, the federal government can never take the property of an individual for any purpose. All appropriations of property by the federal government for any other reason and by any other means than those stated above are illegal and unconstitutional.

SINCE OREGON IS NO LONGER A TERRITORY SHOW ME WHERE PROCEEEDINGS PURSUANT TO ARTCLE 1, SECTION 8 WERE CONDUCTED.


.

 

[Contumacious]

Let me remind you that the federal property within that State are under Federal law. As per the Property Clause.

Try again, Cont.

This person will continue to argue until eventually he admits he just does not believe the federal government has any right to do anything.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL (1787) AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT **FOREIGN****AFFAIRS INCLUDING WITH THE INDIAN NATIONS AND TO PREVENT THE STATES FROM RESTRICTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE


THAT'S ALL FOLKS.


.

See the Property Clause, Cont.

You can ignore it. But it doesn't make it magically disappear.

READ THE CONSTITUTION (1787) AND THE DEBATES

You can ignore them. But it doesn't make them magically disappear.

The Property Clause is in the constitution. And where in the debates is the Property clause voided?

Specifically.

READ post 261.

I did not say that it was voided. I said that once a territory became a state it must be read as part of the Property Clause.

.

 

[bendog]

Who was the individual, who owned the property you refer to, before the feds took it?

 

[Contumacious]

Well, look, maybe there's a plot of BLM land that was leased for years with 60 head of cattle, now BLM says no more than 20.

But to say the Fed Cts don't have jurisdiction in a court action between the BLM and a rancher is just full retard, and that is really insulting people with developmental disabilities.

YO DINGLE BERRY

I DID NOT SAY THAT WHAT YOU CALL FEDERAL COURTS DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO VENTILATE A CASE STYLED " WE THE PEOPLE VS THE BLM"

I AM SAYING THAT CONGRESS HAS MADE SURE THAT THE "JUDGES" THAT THEY HAVE CHOSEN WILL MAKE SURE THAT THE GOVERNMENT PREVAILS

THEY HAVE CHOSEN INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SWORE TO ENLARGE THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY

.

You asshat. No citizen has the legal standing to assert he may join me in his suit against the fed govt without first showing I share some grievance with him.

Bundy or Al can sue the govt in federal court to their heart's content. But, they have to have a claim. And claiming the fed govt doesn't own the land doesn't make it.

BULLSHIT

STANDING IS A JUDICIALLY CREATED LEGAL FICTION TO PREVENT ***WE THE PEOPLE*** FROM DEFENDING THE US CONSTITUTION.

AS GUARDIANS OF THE CONSTITUTION ALL AMERICANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO PREVENT VIOLATIONS IN OREGON OR ANY OTHER STATE CONCERNING ANY PROVISO, OF THE US CONSTITUTION (1787).

 

[bendog]

Well, no you don't. I didn't have standing to sue to defund Vietnam or Iraq. And the Founders didn't have standing to sue the King over no representation, which was sort of the whole nexus of the thing, as it were.

BUT, if the fed govt took land that was actually owned by an individual, then that individual could certainly challenge whether there was a legal sale or taking.

 

[Contumacious]

Who was the individual, who owned the property you refer to, before the feds took it?

IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER

IN

FORT LEAVENWORTH R. CO. v. LOWE, Sheriff, etc.
114 U.S. 525 (5 S.Ct. 995, 29 L.Ed. 264)(1885)

SCOTUS RULED THAT:



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

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh can the bullshit, Cont., we in Oregon appreciate having that land as belonging to all of us. And having it regulated so that it remains productive, instead of a desert due to overgrazing.

That bunch of non-feathered loons that occupied the Refuge will get to occupy a federal facility for a long time. Isn't that what they wanted?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Contumacious]

Oh can the bullshit, Cont., we in Oregon appreciate having that land as belonging to all of us. And having it regulated so that it remains productive, instead of a desert due to overgrazing.

That bunch of non-feathered loons that occupied the Refuge will get to occupy a federal facility for a long time. Isn't that what they wanted?

BULLSHIT

IT HAS TO BE DONE ACCORDING TO THE Enclave Clause.

Just because you are an Oregonian doesn't mean that you are honest, not motivated by envy, and that you respect the right of white ranchers.


.

 

[Syriusly]

Who was the individual, who owned the property you refer to, before the feds took it?

IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER

IN

FORT LEAVENWORTH R. CO. v. LOWE, Sheriff, etc.
114 U.S. 525 (5 S.Ct. 995, 29 L.Ed. 264)(1885)

SCOTUS RULED THAT:



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

From the same ruling:

Congress might undoubtedly, upon such admission, have stipulated for retention of the political authority, dominion, and legislative power of the United States over the reservation, so long as it should be used for military purposes by the government; that is, it could have excepted the place from the jurisdiction of Kansas, as one needed for the uses of the general government. But from some cause, inadvertence perhaps, or overconfidence that a recession of such jurisdiction could be had whenever desired, no such stipulation or exception was made.

 

[Camp]

Oh can the bullshit, Cont., we in Oregon appreciate having that land as belonging to all of us. And having it regulated so that it remains productive, instead of a desert due to overgrazing.

That bunch of non-feathered loons that occupied the Refuge will get to occupy a federal facility for a long time. Isn't that what they wanted?

BULLSHIT

IT HAS TO BE DONE ACCORDING TO THE Enclave Clause.

Just because you are an Oregonian doesn't mean that you are honest, not motivated by envy, and that you respect the right of white ranchers.


.

You do not understand the enclave clause or other terms you are posting. Townships created when territories were created were not enclaves or purchased sections from the state. They were automatically recognized as federal properties. The Oregon territory was divided into these six-mile square townships comprised of 36 sections, each composed of a 640-acre parcel. Oregon agreed in its constitution that the land was federal property by accepting ownership of only two sections per township as state property to be used for schools. It should be Article 5 or 8 of the Oregon Constitution.

So now you have been supplied with how the federal government acquired the state and how the state agreed that huge areas of the state would be federal land. The only thing you have is a non-related amendment that describes the process when the federal government buys a state property and the designation of sovereignty. Absolutely nothing to do with BLM land or wildlife refuges

 

[Contumacious]

Exactly, why isn't the Reverend Al Sharpton defending American Lives that matter?

Woman says she was feet away when shots killed Oregon occupier Finicum


.

 

[Syriusly]

more from the Court:
In their relation to the general government, the states of the Union stand in a very different position from that which they hold to foreign governments. Though the jurisdiction and authority of the general government are essentially different from those of the state, they are not those of a different country; and the two, the state and general government, may deal with each other in any way they may deem best to carry out the purposes of the constitution. It is for the protection and interests of the states, their people and property, as well as for the protection and interests of the people generally of the United States, that forts, arsenals, and other buildings for public uses are constructed within the states. As instrumentalities for the execution of the powers of the general government, they are, as already said, exempt from such control of the states as would defeat or impair their use for those purposes; and if, to their more effective use, a cession of legislative authority and political jurisdiction by the state would be desirable, we do not perceive any objection to its* grant by the legislature of the state. Such cession is really as much for the benefit of the state as it is for the benefit of the United States. It is necessarily temporary, to be exercised only so long as the places continue to be used for the public purposes for which the property was acquired or reserved from sale. When they cease to be thus used, the jurisdiction reverts to the state

 

[Contumacious]

Who was the individual, who owned the property you refer to, before the feds took it?

IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER

IN

FORT LEAVENWORTH R. CO. v. LOWE, Sheriff, etc.
114 U.S. 525 (5 S.Ct. 995, 29 L.Ed. 264)(1885)

SCOTUS RULED THAT:



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

From the same ruling:

Congress might undoubtedly, upon such admission, have stipulated for retention of the political authority, dominion, and legislative power of the United States over the reservation, so long as it should be used for military purposes by the government; that is, it could have excepted the place from the jurisdiction of Kansas, as one needed for the uses of the general government. But from some cause, inadvertence perhaps, or overconfidence that a recession of such jurisdiction could be had whenever desired, no such stipulation or exception was made.

"From the same ruling:

Congress might undoubtedly, upon such admission, have stipulated for retention of the political authority, dominion, and legislative power of the United States over the reservation, so long as it should be used for military purposes by the government; that is,it could have excepted the place from the jurisdiction of Kansas, as one needed for the uses of the general government. But from some cause, inadvertence perhaps, or overconfidence that a recession of such jurisdiction could be had whenever desired, no such stipulation or exception was made.

 

[Contumacious]

more from the Court:
In their relation to the general government, the states of the Union stand in a very different position from that which they hold to foreign governments. Though the jurisdiction and authority of the general government are essentially different from those of the state, they are not those of a different country; and the two, the state and general government, may deal with each other in any way they may deem best to carry out the purposes of the constitution. It is for the protection and interests of the states, their people and property, as well as for the protection and interests of the people generally of the United States, that forts, arsenals, and other buildings for public uses are constructed within the states. As instrumentalities for the execution of the powers of the general government, they are, as already said, exempt from such control of the states as would defeat or impair their use for those purposes; and if, to their more effective use, a cession of legislative authority and political jurisdiction by the state would be desirable, we do not perceive any objection to its* grant by the legislature of the state. Such cession is really as much for the benefit of the state as it is for the benefit of the United States. It is necessarily temporary, to be exercised only so long as the places continue to be used for the public purposes for which the property was acquired or reserved from sale. When they cease to be thus used, the jurisdiction reverts to the state

more from the Court:

In their relation to the general government, the states of the Union stand in a very different position from that which they hold to foreign governments. Though the jurisdiction and authority of the general government are essentially different from those of the state, they are not those of a different country; and the two, the state and general government, may deal with each other in any way they may deem best to carry out the purposes of the constitution. It is for the protection and interests of the states, their people and property, as well as for the protection and interests of the people generally of the United States, that forts, arsenals, and other buildings for public uses are constructed within the states. As instrumentalities for the execution of the powers of the general government, they are, as already said, exempt from such control of the states as would defeat or impair their use for those purposes; and if, to their more effective use, a cession of legislative authority and political jurisdiction by the state would be desirable, we do not perceive any objection to its* grant by the legislature of the state. Such cession is really as much for the benefit of the state as it is for the benefit of the United States. It is necessarily temporary, to be exercised only so long as the places continue to be used for the public purposes for which the property was acquired or reserved from sale. When they cease to be thus used, the jurisdiction reverts to the state"

 

[Contumacious]

Oh can the bullshit, Cont., we in Oregon appreciate having that land as belonging to all of us. And having it regulated so that it remains productive, instead of a desert due to overgrazing.

That bunch of non-feathered loons that occupied the Refuge will get to occupy a federal facility for a long time. Isn't that what they wanted?

BULLSHIT

IT HAS TO BE DONE ACCORDING TO THE Enclave Clause.

Just because you are an Oregonian doesn't mean that you are honest, not motivated by envy, and that you respect the right of white ranchers.


.

You do not understand the enclave clause or other terms you are posting. Townships created when territories were created were not enclaves or purchased sections from the state. They were automatically recognized as federal properties. The Oregon territory was divided into these six-mile square townships comprised of 36 sections, each composed of a 640-acre parcel. Oregon agreed in its constitution that the land was federal property by accepting ownership of only two sections per township as state property to be used for schools. It should be Article 5 or 8 of the Oregon Constitution.

So now you have been supplied with how the federal government acquired the state and how the state agreed that huge areas of the state would be federal land. The only thing you have is a non-related amendment that describes the process when the federal government buys a state property and the designation of sovereignty. Absolutely nothing to do with BLM land or wildlife refuges

You do not understand the enclave clause or other terms you are posting.

AGAIN, STATES WERE ADMITTED TO THE UNION IN THE SAME FOOTING AS THE ORIGINAL STATES.


ONCE STATE BECAME A STATE the enclave clause applies.


I DON'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE DISPUTED LANDS ARE BEING USED AS FORTS OR ARSENALS.

YOU LOSE

THANK YOU FOR PLAYING

COME BACK WHEN YOU ARE NO LONGER A BERNER.

 

[Camp]

more from the Court:
In their relation to the general government, the states of the Union stand in a very different position from that which they hold to foreign governments. Though the jurisdiction and authority of the general government are essentially different from those of the state, they are not those of a different country; and the two, the state and general government, may deal with each other in any way they may deem best to carry out the purposes of the constitution. It is for the protection and interests of the states, their people and property, as well as for the protection and interests of the people generally of the United States, that forts, arsenals, and other buildings for public uses are constructed within the states. As instrumentalities for the execution of the powers of the general government, they are, as already said, exempt from such control of the states as would defeat or impair their use for those purposes; and if, to their more effective use, a cession of legislative authority and political jurisdiction by the state would be desirable, we do not perceive any objection to its* grant by the legislature of the state. Such cession is really as much for the benefit of the state as it is for the benefit of the United States. It is necessarily temporary, to be exercised only so long as the places continue to be used for the public purposes for which the property was acquired or reserved from sale. When they cease to be thus used, the jurisdiction reverts to the state

more from the Court:

In their relation to the general government, the states of the Union stand in a very different position from that which they hold to foreign governments. Though the jurisdiction and authority of the general government are essentially different from those of the state, they are not those of a different country; and the two, the state and general government, may deal with each other in any way they may deem best to carry out the purposes of the constitution. It is for the protection and interests of the states, their people and property, as well as for the protection and interests of the people generally of the United States, that forts, arsenals, and other buildings for public uses are constructed within the states. As instrumentalities for the execution of the powers of the general government, they are, as already said, exempt from such control of the states as would defeat or impair their use for those purposes; and if, to their more effective use, a cession of legislative authority and political jurisdiction by the state would be desirable, we do not perceive any objection to its* grant by the legislature of the state. Such cession is really as much for the benefit of the state as it is for the benefit of the United States. It is necessarily temporary, to be exercised only so long as the places continue to be used for the public purposes for which the property was acquired or reserved from sale. When they cease to be thus used, the jurisdiction reverts to the state"

BLM lands are not forts and military installations. But it is great the way trolls like you put out one talking point after another to be knocked down one after the other to educate the general public about how dopey the talking points are. Thanks for playing, keep it up.

 

[Contumacious]

more from the Court:
In their relation to the general government, the states of the Union stand in a very different position from that which they hold to foreign governments. Though the jurisdiction and authority of the general government are essentially different from those of the state, they are not those of a different country; and the two, the state and general government, may deal with each other in any way they may deem best to carry out the purposes of the constitution. It is for the protection and interests of the states, their people and property, as well as for the protection and interests of the people generally of the United States, that forts, arsenals, and other buildings for public uses are constructed within the states. As instrumentalities for the execution of the powers of the general government, they are, as already said, exempt from such control of the states as would defeat or impair their use for those purposes; and if, to their more effective use, a cession of legislative authority and political jurisdiction by the state would be desirable, we do not perceive any objection to its* grant by the legislature of the state. Such cession is really as much for the benefit of the state as it is for the benefit of the United States. It is necessarily temporary, to be exercised only so long as the places continue to be used for the public purposes for which the property was acquired or reserved from sale. When they cease to be thus used, the jurisdiction reverts to the state

more from the Court:

In their relation to the general government, the states of the Union stand in a very different position from that which they hold to foreign governments. Though the jurisdiction and authority of the general government are essentially different from those of the state, they are not those of a different country; and the two, the state and general government, may deal with each other in any way they may deem best to carry out the purposes of the constitution. It is for the protection and interests of the states, their people and property, as well as for the protection and interests of the people generally of the United States, that forts, arsenals, and other buildings for public uses are constructed within the states. As instrumentalities for the execution of the powers of the general government, they are, as already said, exempt from such control of the states as would defeat or impair their use for those purposes; and if, to their more effective use, a cession of legislative authority and political jurisdiction by the state would be desirable, we do not perceive any objection to its* grant by the legislature of the state. Such cession is really as much for the benefit of the state as it is for the benefit of the United States. It is necessarily temporary, to be exercised only so long as the places continue to be used for the public purposes for which the property was acquired or reserved from sale. When they cease to be thus used, the jurisdiction reverts to the state"

BLM lands are not forts and military installations. But it is great the way trolls like you put out one talking point after another to be knocked down one after the other to educate the general public about how dopey the talking points are. Thanks for playing, keep it up.

THANK YOU FOR ADMITTING THAT BLM LANDS WERE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SEIZED BECAUSE THE SOCIALISTS, THE FASCISTS, THE BERNERS AND THE ELITISTS.BELIEVE THEY KNOW BETTER.

.


.

 

[Searcher44]

Oregon Standoff: Federal Land Grab vs. the Sagebrush Rebellion

The occupation of the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon by a small group of armed protesters represents a new and confrontational tactic in the Sagebrush Rebellion–the decades old struggle of Western ranchers against federal control of state lands. While the majority of rancher disputes are against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) the US Fish and Wildlife Service has been just as ruthless–in this case expanding the wildlife refuge at the expense of neighboring ranchers. This week I’ll detail the struggle of the Hammond family, and of Ammon Bundy the protest leader. When you read the litany of federal abuse of ranching families, you will better understand why some ranchers are staging an armed resistance. I also give some suggestions on how this can be resolved peacefully.

The continuous criminal enterprise continues to slaughter Americans , perpetrate treason against the Constitution while the narcotized populace pick their collective noses and propel and avowed socialist to the Whitehouse.

For shame

I sympathize with the Hammonds who appear to have been steamrolled by an out of control federal bureaucracy wielding that anti-terrorist McGuffin conservatives so loudly demanded and enthusiastically applaud when pulled out of the hat to prosecute those (e.g. Snowden) who oppose the overreach by exposing its ugly innards. I know it isn't just conservatives but they are the most vocal and vicious in calling down maximum punishment on people like Snowden. And if you can't see the organic link between the Hammonds and Snowden, For shame.

 

[jillian]

Oregon Standoff: Federal Land Grab vs. the Sagebrush Rebellion

The occupation of the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon by a small group of armed protesters represents a new and confrontational tactic in the Sagebrush Rebellion–the decades old struggle of Western ranchers against federal control of state lands. While the majority of rancher disputes are against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) the US Fish and Wildlife Service has been just as ruthless–in this case expanding the wildlife refuge at the expense of neighboring ranchers. This week I’ll detail the struggle of the Hammond family, and of Ammon Bundy the protest leader. When you read the litany of federal abuse of ranching families, you will better understand why some ranchers are staging an armed resistance. I also give some suggestions on how this can be resolved peacefully.

The continuous criminal enterprise continues to slaughter Americans , perpetrate treason against the Constitution while the narcotized populace pick their collective noses and propel and avowed socialist to the Whitehouse.

For shame

the treasonous loons who raised arms against federal officers were not protesters.

now pretend it was a BLM "protester" who did that.

you wouldn't be saying the government was the problem.

treasonous neo-confederate insurrectionist nutjobs are funny.