It isn't about the man, black woman speaks out about Bundy:

[Vigilante]

The very definition of a vast majority of Subversive/democrap voters... just look at those posting in here....FREELOADERS!

 

[JoeB131]

"I don’t know if Bundy’s grazing dispute has any merit... All I know is that he’s the latest private citizen to stand up to the government and be excoriated by the media for it.

"Like Kira said, it’s not about one guy. It’s about the media abusing their power to stifle dissent against government control. Just ask anybody who’s been raked over the coals for daring to complain about their health insurance. Ask Joe the Plumber. Ask Ben Carson. Ask Carrie Prejean. Ask anybody who inconveniences the left.

"The message is simple: Submit, or this will happen to you too. "

Read more: Is it okay to not care that Cliven Bundy is a bigot? | The Daily Caller

Yes, if you take positions on things publically, people WILL question you on them.

For instance, if you break out a bible and preach to people about Morals and Jesus like Carrie Prejean did, people are going to find out that you did topless nude photos!

And if you are going to whine to a presidential candidate about your plumbing business, people are actually going to check if you have a business. Or are even a licensed plumber. Oh, wait, your name isn't even Joe, it's Sam!

So big surprise, the kind of whackadoo who waives guns at federal agents also turns out to be a racist a--hole.

 

[Andylusion]

The only point on which we disagree is that Cliven's cows were not eating grass that was his. Cliven may well be guilty of, as you stated, "Taking over private (public) property without permission or a lease." The gov't should just have put a lien on his prop which would have forced his hand. You can't get new financing with that on your record and at the end of the day, the gov't gets their pint of blood.

I never said it was his grass. Only that it's ironic (read hypocritical) how the left is screaming over this guy letting his cattle eat wilderness grass, but somehow a mass of people disrupting an entire city of people, is somehow ok. Do I want my entire day ruined by a bunch of spoiled brat yuppy kids, or do I want some cattle eating grass in the wilderness? I'll take Cliven and the cows eating wild grass, over the poop in the park crowd blocking traffic any day.

Now if you want to talk about the grass, let's talk.

You are right, it's not Cliven's grass...... because the government has made it impossible for Cliven to get grass. Government has a monopoly on the land.

Look at Nevada. There is no state in the entire Union with a higher percentage of Federally owned land.

Do you understand now? Cliven can't get his own grass. I'm sure he'd love to have some grass land to let his cattle feed on without being harassed and bothered by some bureaucrats from DC.

Now granted, I still disagree with Cliven on how he's going about this, but the fact is, he's got a point.

Further, there is no provision in the Constitution for the Federal government owning state land. Period. There is none. I've looked. There is no provision allowing the Federal government to setup a land lease system. I've read it. It's not there.

Outside of the states, there is no constraint on buying land, or owning land. But inside the bounds of the constitution, the Federal government has no provision for operating leases on land.

To the point, the Federal government should not be owning any land at all, inside individual states. I understand that the Federals purchased land, and thus owned land to start with. But once each state was formed, all land within that state should have reverted to the property of the states.

Now if the states want to operate a lease system, that's totally up to the state, and is within the framework of the constitution. "all rights reserved for the states".

So based on my reading of the constitution, Cliven is right.

Complete fail. Rights are not granted by the Federal Government. They are granted by the constitution. The Federal government is also granted rights by the constitution...... charging people to let cattle eat grass is not one of the rights.

Further the fundamentals of our constitution were based on the statements in the declaration of independents which says.....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

So let's recap. Men are given rights by whom? Their creator. Not government.

The job of government is what? To secure the rights of the people.

And where does government gain the power to do this? By the consent of the people.

And what happens when government starts to be destructive to the rights of the people given by their creator?

We Abolish government, and create a new one.

If you think, as your pict suggests, that Cliven is only given rights by the benevolent hand of government politicians, then you have missed the entire foundation of the American system.

Further, Cliven is not a freeloader. Do you think that anyone is supporting the growing of wild grass in the wilderness? You show me the individual that is working, for the benefit of Cliven, that he is not compensating. You can't. Because there is none.... because Cliven is not freeloading on anyone. Period.

Pull your head out of the butt of your ideology, and look at the world as it really is.

 

[Asclepias]

I never said it was his grass. Only that it's ironic (read hypocritical) how the left is screaming over this guy letting his cattle eat wilderness grass, but somehow a mass of people disrupting an entire city of people, is somehow ok. Do I want my entire day ruined by a bunch of spoiled brat yuppy kids, or do I want some cattle eating grass in the wilderness? I'll take Cliven and the cows eating wild grass, over the poop in the park crowd blocking traffic any day.

Now if you want to talk about the grass, let's talk.

You are right, it's not Cliven's grass...... because the government has made it impossible for Cliven to get grass. Government has a monopoly on the land.

Look at Nevada. There is no state in the entire Union with a higher percentage of Federally owned land.

Do you understand now? Cliven can't get his own grass. I'm sure he'd love to have some grass land to let his cattle feed on without being harassed and bothered by some bureaucrats from DC.

Now granted, I still disagree with Cliven on how he's going about this, but the fact is, he's got a point.

Further, there is no provision in the Constitution for the Federal government owning state land. Period. There is none. I've looked. There is no provision allowing the Federal government to setup a land lease system. I've read it. It's not there.

Outside of the states, there is no constraint on buying land, or owning land. But inside the bounds of the constitution, the Federal government has no provision for operating leases on land.

To the point, the Federal government should not be owning any land at all, inside individual states. I understand that the Federals purchased land, and thus owned land to start with. But once each state was formed, all land within that state should have reverted to the property of the states.

Now if the states want to operate a lease system, that's totally up to the state, and is within the framework of the constitution. "all rights reserved for the states".

So based on my reading of the constitution, Cliven is right.

Complete fail. Rights are not granted by the Federal Government. They are granted by the constitution. The Federal government is also granted rights by the constitution...... charging people to let cattle eat grass is not one of the rights.

Further the fundamentals of our constitution were based on the statements in the declaration of independents which says.....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

So let's recap. Men are given rights by whom? Their creator. Not government.

The job of government is what? To secure the rights of the people.

And where does government gain the power to do this? By the consent of the people.

And what happens when government starts to be destructive to the rights of the people given by their creator?

We Abolish government, and create a new one.

If you think, as your pict suggests, that Cliven is only given rights by the benevolent hand of government politicians, then you have missed the entire foundation of the American system.

Further, Cliven is not a freeloader. Do you think that anyone is supporting the growing of wild grass in the wilderness? You show me the individual that is working, for the benefit of Cliven, that he is not compensating. You can't. Because there is none.... because Cliven is not freeloading on anyone. Period.

Pull your head out of the butt of your ideology, and look at the world as it really is.

No your rights are not specifically granted by the constitution. They are inferred because they are protected. Your post is a fail of epic proportions. The 5th amendment places limits the governments sovereign right to take your land. Because it has a sovereign right to all land it can own the land. As I said before it was never his land anyway. Bundy is a free loader.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Nope, he's not a freeloader.

Sorry, that doesn't fly.

Try again. Racist...nope. Freeloader...nope.

The next one to use is "White trash"....

Yes he is. He is grazing his cattle on federal land that is owned by the US Government and he refuses to pay the fees. He is as guilty of fraud as a welfare mother that steals from social services. He owns a ranch that is probably worth millions though, so he is okay in the Republican book of approval.

Actually the land belongs to the State not the Federal Govt and the money Bundy was willing to pay for grazing his cattle was set aside for the State. That was why he withheld payment. He said the money goes to the State not the Fed. Gov.

 

[Andylusion]

"I don’t know if Bundy’s grazing dispute has any merit... All I know is that he’s the latest private citizen to stand up to the government and be excoriated by the media for it.

"Like Kira said, it’s not about one guy. It’s about the media abusing their power to stifle dissent against government control. Just ask anybody who’s been raked over the coals for daring to complain about their health insurance. Ask Joe the Plumber. Ask Ben Carson. Ask Carrie Prejean. Ask anybody who inconveniences the left.

"The message is simple: Submit, or this will happen to you too. "

Read more: Is it okay to not care that Cliven Bundy is a bigot? | The Daily Caller

Yes, if you take positions on things publically, people WILL question you on them.

For instance, if you break out a bible and preach to people about Morals and Jesus like Carrie Prejean did, people are going to find out that you did topless nude photos!

And if you are going to whine to a presidential candidate about your plumbing business, people are actually going to check if you have a business. Or are even a licensed plumber. Oh, wait, your name isn't even Joe, it's Sam!

So big surprise, the kind of whackadoo who waives guns at federal agents also turns out to be a racist a--hole.

Which doesn't make any difference. The question isn't... have you been perfect your whole life? Because honestly people on the left who hold up that standard are automatically hypocrites. And you know it.

Many people who are Christians, have made massive mistakes in their past. I have. If you read the Bible, you'll find most of the key figures also made massive mistakes, with of course the exception of Jesus himself.

Further, Jeo the Plumber, was a catch phrase referring to all people who are trying to make something of themselves, and are tired of government beating the crap out of them for trying to succeed.

He didn't need a license. We've been over that a million times, it's still wrong, and still ignorant of the laws. Many plumbers operate without licenses. Get over it.

And lastly, yes of course some fruits that show up at the anti-government party, are going to be nutz.

Who cares? Question, does Cliven have a point. Answer: YES! End of story in my book. All this red herrings, trying to misdirect attention to something completely irrelevant to the point, is just proof the other said can't argue their case. If you could, you wouldn't be pointing out all this irrelevant crap.

 

[Asclepias]

Article 4 section 3 clause 2 of the constitution

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; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

The Supremacy Clause

Supremacy Clause legal definition of Supremacy Clause. Supremacy Clause synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Complete fail. Rights are not granted by the Federal Government. They are granted by the constitution. The Federal government is also granted rights by the constitution...... charging people to let cattle eat grass is not one of the rights.

Further the fundamentals of our constitution were based on the statements in the declaration of independents which says.....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

So let's recap. Men are given rights by whom? Their creator. Not government.

The job of government is what? To secure the rights of the people.

And where does government gain the power to do this? By the consent of the people.

And what happens when government starts to be destructive to the rights of the people given by their creator?

We Abolish government, and create a new one.

If you think, as your pict suggests, that Cliven is only given rights by the benevolent hand of government politicians, then you have missed the entire foundation of the American system.

Further, Cliven is not a freeloader. Do you think that anyone is supporting the growing of wild grass in the wilderness? You show me the individual that is working, for the benefit of Cliven, that he is not compensating. You can't. Because there is none.... because Cliven is not freeloading on anyone. Period.

Pull your head out of the butt of your ideology, and look at the world as it really is.

No your rights are not specifically granted by the constitution. They are inferred because they are protected. Your post is a fail of epic proportions. The 5th amendment places limits the governments sovereign right to take your land. Because it has a sovereign right to all land it can own the land. As I said before it was never his land anyway. Bundy is a free loader.

The map really tells the story, doesn't it? The federal Govt has no right to do this to American ranchers. On that note Clive Bundy is right. There is clearly an agenda going on and the Chinese angle with Reid and His son gaining monetarily from the deal should be enough to throw Reid out!

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

You know... I just glanced through this thread, and some of the posts here are so unbelievably stupid, I don't know how you people have the intelligence to even turn on your computer, let alone navigate here and post.

Back when I was in high school, I had this moment where I started thinking about the issues I believed in, and realized my logic was insane, stupid, and didn't make sense. When that happened, I stopped being a leftist, and started being a right-winger.... because my leftist beliefs were stupid.

I kind of assumed everyone else had a similar enlightening experience at some point... and then I come here and read that Cliven Bundy is like a welfare queen.

Cliven Bundy is like a welfare queen? How absolutely retarded must a person be, to make a statement like that, and not know how idiotic they are sounding!

Welfare queen.... sitting at home, watching TV, doing absolutely nothing of any value to society...

Verses Cliven Bundy up at dawn, working in the hot sun all day long, and only going home at dusk, providing food for the entire nation.

Oh yes.... very very similar.... Mindless idiots.

Welfare Queens cost me in taxes. The government comes and confiscates money from my pay check that I rightfully earned, and then gives that money out, and cuts a check which is sent to the Welfare Queen who has not earned it.

You show me in the government budget where Cliven Bundy is getting paid by the Federal Government for anything. You prove that to me, and I'll at least grant you that he's getting my money. Of course it's not there, but the Welfare Queen's line item is there. Idiots.

If you people want to really find a similar comparison, try the Occupy protests. March down city streets blocking traffic and causing disruption to citizens, all without a permit. Taking over parks and other public places, all without permits. Taking over private property without permission or a lease to put up tents and tarps, and all the rest of their crap. Blocking traffic over Brooklyn Bridge, trapping driving citizens on the bridge with no ability to avoid the protesters, and still no permit.

This is a more accurate similarly to Cliven Bundy. But of course the hypocrites known as "leftist" have no problem with all these protests not paying the dues.

Of course the difference is, those protests were causing problems for entire cities and all their citizens, and Cliven had some cattle eat wild grass. Occupy people were protesting they were not handed enough free stuff like a welfare recipient, Cliven was trying to get work done.

But back in leftard land, OWS good, Cliven bad. OWS complaining government is not giving them enough while they do nothing in a park, is not like a welfare queen, but Cliven working for a living for the past 50 years, somehow is.

Thankfully I am no longer associated with these people. To think that so many years ago, I would have looked at idiocy like this, and believed it. My excuse was a too young, and too ignorant to know better. What are the excuses for you people?? HUH!?

The only point on which we disagree is that Cliven's cows were not eating grass that was his. Cliven may well be guilty of, as you stated, "Taking over private (public) property without permission or a lease." The gov't should just have put a lien on his prop which would have forced his hand. You can't get new financing with that on your record and at the end of the day, the gov't gets their pint of blood.

I never said it was his grass. Only that it's ironic (read hypocritical) how the left is screaming over this guy letting his cattle eat wilderness grass, but somehow a mass of people disrupting an entire city of people, is somehow ok. Do I want my entire day ruined by a bunch of spoiled brat yuppy kids, or do I want some cattle eating grass in the wilderness? I'll take Cliven and the cows eating wild grass, over the poop in the park crowd blocking traffic any day.

Now if you want to talk about the grass, let's talk.

You are right, it's not Cliven's grass...... because the government has made it impossible for Cliven to get grass. Government has a monopoly on the land.

Look at Nevada. There is no state in the entire Union with a higher percentage of Federally owned land.

Do you understand now? Cliven can't get his own grass. I'm sure he'd love to have some grass land to let his cattle feed on without being harassed and bothered by some bureaucrats from DC.

Now granted, I still disagree with Cliven on how he's going about this, but the fact is, he's got a point.

Further, there is no provision in the Constitution for the Federal government owning state land. Period. There is none. I've looked. There is no provision allowing the Federal government to setup a land lease system. I've read it. It's not there.

Outside of the states, there is no constraint on buying land, or owning land. But inside the bounds of the constitution, the Federal government has no provision for operating leases on land.

To the point, the Federal government should not be owning any land at all, inside individual states. I understand that the Federals purchased land, and thus owned land to start with. But once each state was formed, all land within that state should have reverted to the property of the states.

Now if the states want to operate a lease system, that's totally up to the state, and is within the framework of the constitution. "all rights reserved for the states".

So based on my reading of the constitution, Cliven is right.

The map tells the story. You are right. thanks for posting it... it really helps clarify a few things the fed govt isn't telling the american people.

 

[Andylusion]

Complete fail. Rights are not granted by the Federal Government. They are granted by the constitution. The Federal government is also granted rights by the constitution...... charging people to let cattle eat grass is not one of the rights.

Further the fundamentals of our constitution were based on the statements in the declaration of independents which says.....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

So let's recap. Men are given rights by whom? Their creator. Not government.

The job of government is what? To secure the rights of the people.

And where does government gain the power to do this? By the consent of the people.

And what happens when government starts to be destructive to the rights of the people given by their creator?

We Abolish government, and create a new one.

If you think, as your pict suggests, that Cliven is only given rights by the benevolent hand of government politicians, then you have missed the entire foundation of the American system.

Further, Cliven is not a freeloader. Do you think that anyone is supporting the growing of wild grass in the wilderness? You show me the individual that is working, for the benefit of Cliven, that he is not compensating. You can't. Because there is none.... because Cliven is not freeloading on anyone. Period.

Pull your head out of the butt of your ideology, and look at the world as it really is.

No your rights are not specifically granted by the constitution. They are inferred because they are protected. Your post is a fail of epic proportions. The 5th amendment places limits the governments sovereign right to take your land. Because it has a sovereign right to all land it can own the land. As I said before it was never his land anyway. Bundy is a free loader.

You have the right to be wrong. And it's ridiculous to claim Cliven is a freeloader. That's the argument of a mindless idiot. You show me who specifically is working for Clivens benefit. Cliven would love to own some grazing land, but the government has an illegal monopoly on the land. And no, your pathetic argument that 'because of this, they have some magical implied right', is wrong. the powers of the Federal Government are specifically enumerated. If it's not there, they don't have it.

 

[Asclepias]

Complete fail. Rights are not granted by the Federal Government. They are granted by the constitution. The Federal government is also granted rights by the constitution...... charging people to let cattle eat grass is not one of the rights.

Further the fundamentals of our constitution were based on the statements in the declaration of independents which says.....

​

So let's recap. Men are given rights by whom? Their creator. Not government.

The job of government is what? To secure the rights of the people.

And where does government gain the power to do this? By the consent of the people.

And what happens when government starts to be destructive to the rights of the people given by their creator?

We Abolish government, and create a new one.

If you think, as your pict suggests, that Cliven is only given rights by the benevolent hand of government politicians, then you have missed the entire foundation of the American system.

Further, Cliven is not a freeloader. Do you think that anyone is supporting the growing of wild grass in the wilderness? You show me the individual that is working, for the benefit of Cliven, that he is not compensating. You can't. Because there is none.... because Cliven is not freeloading on anyone. Period.

Pull your head out of the butt of your ideology, and look at the world as it really is.

No your rights are not specifically granted by the constitution. They are inferred because they are protected. Your post is a fail of epic proportions. The 5th amendment places limits the governments sovereign right to take your land. Because it has a sovereign right to all land it can own the land. As I said before it was never his land anyway. Bundy is a free loader.

The map really tells the story, doesn't it? The federal Govt has no right to do this to American ranchers. On that note Clive Bundy is right. There is clearly an agenda going on and the Chinese angle with Reid and His son gaining monetarily from the deal should be enough to throw Reid out!

Your deflection has nothing to do with my post. Regardless of if what they are doing is palatable the problem is they have every right to do it.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

If there is no constitutional provision for the federal govt owning State land then the federal govt doesn't own any State land. They cannot lease what they do not own. End of story.

 

[Asclepias]

Complete fail. Rights are not granted by the Federal Government. They are granted by the constitution. The Federal government is also granted rights by the constitution...... charging people to let cattle eat grass is not one of the rights.

Further the fundamentals of our constitution were based on the statements in the declaration of independents which says.....

​

So let's recap. Men are given rights by whom? Their creator. Not government.

The job of government is what? To secure the rights of the people.

And where does government gain the power to do this? By the consent of the people.

And what happens when government starts to be destructive to the rights of the people given by their creator?

We Abolish government, and create a new one.

If you think, as your pict suggests, that Cliven is only given rights by the benevolent hand of government politicians, then you have missed the entire foundation of the American system.

Further, Cliven is not a freeloader. Do you think that anyone is supporting the growing of wild grass in the wilderness? You show me the individual that is working, for the benefit of Cliven, that he is not compensating. You can't. Because there is none.... because Cliven is not freeloading on anyone. Period.

Pull your head out of the butt of your ideology, and look at the world as it really is.

No your rights are not specifically granted by the constitution. They are inferred because they are protected. Your post is a fail of epic proportions. The 5th amendment places limits the governments sovereign right to take your land. Because it has a sovereign right to all land it can own the land. As I said before it was never his land anyway. Bundy is a free loader.

You have the right to be wrong. And it's ridiculous to claim Cliven is a freeloader. That's the argument of a mindless idiot. You show me who specifically is working for Clivens benefit. Cliven would love to own some grazing land, but the government has an illegal monopoly on the land. And no, your pathetic argument that 'because of this, they have some magical implied right', is wrong. the powers of the Federal Government are specifically enumerated. If it's not there, they don't have it.

You also have a right to be wrong. Bundy is a free loader. You cant fix that up and make it pretty. He is not paying his dues because he thinks he is right conviently after paying his dues before. If he thought that the Feds had no right to the land then why did he pay before? The monopoly is not illegal. Show me where its illegal if you can. Just like we have magical implied rights so does the government that inferred those rights.

 

[Asclepias]

If there is no constitutional provision for the federal govt owning State land then the federal govt doesn't own any State land. They cannot lease what they do not own. End of story.

You are showing your lack of knowledge about the constitution.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

In response to Androw stating the following:

Cliven would love to own some grazing land, but the government has an illegal monopoly on the land. And no, your pathetic argument that 'because of this, they have some magical implied right', is wrong. the powers of the Federal Government are specifically enumerated. If it's not there, they don't have it.


Thank you so much for clarifying the facts on this story as I did not know this earlier, Androw. You have explained this by use of the map, the constitution, Clive Bundy facts - in such a way that was very easy to undertstand. I can see now that Clive Bundy is right in regards to what the federal govt has been doing to ranchers out there! Much appreciated! - Jeri

 

[Andylusion]

Article 4 section 3 clause 2 of the constitution

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; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

The Supremacy Clause

Supremacy Clause legal definition of Supremacy Clause. Supremacy Clause synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

Yes, territory or other property, outside of the states. Not inside the states. The Federal government could not confiscate land inside New York. If they had even considered such an action in 1801-09, there would have instantly been a second revolution.

The Louisiana Purchase, was perfectly fine, because the land was outside of the states. And look at the states that come into being from the Louisiana Purchase.

And look at Federally owned lands in those states

Thomas Jefferson and the early founding fathers of the country, understood that the Federal Government was not to own the land. Nearly all of the Louisiana Purchase was turned over to the states. Very little, is still owned by the government.

But as we moved away from the founding fathers and the constitution, we have gained more and more and more land for the Federals, and less and less for the states.

This is wrong. We are not a feudal system. We're not supposed to be forced into buying leases from the Federal government monopolizing all the land.

I'm sorry, you are wrong. Just flat out, wrong.

 

[Andylusion]

If there is no constitutional provision for the federal govt owning State land then the federal govt doesn't own any State land. They cannot lease what they do not own. End of story.

You are showing your lack of knowledge about the constitution.

Your post just reflected on you, more than him.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

If there is no constitutional provision for the federal govt owning State land then the federal govt doesn't own any State land. They cannot lease what they do not own. End of story.

You are showing your lack of knowledge about the constitution.

Show us in the constitution where it states that the federal government can own land and lease it for profit. Include a link please. Thank you.

 

[Asclepias]

Article 4 section 3 clause 2 of the constitution

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; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

The Supremacy Clause

Supremacy Clause legal definition of Supremacy Clause. Supremacy Clause synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

Yes, territory or other property, outside of the states. Not inside the states. The Federal government could not confiscate land inside New York. If they had even considered such an action in 1801-09, there would have instantly been a second revolution.

The Louisiana Purchase, was perfectly fine, because the land was outside of the states. And look at the states that come into being from the Louisiana Purchase.

And look at Federally owned lands in those states

Thomas Jefferson and the early founding fathers of the country, understood that the Federal Government was not to own the land. Nearly all of the Louisiana Purchase was turned over to the states. Very little, is still owned by the government.

But as we moved away from the founding fathers and the constitution, we have gained more and more and more land for the Federals, and less and less for the states.

This is wrong. We are not a feudal system. We're not supposed to be forced into buying leases from the Federal government monopolizing all the land.

I'm sorry, you are wrong. Just flat out, wrong.

Youre trying to say it only applied to land outside of the states. Where is that specified? You are arguing if its right or wrong which is subjective. The facts are that the right to own and seize land has always been a sovereign right of the government. The 5th amendment was put in place to protect citizens from the government abusing that power. You are flat out misinformed on the subject.

 

[Asclepias]

Not to add fuel to the fire but the Nevada State Constitution has a paramount-allegiance clause.

Sec: 2.  Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States.  All political power is inherent in the people[.] Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair[,] subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existance [existence], and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.