Tennessee objects to federal landgrab

[Skylar]

Why should we give Tennessee our land?

I would be happy to sell it to them at a fair market value

Sorry, it's not yours to sell, entitlement loser.

It belongs to all the people of the United States

If the people of a given state wants exclusive rights to our land.....let them pay fair price

nice broad stroke there bubba. Where that is true, the use of the property is limited and would never be used by all americans, so use the land for the purpose of prosperity. why are you against that? I don't get you libturds on that.

Of course the use of the property is limited. Where did you ever get the idea it wasn't?

 

[JimBowie1958]

The group pushing to sell off (privatize) the national park system to the fossil fuel industry, and sell off all public land to the highest corporate bidder, is the Koch and ExxonMobil-funded Property and Environment Research Center (PERC).

Check it out.

Bullshit. The feds own way too much land west of the Dakotas.

The feds are all of us. Public ownership. Versus Private ownership. It's the land we share that private entities want for themselves alone. The National Parks belong to ALL of us citizens.

Er..no, they do not.

The federal government has no authority to claim or exert authority over public lands outside of forts, ports and 10 square miles around DC.

You are confusing the part of the constitution created for lands purchased by the federal government from a state after the statehood has been achieved, not at the time a territory transitions into a state.

Prove that

 

[JimBowie1958]

I have no idea what your rant is about or what point you are attempting to make. Vast amounts of territorial lands in what become the big western states could not be maintained, protected or managed by the densly populated new states, ...

The densely populated states could not manage their land but the federal government, after taxing those same states could.


roflmao

 

[rightwinger]

Lets look at Alaska

The people of the United States paid for Alaska. We still own the majority of the land

Why should we give it to them for free?

 

[koshergrl]

"Hage. Gardner. Dann. Yowell. Colvin. Bundy. Tomera. Filippini. Borba. Hammond. Good ranchers all, cowboys and Indians who had private property rights on federal land in the American West.

Who said that Bundy had private property rights on federal land in the American west?

Specifically.

And if you're going to cite a court decision in favor of one of your favorites.....then you can't rightly ignore court decisions if they disagree with you. Otherwise you'd be citing and ignoring the same source on the same topic.

For example;

Government's implied consent to grazing on federal lands "did not confer any vested right on the complianant, nor did it deprive the United States of the power of recalling any implied license under which the land has been used for private purposes"

Light v. United States (1911)

That's the Supreme Court explicitly contradicting the 'private property rights on federal land' argument. The beating heart of Hage's argument.

"Congress has no conferred up citizens the right to graze stock upon the public lands. The government has merely suffered the lands to be so used"

Omaechevarria v. Idaho (1918)

A privilege that can be revoked at any time for any reason. The antithesis of 'private property rights'. And held by courts again and again since:

Grazing on public lands is "a privilege which is withdrawable at any time for any use by the sovereign without the payment of compensation".

Osborne v. United States (9th circuit 1944)

With multiple ranchers trying Hage's horseshit 'surface estates' nonsense. And losing. In Colvin Cattle Co. V United States (2006), Diamond Bar Cattle Co. V. United States (10th circuit, 1999), and Walker v. United States (2008).

Even in the case you're citing, Judge Loren Smith rejected the claims that Hage was entitled to compensation when the federal government revoked his permits because

1) His federal grazing permits were property
2) His federal grazing permits were contracts
3) He had established a 'surface estate' in the federal lands
4) Without the ability to graze he could not longer make use of his water rights
5) He had 'forage rights'.

Shredding the 'private property rights to federal land' argument yet again.

Its not shredded because your entire argument..that which is intelligible at all....is utterly dependent upon illegal, unconstitutional laws and policies established in violation of the constitution.

The govt has been creating fake law to allow it to grab more land for itself for decades, and statist retards approve. What else is new. Thats why I block and ignore them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The government is empowered to pass law. The Constitution empowers the government to manage all affairs pertaining to the ownership of federal lands and property. Skylar shread kg's silly far right contard arguments.

She disagrees, so everything with which she disagrees is somehow illicit.

The reactionary tards on the far right are amazing.

They don't care for the Constitution, they don't care for the law, so they simply ignore what they don't like.

Amazing.

 

[ogibillm]

Tennessee is on board with the feds restoring public lands based on the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY of the feds owning those lands in the first place.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT does NOT own BLM or FOREST SERVICE lands and they are not AUTHORIZED, per the constitution, to control them.

"A resolution recently passed by the Tennessee legislature and signed by Gov. Bill Haslam calls on the feds to give back the land in the Western part of the country back to the states.
"Introduced by state Rep. Andy Holt, House Joint Resolution 92 (HJR92) “expresses support for the federal transfer of public lands to the western states and urges Congress to coordinate the transfer of title to the western states.”
"It passed the House last year by a vote of 64-25. In January, the Senate passed it 26-2. And Gov. Haslam signed it on Jan. 26, 2016.
"The resolution reads, in part:
"The Constitution contains no expression of intent to authorize the federal government to indefinitely exercise control over western public lands beyond the duty to manage the lands pending the disposal of the lands to create new states, and therefore the lands should be returned to the western states….limiting the ability of western states to access and utilize the public lands’ natural resources within their borders is having a negative impact upon the economy of those western states and therefore the economy of the entire United States."


Tennessee Passes Resolution Calling on the Feds to Give Western Land Back to the States | Tenth Amendment Center Blog

Fine...take down the federally paid for dams and power plants when giving it up.

How can the Tennessee State Legislature vote on what happens to land in the western states?

Too much time on their hands

it'll look good in election mailers to the idiots

 

[koshergrl]

Lets look at Alaska

The people of the United States paid for Alaska. We still own the majority of the land

Why should we give it to them for free?

Once it ceases to be a territory and becomes a state, fed authority over land use, ownership, resources and development ends. Per the constitution. The constitution, like the bible, is hateful in the eyes of commie losers.

 

[koshergrl]

Lol. I like watching commie traitors spit and hiss.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and in addition to all the court cases that shred Hage's imaginary 'surface estates' and 'private property rights to federal land argument...

Government's implied consent to grazing on federal lands "did not confer any vested right on the complianant, nor did it deprive the United States of the power of recalling any implied license under which the land has been used for private purposes"

Light v. United States (1911)

That's the Supreme Court explicitly contradicting the 'private property rights on federal land' argument. The beating heart of Hage's argument.

"Congress has no conferred up citizens the right to graze stock upon the public lands. The government has merely suffered the lands to be so used"

Omaechevarria v. Idaho (1918)

A privilege that can be revoked at any time for any reason. The antithesis of 'private property rights'. And held by courts again and again since:

Grazing on public lands is "a privilege which is withdrawable at any time for any use by the sovereign without the payment of compensation".

Osborne v. United States (9th circuit 1944)

With multiple ranchers trying Hage's horseshit 'surface estates' nonsense. And losing. In Colvin Cattle Co. V United States (2006), Diamond Bar Cattle Co. V. United States (10th circuit, 1999), and Walker v. United States (2008).

Even in the case you're citing, Judge Loren Smith rejected the claims that Hage was entitled to compensation when the federal government revoked his permits because

1) His federal grazing permits were property
2) His federal grazing permits were contracts
3) He had established a 'surface estate' in the federal lands
4) Without the ability to graze he could not longer make use of his water rights
5) He had 'forage rights'.

Shredding the 'private property rights to federal land' argument yet again.

The Appeals court just shredded Hage's argument even further about 3 weeks ago:

The panel vacated in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment on the merits, and remanded for further proceedings before a different district judge in an action broug ht by the United States for damages and injunctive relief alleging that E. Wayne Hage ( now deceased) and Wayne N. Hage grazed cattle on federal lands without a permit or other authorization.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/13-16974.pdf

And here's the fun part!

The panel held that the Hag es violated applicable federal statutes and regulations, as well as the Nevada state law of trespass because between 2004 and 2008, the Hages’ cattle grazed frequently on lands owned by the United States and the Hages did not hold a grazing permit or other grazing authorization during that time. Th e panel also held that the district court erred in concluding that because of their water rights, the Hages had an “easement of necessity ” to access water sources. The panel held that the Hages’ counterclaim under the Administrative Procedure Act was barred by the statute of limitations

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/13-16974.pdf

So not only was Hage's 'surface estates' horseshit by every court to ever hear it, not only did every rancher to try using it lose, but even the *lone* case that Kosh cited where the estate of Hage prevailed on other ground was overturned last month.

Here's the part where Kosh insists we ignore the very federal courts she just cited.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lets look at Alaska

The people of the United States paid for Alaska. We still own the majority of the land

Why should we give it to them for free?

Once it ceases to be a territory and becomes a state, fed authority over land use, ownership, resources and development ends. Per the constitution. The constitution, like the bible, is hateful in the eyes of commie losers.

Show us exactly where in the Constitution your assertion is empowered. You can't.

 

[rightwinger]

Lets look at Alaska

The people of the United States paid for Alaska. We still own the majority of the land

Why should we give it to them for free?

Once it ceases to be a territory and becomes a state, fed authority over land use, ownership, resources and development ends. Per the constitution. The constitution, like the bible, is hateful in the eyes of commie losers.

No it doesn't

They become a state, doesn't mean they assume control over public lands in that state
We can always sell those lands to Alaska for fair market value. Or maybe back to Russia if they make a good offer

Your views of our Constitution are just raw fantasy

 

[koshergrl]

Why do RWNJs want public land to be taken away from ALL Americans and given to only a few to make a profit on?

Why would any TRUE American want an end to our National Park System?

Why do you want to rape and pave the entire country, leaving nothing for Americans to enjoy and nothing for your children?

WTF is WRONG with you?

what do you need it for?

Income to help preserve and maintain our investment.

but you don't own it, so the income isn't yours. I asked what do you need it for?

If we don't own it....who does?

Read the constitution. I already told you, repeatedly, who owns it.

 

[koshergrl]

Lets look at Alaska

The people of the United States paid for Alaska. We still own the majority of the land

Why should we give it to them for free?

Once it ceases to be a territory and becomes a state, fed authority over land use, ownership, resources and development ends. Per the constitution. The constitution, like the bible, is hateful in the eyes of commie losers.

Show us exactly where in the Constitution your assertion is empowered. You can't.

Art I Sect 8 Clause 17

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT does NOT own BLM or FOREST SERVICE lands

Why don't you go waltz on up to some of the BLM managed land and let them know that.

That's exactly what is happening, in case you don't watch the news. Which apparently you don't.

Of course I do. Someone tried that and ended up dead.

 

[koshergrl]

1817

 

[Skylar]

"Hage. Gardner. Dann. Yowell. Colvin. Bundy. Tomera. Filippini. Borba. Hammond. Good ranchers all, cowboys and Indians who had private property rights on federal land in the American West.

Who said that Bundy had private property rights on federal land in the American west?

Specifically.

And if you're going to cite a court decision in favor of one of your favorites.....then you can't rightly ignore court decisions if they disagree with you. Otherwise you'd be citing and ignoring the same source on the same topic.

For example;

Government's implied consent to grazing on federal lands "did not confer any vested right on the complianant, nor did it deprive the United States of the power of recalling any implied license under which the land has been used for private purposes"

Light v. United States (1911)

That's the Supreme Court explicitly contradicting the 'private property rights on federal land' argument. The beating heart of Hage's argument.

"Congress has no conferred up citizens the right to graze stock upon the public lands. The government has merely suffered the lands to be so used"

Omaechevarria v. Idaho (1918)

A privilege that can be revoked at any time for any reason. The antithesis of 'private property rights'. And held by courts again and again since:

Grazing on public lands is "a privilege which is withdrawable at any time for any use by the sovereign without the payment of compensation".

Osborne v. United States (9th circuit 1944)

With multiple ranchers trying Hage's horseshit 'surface estates' nonsense. And losing. In Colvin Cattle Co. V United States (2006), Diamond Bar Cattle Co. V. United States (10th circuit, 1999), and Walker v. United States (2008).

Even in the case you're citing, Judge Loren Smith rejected the claims that Hage was entitled to compensation when the federal government revoked his permits because

1) His federal grazing permits were property
2) His federal grazing permits were contracts
3) He had established a 'surface estate' in the federal lands
4) Without the ability to graze he could not longer make use of his water rights
5) He had 'forage rights'.

Shredding the 'private property rights to federal land' argument yet again.

Its not shredded because your entire argument..that which is intelligible at all....is utterly dependent upon illegal, unconstitutional laws and policies established in violation of the constitution.

Says you. The very federal court decision you cited in your post found no such violations.

That would be you citing yourself. With the Supreme Court explicitly contadicting you.

Exactly as I predicted.....you cited federal court rulings. And then insist we ignore the very federal court rulings. As the loss by every rancher to ever try using Hage's 'surface estates' horseshit found when they lost their cases, private property rights on federal land don't exist.

Which might explain why the case you cited was overturned on January 15th of this year.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/13-16974.pdf

Ignore as you wish. Your imagination has no relevance to the outcome of any court case. As Hage's descendants found out 3 weeks ago.

 

[Skylar]

Why do RWNJs want public land to be taken away from ALL Americans and given to only a few to make a profit on?

Why would any TRUE American want an end to our National Park System?

Why do you want to rape and pave the entire country, leaving nothing for Americans to enjoy and nothing for your children?

WTF is WRONG with you?

what do you need it for?

Income to help preserve and maintain our investment.

but you don't own it, so the income isn't yours. I asked what do you need it for?

If we don't own it....who does?

Read the constitution. I already told you, repeatedly, who owns it.

Show us the constitution that the land belongs to the States.

You can't. As you're citing yourself. And you're nobody.

 

[rightwinger]

Why do RWNJs want public land to be taken away from ALL Americans and given to only a few to make a profit on?

Why would any TRUE American want an end to our National Park System?

Why do you want to rape and pave the entire country, leaving nothing for Americans to enjoy and nothing for your children?

WTF is WRONG with you?

what do you need it for?

Income to help preserve and maintain our investment.

but you don't own it, so the income isn't yours. I asked what do you need it for?

If we don't own it....who does?

Read the constitution. I already told you, repeatedly, who owns it.

You funny

You make shit up and then expect us to support your rants

 

[Camp]

Why do RWNJs want public land to be taken away from ALL Americans and given to only a few to make a profit on?

Why would any TRUE American want an end to our National Park System?

Why do you want to rape and pave the entire country, leaving nothing for Americans to enjoy and nothing for your children?

WTF is WRONG with you?

what do you need it for?

Income to help preserve and maintain our investment.

but you don't own it, so the income isn't yours. I asked what do you need it for?

If we don't own it....who does?

Read the constitution. I already told you, repeatedly, who owns it.

You need to look up Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2 and stop being such a dopey ass.