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

[Contumacious]

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.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1- the federal government "owns " up to 85% of lands within certain states
2- Americans are the GUARDIANS OF THE CONSTITUTION
3- Republican Ronald Reagan declared himself a sagebrush rebel in an August 1980 campaign speech in Salt Lake City, telling the crowd, "I happen to be one who cheers and supports the Sagebrush Rebellion. Count me in as a rebel."[3] Reagan faced opposition from enviro-nazis. This struggle persists today after changing form with the "wise use movement" in 1988.
3- The lands in dispute are used for NON-MILITARY PURPOSES
4- Ranchers complain that grazing fees are too high.[6] They also complain that grazing regulations are too onerous despite environmentalist complaints that the opposite is true,[7] and that promised improvements to grazing on federal lands do not occur. Miners complain of restricted access to claims, or to lands to prospect. Researchers complain of the difficulty of getting research permits, only to encounter other obstacles in research, including uncooperative permit holders and, especially in archaeology, vandalized sites with key information destroyed. ORV users want free access while hikers and campers and conservationists complain grazing is not regulated enough and that some mineral lease holders abuse other lands, or that ORV use destroys the resource. Each of these complaints has a long history.

SO, FUCK YOU NOW.

 

[bendog]

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

There has to be some level of honesty here. The term "enclave clause" is not in that case, and that case is no longer valid law. And, that case includes the following language:
the United States possessed, on the adoption of the constitution, an immense domain lying north and west of the Ohio river, acquired as the result of the revolutionary war, from Great Britain, or by cessions from Virginia, Massachusetts, and Connecticut; and, since the adoption of the constitution, they have, by cession from foreign countries, come into the ownership of a territory still larger, lying between the Mississippi river and the Pacific ocean, and out of these territories several states have been formed and admitted into the Union. The proprietorship of the United States in large tracts of land within these states has remained after their admission. There has been, therefore, no necessity for them to purchase or to condemn lands within those states, for forts, arsenals, and other public buildings, unless they had disposed of what they afterwards needed. Having the title, they have usually reserved certain portions of their lands from sale or other disposition, for the uses of the government. p. 532

As an aside, what occurred in Lowe was the feds, for some unknown reason, failed to state they retained or reserved ownership of the land in question.

The power of the feds to own land is not open to rationality. Lujan, 497 US 871 (1990)

In various enactments, Congress empowered United States citizens to acquire title to, and rights in, vast portions of federally owned land. See, e.g., Rev.Stat. § 2319, 30 U.S.C. § 22 et seq. (Mining Law of 1872); 41 Stat. 437, as amended, 30 U.S.C. § 181 et seq. (Mineral Leasing Act of 1920). Congress also provided means, however, for the Executive to remove public lands from the operation of these statutes. The Pickett Act, 36 Stat. 847, 43 U.S.C. § 141 (1970 ed.), repealed, 90 Stat. 2792 (1976), authorized the President “at any time in his discretion, temporarily [to] withdraw from settlement, location, sale, or entry any of the *876 public lands of the United States ... and reserve the same for water-power sites, irrigation, classification of lands, or other public purposes....” Acting under this and under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, ch. 865, 48 Stat. 1269, as amended, 43 U.S.C. § 315f, which gave the Secretary of the Interior authority to “classify” public lands as suitable for either disposal or federal retention and management, President Franklin Roosevelt withdrew all unreserved public land from disposal until such time as they were classified. Exec. Order No. 6910, Nov. 26, 1934; Exec. Order No. 6964, Feb. 5, 1935. In 1936, Congress amended § 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior “to examine and classify any lands” withdrawn by these orders and by other authority as “more valuable or suitable” for other uses “and to open such lands to entry, selection, or location for disposal in accordance with such classification under applicable public-land laws.” 49 Stat. 1976, 43 U.S.C. § 315f (1982 ed.). The amendment also directed that ch lands shall not be subject to disposition, settlement, or occupation until after the same have been classified and opened to entry.” Ibid. The 1964 classification and multiple use Act, 78 Stat. 986, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1411-1418 (1970 ed.) (expired 1970), gave the Secretary further authority to classify lands for the purpose of either disposal or retention by the Federal Government.

I really don't know how the feds came to own the Oregon land. And, it may be they don't actually own it, but instead Ore agreed to let the Feds manage the land.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Skylar]

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.


.

Please note 'other needful buildings'.

With the federal land in Oregon purchased by the United States per both Oregon and the United States.

You're obligated to prove that Oregon never ceded the land. That the US never claimed it as property. The Federal government can't make rules for federal property. And that the buildings aren't needful.

Please do so now.

 

[eagle1462010]

I have shown many cases of the Gov'ts ABUSE of POWER on this thread. Where average citizens have been the target of a Gov't with too damned much power.

I've ONLY seen, they are the Gov't and they can do as they please....................in response.................

I'll STAY on the side that PUT'S A LEASH on an out of control Gov't, that uses it's power to intimidate people. Those with the love fest with Gov't............can KISS MY ASS.....................

And that is that.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Career Criminals Not Patriots


The 10 men charged in Malheur occupation have criminal histories involving domestic violence, illegal firearm possession and terrorist threats

Arrested Oregon militiamen have had extensive previous run-ins with the law


Wes Kjar yells for more police footage in the death of Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum during a protest outside the Harney County Courthouse in Burns, Oregon on Monday. Photograph: Jim Urquhart/Reuters

The arrested militiamen of the Oregon refuge occupation have had extensive previous run-ins with the law – and a history of anti-government protests that federal officials are now using against them in court.


In recent filings in federal court in Portland, prosecutors have detailed the criminal histories of the 11 people facing felony charges for their involvement in the armed occupation of the Malheur national wildlife refuge, which began 2 January and continues to drag on this week with no end in sight.

The men’s rap sheets include cases of domestic violence, illegal firearm possession, terrorist threats, resisting arrest and drug crimes, according to the court records

 

[SmokeALib]

The more land this huge, unaccountable, and bankrupt government seizes , the more power it has. Once a government for the people - is now a government over the people. You Dims are getting exactly what you want.

 

[Skylar]

I have shown many cases of the Gov'ts ABUSE of POWER on this thread. Where average citizens have been the target of a Gov't with too damned much power.

I've ONLY seen, they are the Gov't and they can do as they please....................in response.................

I'll STAY on the side that PUT'S A LEASH on an out of control Gov't, that uses it's power to intimidate people. Those with the love fest with Gov't............can KISS MY ASS.....................

And that is that.

You'll stay on the side of those who are trying to murder cops in cold blood. No thank you.

 

[Skylar]

The more land this huge, unaccountable, and bankrupt government seizes , the more power it has. Once a government for the people - is now a government over the people. You Dims are getting exactly what you want.

You do realize that the government had held this land since 1908, right?

 

[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

There has to be some level of honesty here. The term "enclave clause" is not in that case, and that case is no longer valid law. And, that case includes the following language:
the United States possessed, on the adoption of the constitution, an immense domain lying north and west of the Ohio river, acquired as the result of the revolutionary war, from Great Britain, or by cessions from Virginia, Massachusetts, and Connecticut; and, since the adoption of the constitution, they have, by cession from foreign countries, come into the ownership of a territory still larger, lying between the Mississippi river and the Pacific ocean, and out of these territories several states have been formed and admitted into the Union. The proprietorship of the United States in large tracts of land within these states has remained after their admission. There has been, therefore, no necessity for them to purchase or to condemn lands within those states, for forts, arsenals, and other public buildings, unless they had disposed of what they afterwards needed. Having the title, they have usually reserved certain portions of their lands from sale or other disposition, for the uses of the government. p. 532

As an aside, what occurred in Lowe was the feds, for some unknown reason, failed to state they retained or reserved ownership of the land in question.

The power of the feds to own land is not open to rationality. Lujan, 497 US 871 (1990)

In various enactments, Congress empowered United States citizens to acquire title to, and rights in, vast portions of federally owned land. See, e.g., Rev.Stat. § 2319, 30 U.S.C. § 22 et seq. (Mining Law of 1872); 41 Stat. 437, as amended, 30 U.S.C. § 181 et seq. (Mineral Leasing Act of 1920). Congress also provided means, however, for the Executive to remove public lands from the operation of these statutes. The Pickett Act, 36 Stat. 847, 43 U.S.C. § 141 (1970 ed.), repealed, 90 Stat. 2792 (1976), authorized the President “at any time in his discretion, temporarily [to] withdraw from settlement, location, sale, or entry any of the *876 public lands of the United States ... and reserve the same for water-power sites, irrigation, classification of lands, or other public purposes....” Acting under this and under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, ch. 865, 48 Stat. 1269, as amended, 43 U.S.C. § 315f, which gave the Secretary of the Interior authority to “classify” public lands as suitable for either disposal or federal retention and management, President Franklin Roosevelt withdrew all unreserved public land from disposal until such time as they were classified. Exec. Order No. 6910, Nov. 26, 1934; Exec. Order No. 6964, Feb. 5, 1935. In 1936, Congress amended § 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior “to examine and classify any lands” withdrawn by these orders and by other authority as “more valuable or suitable” for other uses “and to open such lands to entry, selection, or location for disposal in accordance with such classification under applicable public-land laws.” 49 Stat. 1976, 43 U.S.C. § 315f (1982 ed.). The amendment also directed that ch lands shall not be subject to disposition, settlement, or occupation until after the same have been classified and opened to entry.” Ibid. The 1964 classification and multiple use Act, 78 Stat. 986, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1411-1418 (1970 ed.) (expired 1970), gave the Secretary further authority to classify lands for the purpose of either disposal or retention by the Federal Government.

I really don't know how the feds came to own the Oregon land. And, it may be they don't actually own it, but instead Ore agreed to let the Feds manage the land.

There has to be some level of honesty here.

Your post, as per usual is full of socialist demagoguery

The Bundy stand-off in Nevada has induced several people to ask me about the extent to which the federal government can own land, at least under the Constitution’s intended meaning. As it happens, in 2005 I studied the issue in depth, and published the following article: Federal Land Retention and the Constitution’s Property Clause: The Original Understanding, 76 U. Colo. L. Rev. 327 (2005).

In a nutshell, here’s what I found:

 

[Contumacious]

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.


.

Please note 'other needful buildings'.

With the federal land in Oregon purchased by the United States per both Oregon and the United States.

You're obligated to prove that Oregon never ceded the land. That the US never claimed it as property. The Federal government can't make rules for federal property. And that the buildings aren't needful.

Please do so now.

OREGON NEVER CEDED THE LAND

OREGON ADMISSION ACTS


ACT OF CONGRESS ADMITTING OREGON INTO UNION


[Approved February 14, 1859]


Preamble. Whereas the people of Oregon have framed, ratified, and adopted a constitution of State government which is republican in form, and in conformity with the Constitution of the United States, and have applied for admission into the Union on an equal footing with the other States; Therefore—

 

[Contumacious]

Career Criminals Not Patriots


The 10 men charged in Malheur occupation have criminal histories involving domestic violence, illegal firearm possession and terrorist threats

Arrested Oregon militiamen have had extensive previous run-ins with the law


Wes Kjar yells for more police footage in the death of Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum during a protest outside the Harney County Courthouse in Burns, Oregon on Monday. Photograph: Jim Urquhart/Reuters

The arrested militiamen of the Oregon refuge occupation have had extensive previous run-ins with the law – and a history of anti-government protests that federal officials are now using against them in court.


In recent filings in federal court in Portland, prosecutors have detailed the criminal histories of the 11 people facing felony charges for their involvement in the armed occupation of the Malheur national wildlife refuge, which began 2 January and continues to drag on this week with no end in sight.

The men’s rap sheets include cases of domestic violence, illegal firearm possession, terrorist threats, resisting arrest and drug crimes, according to the court records

SO?


.

 

[bendog]

From what RW faux blog do you block and copy this tripe?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

SO?


.

They are low lives.....street scum...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Please note 'other needful buildings'.

on an equal footing with the other States; Therefore—

So what shit head...you lose ...losah

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Bundy militants could be forced to repay $3.4 million to taxpayers over illegal stunt
“The state and local government shouldn’t have to pick up the tab — it’s not their fault.”

 

[bendog]

Well this is legally "wrong," at least in terms of what courts have held for over 100 years, but unlike a certain poster it at least coherently and honestly sets forth the reasoning of the argument against the fed govt from being able to own all that land.

Federal Land Ownership: Is It Constitutional? | Tenth Amendment Center

 

[Skylar]

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.


.

Please note 'other needful buildings'.

With the federal land in Oregon purchased by the United States per both Oregon and the United States.

You're obligated to prove that Oregon never ceded the land. That the US never claimed it as property. The Federal government can't make rules for federal property. And that the buildings aren't needful.

Please do so now.

OREGON NEVER CEDED THE LAND

OREGON ADMISSION ACTS


ACT OF CONGRESS ADMITTING OREGON INTO UNION


[Approved February 14, 1859]


Preamble. Whereas the people of Oregon have framed, ratified, and adopted a constitution of State government which is republican in form, and in conformity with the Constitution of the United States, and have applied for admission into the Union on an equal footing with the other States; Therefore—

Oregon clearly disagrees.

Specifically, see Section 4 of the Oregon Admissions Act.

Cont, I know you wanna believe that you've found some super secret loop hole that no one in a century and a half has figured out.

But really......you're just clueless.

 

[eagle1462010]

I have shown many cases of the Gov'ts ABUSE of POWER on this thread. Where average citizens have been the target of a Gov't with too damned much power.

I've ONLY seen, they are the Gov't and they can do as they please....................in response.................

I'll STAY on the side that PUT'S A LEASH on an out of control Gov't, that uses it's power to intimidate people. Those with the love fest with Gov't............can KISS MY ASS.....................

And that is that.

You'll stay on the side of those who are trying to murder cops in cold blood. No thank you.

BS.............they didn't fire their weapons...............end of story............

Your late for torturing cattle and mustangs again aren't you...............get out there and starve these animals..........with the BLM............

 

[eagle1462010]

The more land this huge, unaccountable, and bankrupt government seizes , the more power it has. Once a government for the people - is now a government over the people. You Dims are getting exactly what you want.

You do realize that the government had held this land since 1908, right?

Tell me about 1994