Response to Oregon Militia Standoff Reveals Stark Double Standards

[TheCrusader]

How about the fact that the Federal Claim to Fort Sumter was based on the legality of whether or not federal lands belonged to state lands if states sold the land to the federal government.

So historically, the Federal Government has a right to all territorial lands, and either grants them to a state when the state is created, or holds it.

Just because the US generally had a policy of selling lands cheaply doesn't mean that was some "legal requirement".

My point is the feds have no constitutional authority to own the land in Oregon or exercise legislative control over it. And unless you can show an amendment abolishing Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, there's no way you can prove me wrong.

Why not? By right of conquest (which is a maritime/international law dating back at least to the 1500s) the Federal Government owned all the land (as sovereign) of the territory now the state of Oregon.

How by becoming a State do you argue that the Federal Government loses right to that land?

The only states that have original claims to land are the original 13 colonies, and only then because the Sovereign who granted them charters to the land was unceremoniously and for no real apparent reason, overthrown.

Are you really that dense, once the feds accepted them as a State they have every right of every other State, no exceptions.

The states don't have any right to land, please point out THAT in the Constitution.

What you are talking about here are "land laws and customs", not constitutional arrangements.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says "a State shall be sovereign and own all the land in its territory".

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

The feds can only purchase land with the consent of the State Legislature, that means the State is sovereign over the lands within their State. This clause also restricts the purposes for which the feds may purchase land from a State, like I said so many times a wildlife refuge is not a constitutional purpose and is not necessary for the government to function.

Apparently you don't realize that the Feds owned Oregon's land before it was a state.

And that Article 1, sec 8, 17 is referring to states already existing at the time of the Constitution's ratification.

I don't care if wild life refuges are "constitutional" without them the US would be a shithole like Brazil with its national treasure turned into fields of cheap shitty coffee beans.

Or in the case of Oregon, cheap shitty white trash living in trailers.

 

[OKTexas]

My point is the feds have no constitutional authority to own the land in Oregon or exercise legislative control over it. And unless you can show an amendment abolishing Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, there's no way you can prove me wrong.

Why not? By right of conquest (which is a maritime/international law dating back at least to the 1500s) the Federal Government owned all the land (as sovereign) of the territory now the state of Oregon.

How by becoming a State do you argue that the Federal Government loses right to that land?

The only states that have original claims to land are the original 13 colonies, and only then because the Sovereign who granted them charters to the land was unceremoniously and for no real apparent reason, overthrown.

Are you really that dense, once the feds accepted them as a State they have every right of every other State, no exceptions.

The states don't have any right to land, please point out THAT in the Constitution.

What you are talking about here are "land laws and customs", not constitutional arrangements.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says "a State shall be sovereign and own all the land in its territory".

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

The feds can only purchase land with the consent of the State Legislature, that means the State is sovereign over the lands within their State. This clause also restricts the purposes for which the feds may purchase land from a State, like I said so many times a wildlife refuge is not a constitutional purpose and is not necessary for the government to function.

Apparently you don't realize that the Feds owned Oregon's land before it was a state.

And that Article 1, sec 8, 17 is referring to states already existing at the time of the Constitution's ratification.

I don't care if wild life refuges are "constitutional" without them the US would be a shithole like Brazil with its national treasure turned into fields of cheap shitty coffee beans.

Or in the case of Oregon, cheap shitty white trash living in trailers.

Doesn't matter if the feds controlled the land before Oregon became a State, once they became a State they assumed sovereignty over their lands. And thanks for admitting you could care less about the Supreme Law Of The Land, you're a typical regressive with no honor.

 

[sealybobo]

How can their protest be legit when the reason for it in the first place (the jailing of the Hammonds), don't want them there? Hammond has made sure to make it crystal clear that they don't approve of what Bundy and his ilk are doing.

Neither do the locals.

No, they havent. Everybody said the same shit after the Roseburg shooting...The locals definitely support it. But they aren't going to publicly announce it, they aren't stupid.

We have state land all around my community. We love our state and federal lands and the last thing we want is private citizens destroying that land. You should be shot

Dawwmm, Lon Horiuchi is now posting on USMB

We'd be pissed if some stupid rednecks burned our woods down.

And don't cry if you can't graze your cattle on the peoples land. It's protected

I don't graze "my" cattle on public. Always kept em on the farm.

How can their protest be legit when the reason for it in the first place (the jailing of the Hammonds), don't want them there? Hammond has made sure to make it crystal clear that they don't approve of what Bundy and his ilk are doing.

Neither do the locals.

No, they havent. Everybody said the same shit after the Roseburg shooting...The locals definitely support it. But they aren't going to publicly announce it, they aren't stupid.

We have state land all around my community. We love our state and federal lands and the last thing we want is private citizens destroying that land. You should be shot

Dawwmm, Lon Horiuchi is now posting on USMB

We'd be pissed if some stupid rednecks burned our woods down.

And don't cry if you can't graze your cattle on the peoples land. It's protected

It's protected???? LOL
The Hammonds thought their land was protected. That's what lead to all this.

Explain.

 

[Old Rocks]

You support armed insurrections capturing federal property and endangering the lives of law enforcement. You are a terrorist.

I support the Constitution, those lands are public lands and those folks there have just as much claim to it as you. The feds have no constitutional clam to it at all, which I've already proved. But hey, if it makes you feel like a big man feel free to call me what ever you want, it won't make your dick or balls any bigger though, sorry.

Nice we finally get to the crux of your argument. And it's wrong of course.

But this thread isn't about your argument. It's about the terrorist activities these lunatics are engaging in. And it's no wonder a yeehawd sympathizer such as yourself supports them.

How about you provide a link proving me wrong, and I don't mean some federal court expanding federal authority beyond the Constitution. Those rulings are no more valid than the feds claim to the land. I gave you the verbiage of the Constitution that clearly states what land and for what purposes the congress may exercise constitutional authority and a wildlife refuge ain't one of them. You can't prove otherwise without ignoring the Constitution.

How about the fact that the Federal Claim to Fort Sumter was based on the legality of whether or not federal lands belonged to state lands if states sold the land to the federal government.

So historically, the Federal Government has a right to all territorial lands, and either grants them to a state when the state is created, or holds it.

Just because the US generally had a policy of selling lands cheaply doesn't mean that was some "legal requirement".

My point is the feds have no constitutional authority to own the land in Oregon or exercise legislative control over it. And unless you can show an amendment abolishing Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, there's no way you can prove me wrong.

Well Tex, you are very welcome to stay away from Oregon. People like you are why we regard anyone that states they are from Texas as retarded until they prove otherwise. We happen to like our Game Refuge, Wilderness Areas, and National Park. And idiots like you are not welcome to try to destroy them. So just stay away, you are not welcome here.

 

[Geaux4it]

The government is showing compassion for the white folk as we have been cannon fodder for almost 8 years now

-Geaux

 

[Seawytch]

My point is the feds have no constitutional authority to own the land in Oregon or exercise legislative control over it. And unless you can show an amendment abolishing Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, there's no way you can prove me wrong.

Why not? By right of conquest (which is a maritime/international law dating back at least to the 1500s) the Federal Government owned all the land (as sovereign) of the territory now the state of Oregon.

How by becoming a State do you argue that the Federal Government loses right to that land?

The only states that have original claims to land are the original 13 colonies, and only then because the Sovereign who granted them charters to the land was unceremoniously and for no real apparent reason, overthrown.

Are you really that dense, once the feds accepted them as a State they have every right of every other State, no exceptions.

The states don't have any right to land, please point out THAT in the Constitution.

What you are talking about here are "land laws and customs", not constitutional arrangements.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says "a State shall be sovereign and own all the land in its territory".

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

The feds can only purchase land with the consent of the State Legislature, that means the State is sovereign over the lands within their State. This clause also restricts the purposes for which the feds may purchase land from a State, like I said so many times a wildlife refuge is not a constitutional purpose and is not necessary for the government to function.

Apparently you don't realize that the Feds owned Oregon's land before it was a state.

And that Article 1, sec 8, 17 is referring to states already existing at the time of the Constitution's ratification.

I don't care if wild life refuges are "constitutional" without them the US would be a shithole like Brazil with its national treasure turned into fields of cheap shitty coffee beans.

Or in the case of Oregon, cheap shitty white trash living in trailers.

Camfield v. United States (1897). The Court said:

While we do not undertake to say that Congress has the unlimited power to legislate against nuisances within a State, which it would have within a Territory, we do not think the admission of a Territory as a State deprives it of the power of legislating for the protection of the public lands, though it may thereby involve the exercise of what is ordinarily known as the police power, so long as such power is directed solely to its own protection. A different rule would place the public domain of the United States completely at the mercy of state legislation.

Shortly thereafter, the Court upheld the reservation of vast tracts of land such as national forests, indicating that these lands were held in trust for the people of the whole country, and that it was for Congress, not the courts, to say how that trust should be administered. Light v. United States (1911).​

The leading modern decision, Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976), reflects a further evolution in judicial understanding, as it in effect embraces the full-blown police-power theory. At issue was the constitutionality of the Wild, Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, which prohibits capturing, killing, or harassing wild horses and burros that range on public lands. Writing for the Court, Justice Thurgood Marshall specifically rejected the contention that the Property Clause includes only "(1) the power to dispose of and make incidental rules regarding the use of federal property; and (2) the power to protect federal property." He concluded that "Congress exercises the powers both of a proprietor and of a legislature over the public domain." Thus, without regard to whether wild animals are the property of the United States, or whether the act could be justified as a form of protection of the public lands, Congress was held to have sufficient power under the Property Clause to adopt regulatory legislation protecting wild animals that enter upon federal lands.

The Property Clause

 

[Wilbur Right]

Besides, how much do you REALLY think Bundy and his supporters actually know about the Constitution?

Aint that the truth. I listened to the leader on the news yesterday. He could barely form a coherent sentence.

Republican home schooled maybe?
IQ of 90 for sure.

 

[Old Rocks]

My point is the feds have no constitutional authority to own the land in Oregon or exercise legislative control over it. And unless you can show an amendment abolishing Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, there's no way you can prove me wrong.

Why not? By right of conquest (which is a maritime/international law dating back at least to the 1500s) the Federal Government owned all the land (as sovereign) of the territory now the state of Oregon.

How by becoming a State do you argue that the Federal Government loses right to that land?

The only states that have original claims to land are the original 13 colonies, and only then because the Sovereign who granted them charters to the land was unceremoniously and for no real apparent reason, overthrown.

Are you really that dense, once the feds accepted them as a State they have every right of every other State, no exceptions.

The states don't have any right to land, please point out THAT in the Constitution.

What you are talking about here are "land laws and customs", not constitutional arrangements.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says "a State shall be sovereign and own all the land in its territory".

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

The feds can only purchase land with the consent of the State Legislature, that means the State is sovereign over the lands within their State. This clause also restricts the purposes for which the feds may purchase land from a State, like I said so many times a wildlife refuge is not a constitutional purpose and is not necessary for the government to function.

Apparently you don't realize that the Feds owned Oregon's land before it was a state.

And that Article 1, sec 8, 17 is referring to states already existing at the time of the Constitution's ratification.

I don't care if wild life refuges are "constitutional" without them the US would be a shithole like Brazil with its national treasure turned into fields of cheap shitty coffee beans.

Or in the case of Oregon, cheap shitty white trash living in trailers.

Back off, fellow. These are not Oregonians that are holed up at the Refuge Headquarters, they are from Nevada. And the good people of Harney County want nothing to do with them or their shitty ideas. The local do not like them, and they could get no support from the locals. That is why they choose a building 50 miles from Burns to occupy. Had they tried that on a building in Burns, the good citizens of Harney County would have hauled their scuzzy asses out and stomped them.

 

[Old Rocks]

Besides, how much do you REALLY think Bundy and his supporters actually know about the Constitution?

Aint that the truth. I listened to the leader on the news yesterday. He could barely form a coherent sentence.

Republican home schooled maybe?
IQ of 90 for sure.

Really, you overestimate his intelligence.

 

[Wilbur Right]

The government is showing compassion for the white folk as we have been cannon fodder for almost 8 years now

-Geaux

WINNER WINNER WINNER.

The most stuid fucking post I have seen you write.

And thats saying a lot.

 

[Old Rocks]

The government is showing compassion for the white folk as we have been cannon fodder for almost 8 years now

-Geaux

Wah, wah...............Sob, sniffle, blubber................Oh woe is poor little me.............Wah, wah.......................

 

[Geaux4it]

Why not? By right of conquest (which is a maritime/international law dating back at least to the 1500s) the Federal Government owned all the land (as sovereign) of the territory now the state of Oregon.

How by becoming a State do you argue that the Federal Government loses right to that land?

The only states that have original claims to land are the original 13 colonies, and only then because the Sovereign who granted them charters to the land was unceremoniously and for no real apparent reason, overthrown.

Are you really that dense, once the feds accepted them as a State they have every right of every other State, no exceptions.

The states don't have any right to land, please point out THAT in the Constitution.

What you are talking about here are "land laws and customs", not constitutional arrangements.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says "a State shall be sovereign and own all the land in its territory".

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

The feds can only purchase land with the consent of the State Legislature, that means the State is sovereign over the lands within their State. This clause also restricts the purposes for which the feds may purchase land from a State, like I said so many times a wildlife refuge is not a constitutional purpose and is not necessary for the government to function.

Apparently you don't realize that the Feds owned Oregon's land before it was a state.

And that Article 1, sec 8, 17 is referring to states already existing at the time of the Constitution's ratification.

I don't care if wild life refuges are "constitutional" without them the US would be a shithole like Brazil with its national treasure turned into fields of cheap shitty coffee beans.

Or in the case of Oregon, cheap shitty white trash living in trailers.

Back off, fellow. These are not Oregonians that are holed up at the Refuge Headquarters, they are from Nevada. And the good people of Harney County want nothing to do with them or their shitty ideas. The local do not like them, and they could get no support from the locals. That is why they choose a building 50 miles from Burns to occupy. Had they tried that on a building in Burns, the good citizens of Harney County would have hauled their scuzzy asses out and stomped them.

I doubt that

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

The government is showing compassion for the white folk as we have been cannon fodder for almost 8 years now

-Geaux

WINNER WINNER WINNER.

The most stuid fucking post I have seen you write.

And thats saying a lot.

I'm happy you're paying attention

-Geaux

 

[Carla_Danger]

I read an article that said people are calling those nutters Yallqaeda and that they are committing Yeehawd. Funny stuff.

That's Ya'll Qaeda.

 

[Wilbur Right]

The government is showing compassion for the white folk as we have been cannon fodder for almost 8 years now

-Geaux

WINNER WINNER WINNER.

The most stuid fucking post I have seen you write.

And thats saying a lot.

I'm happy you're paying attention

-Geaux

You like being ridiculed for your thought processes? Why?

 

[Geaux4it]

The government is showing compassion for the white folk as we have been cannon fodder for almost 8 years now

-Geaux

WINNER WINNER WINNER.

The most stuid fucking post I have seen you write.

And thats saying a lot.

I'm happy you're paying attention

-Geaux

You like being ridiculed for your thought processes? Why?

Because, like you, I consider the source

-Geaux

 

[PredFan]

This:

 

[OKTexas]

I support the Constitution, those lands are public lands and those folks there have just as much claim to it as you. The feds have no constitutional clam to it at all, which I've already proved. But hey, if it makes you feel like a big man feel free to call me what ever you want, it won't make your dick or balls any bigger though, sorry.

Nice we finally get to the crux of your argument. And it's wrong of course.

But this thread isn't about your argument. It's about the terrorist activities these lunatics are engaging in. And it's no wonder a yeehawd sympathizer such as yourself supports them.

How about you provide a link proving me wrong, and I don't mean some federal court expanding federal authority beyond the Constitution. Those rulings are no more valid than the feds claim to the land. I gave you the verbiage of the Constitution that clearly states what land and for what purposes the congress may exercise constitutional authority and a wildlife refuge ain't one of them. You can't prove otherwise without ignoring the Constitution.

How about the fact that the Federal Claim to Fort Sumter was based on the legality of whether or not federal lands belonged to state lands if states sold the land to the federal government.

So historically, the Federal Government has a right to all territorial lands, and either grants them to a state when the state is created, or holds it.

Just because the US generally had a policy of selling lands cheaply doesn't mean that was some "legal requirement".

My point is the feds have no constitutional authority to own the land in Oregon or exercise legislative control over it. And unless you can show an amendment abolishing Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, there's no way you can prove me wrong.

Well Tex, you are very welcome to stay away from Oregon. People like you are why we regard anyone that states they are from Texas as retarded until they prove otherwise. We happen to like our Game Refuge, Wilderness Areas, and National Park. And idiots like you are not welcome to try to destroy them. So just stay away, you are not welcome here.

Well dumb ass you've missed the whole point haven't you, feel free to point out where I've advocated destroying them. All I've said is that as written the Constitution doesn't provide for them. I also suggested, if you want the all the extras, do it the right way and change the Constitution, that's exactly why the founders included Article 5, but don't ignore the Constitution. It's the retarded like you that have me saying we live in a post-constitutional America and I am correct. If you do it the right way you won't hear a peep from me.

 

[Redfish]

What do righties say in all the black lives threads ? "Just shut up and do what the cops say ."

Sorry Timmy, different rules for different people. Its the American way

wrong again, dingleberry. equal justice for all, no special treatment, no AA, no set asides, everyone equal, equal application of the law. Hillary held to the same standards as any American who has ever held a security clearance.

Riiiiight, and thats why they should shut up and do what the cops say right?

Duh, yes. If a cop tells you to do something, do it. If he is in the wrong you can prosecute him later. If you pull a gun on him and end up dead, its your fault, not the cop's.

 

[Redfish]

Making this statement you are the dingleberry!

What do righties say in all the black lives threads ? "Just shut up and do what the cops say ."

Sorry Timmy, different rules for different people. Its the American way

wrong again, dingleberry. equal justice for all, no special treatment, no AA, no set asides, everyone equal, equal application of the law. Hillary held to the same standards as any American who has ever held a security clearance.

why? because you idiots want the Clintons not held to the same laws as every other American?

I do not understand the liberal obsession with these two corrupt, lying people.