Who owns the west?

[Old Rocks]

What a fucked up idiot you are. On the BLM and Forest Service land I can hunt, fish, look for rocks, or just hike and enjoy the land. Huge portions of the private land now have hunting and fishing rights sold to private sports clubs. A very big area in Eastern Oregon had the ranches there sell their hunting access to a sports club. I looked up the club, to find out what it took to be a member. It was totally owned by Saudi's. This is what you are advocating for by advocating the privatization of the BLM and Forest Service land.

If you're caught taking rocks you can be prosecuted.

There are many areas that are known for collecting rocks here in Oregon on Forest Service land, and BLM land. The only people I know that have been prosecuted for taking rocks off of public land was a damned fool that was hauling out building rock by the dump truck load. Stupid, as had he gotten a permit from the Forest Service, he could have had that rock for a small fraction of it's value.

And that alters the fact that it's against the law, HOW? Oregon has some great labradorite mines, I have some nice examples. It's unique among other labradorite because it contains copper.

No, it is not against the law. And the Sun Stone mines you refer to are privately owned, and there is an area that the BLM has established as strictly for amateurs, no commercial collecting allowed. Been there, done that, same for most of the areas in Oregon with collectable mineral.

The mines are privately owned but are on BLM land. I'll have to check out what areas are open to amateurs, might be able to find me some gems.

Also, about 100 miles east of there, a couple of looks, just south of the Nevada border, there are a few private fee sites where you can dig for black opal.

 

[OKTexas]

Do lefties really think portions of the U.S. are "owned" rather than governed? Maybe that's the reason the democrat party lost most of the governorships in the last decade. Why do lefties think "we the people" isn't the same as the federal government?

Revolutionary War soldiers were given "government owned" property as payment for their service during the war. The US government became property owners as a result of the Revolution.

And then was the Homestead Act. where a person could lay claim on 160 to 320 acres, work it and improve it in specified manners, and get title to it.

Actually if you check later updates it was expanded to up to a full section.

.

 

[OKTexas]

If you're caught taking rocks you can be prosecuted.

There are many areas that are known for collecting rocks here in Oregon on Forest Service land, and BLM land. The only people I know that have been prosecuted for taking rocks off of public land was a damned fool that was hauling out building rock by the dump truck load. Stupid, as had he gotten a permit from the Forest Service, he could have had that rock for a small fraction of it's value.

And that alters the fact that it's against the law, HOW? Oregon has some great labradorite mines, I have some nice examples. It's unique among other labradorite because it contains copper.

No, it is not against the law. And the Sun Stone mines you refer to are privately owned, and there is an area that the BLM has established as strictly for amateurs, no commercial collecting allowed. Been there, done that, same for most of the areas in Oregon with collectable mineral.

The mines are privately owned but are on BLM land. I'll have to check out what areas are open to amateurs, might be able to find me some gems.

Also, about 100 miles east of there, a couple of looks, just south of the Nevada border, there are a few private fee sites where you can dig for black opal.

Pretty rock, not much good for commercial application. The opal is too thin, it might be good to make doublets. I collect cut gemstones, not the rough.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Your trying to duck the topic of this thread and I'm not going to let you do your pivot, twit, so here is my post #172 you ignored yet again, which fits perfectly, AGAIN!

'In your mind maybe asshole, but what does it have to do with the topic of the thread vis-à-vis Public Lands held by the People and "Who Owns the West", the title of this thread? You're just pissed because you can't get anything you're throwing at the wall to stick. Life's a bitch, ain't it!!!!'

Respond to the topic asshole, or not at all with your dodging drivel!

I did and I proved the retention of lands that don't lend to the critical constitutional mission of the federal government are unconstitutional. That includes about 97% of all federal lands.

You didn't prove a damn thing, other than you will take every opportunity you can to conjure up excuses to avoid taking responsibility for your errors and lack of basic knowledge while displaying how bereft of critical thinking skills you truly are! What does your Madison quote from The Federalist #45 have to do with the topic of this thread? Absolutely nothing, but it does point directly toward your central misconception of Constitutional authority. Your stunt trying to somehow connect the decision in Pollack v. Hagan and the Equality of States Doctrine was just asinine!

Our Constitution was purposefully created as a democratic form of government with shared powers, responsibilities and sovereignty between the National and State governments with the National holding supremacy; in other words FEDERALISM! When the Constitution was ratified in 1788, the decision was made that of the two main factions with different concepts of governance, the federalist plan prevailed, and the antifederalists failed to maintain their concepts of State supremacy which had failed so miserably under the Confederation. The antifederalists lost and we have the Federalist system of today, like it or lump it, Tex!

Whether you like it or not, Federalism prevailed. Because a State was granted statehood, that grant didn't automagically convey all the property rights and titles belonging to the National and the People within that new State's borders. You can't prove that in the Constitution, you can't prove that in law, and you can't prove that in any judicial review! You've tried to bluff it, but failed miserably!

Your argument fails miserably on one pivotal point, Article 5 which give the States the power to change or even abolish the federal government at will. And Federalist 45 has everything to do with the OP in that the federal government was never intended to be involved with the welfare of the individual that is left to the States. The feds are clearly supposed to attend to matters beyond the States. The unnecessary retention of State lands are not within constitutional federal authority.

There you go again trying to get more of your crap to stick to the wall. I haven't a clue of which argument I made you might be claiming failed regarding the amendment process of Article V with your typical vagueness surrounding your comment, but that is not necessary to determine in any case given your failed logic. The national government held title to the lands it had purchased with treasury funds, lands acquired by treaty and lands acquired as the spoils of war. Now where is/are the amendments that have magically changed that? They only exist in your mind and not in the realm of the living! But you keep digging, Tex!

Is The Federalist #45 LAW and AGAIN I ASK, what does it have to do with the public lands held by the national government for which the several States have not lawfully obtained title? What the Hell are you thinking? Here's an ACTUAL law regarding THE ACTUAL TOPIC;

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976), Pub. Law 94-579 - It states in part; "The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that the public lands be retained in federal ownership..." Its Constitutional authority comes from the property powers of Article IV, § 3 and the General Welfare and Necessary and Proper Clauses in Article I, §§ 1 & 18. It is codified in 43 USC, §§ 1701-1787! Now you will probably claim it too is unconstitutional like everything else that disagrees with your warped impression of how things are actually set out in law regarding the topic of this thread, but that is just you trying to exert your impotent will within your cocooned and myopic universe.

Ta ta, Tex!

1, Article 4 has nothing to do with land within a States boundaries.

The Hell it doesn't your Ignorance! Article IV, § 3, Clause 2;
"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;"

You're wrong again but what the Hell is new other than those fresh shit marks you made on the wall! Artivle IV, § 3 is very pertinent to the topic of this thread, whether you like it or not, dimwit![/QUOTE]

2. The General Welfare Clause is a spending category and is restricted by the the remainder of the Article which grants no such authority.

Damn, you must really enjoy being shown your ignorance! The taxing and spending authorized for EVERYTHING going into or out of the Public Purse, including the cost of wars fought in which some of the US spoils were vast tracts of territory or territory purchased insured the general welfare was maintained and was absolutely inline with the Necessary and Proper of Cls. 18 of the same Section.

You simply don't know what you're talking about and are just flinging crap attempting to drive away from the actual topic of this thread! Will you ever get back to the topic of the thread, or are you just going to screw around with this repetitive bluffing, Tex?

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

Damn, there you go again with that ignorant sheep herder crap some more! That highlighted provision pertains ONLY to property within a State, the title of which is not held by the Federal government, you bloody fool! Can you find a 3rd grader to explain that to you? What do you think is being done down on the Southern border through eminent domain with that power? DAMN!!!! It has nothing to do with Public lands or the topic of the bloody thread, you dunce!

3. And the Necessary and Proper Clause only applies to the powers enumerated to the feds by the Constitution which grant no such authority.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Do you ever read to the point of understanding what the Hell you copy & paste? What the does, "... and all other Powers vested by this Constitution..." mean to you, dummy? To a thinking person it means the enumerated powers, the direct powers AND the implied powers within the Constitution, dipstick. That's just more dung you've thrown at the wall that didn't stick!

Bottom line is you don't know what the hell you're talking about and your understanding of the Constitution is at around a second grade level.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The National Parks are one of the best ideas we have ever had. Reserving the very best and most unique for the use of all citizens. Fuck bastards like you that want to give them to the very rich.

Fine, get an amendment to authorize them, if they're so popular it should be a piece of cake. All I'm saying is do it the right way instead of using the courts to rewrite the Constitution or just ignoring it just because you think it's a good idea.

Look, dumb ass, Camp has already pointed out that there is a section of the Constitution that specifically states that the federal government has jurisdiction and ownership of those lands. So cease your silly and lying nonsense.

Yeah he did, except it doesn't apply to land within a State, it applies to US Territories. As the SCOTUS case that was posted says, once a State is erected a new sovereign is involved.

I'll bet, or at least assume, that you have not bothered to examine even one single state constitution for the eight western states that that have those huge amounts of federal lands within their borders. If you did, you would discover and be able to confirm what you have already been told. The states agreed to cede and relinquish claims to public lands in the territory as prerequisites to becoming states. That happened because the American public was well aware of the cost of making those lands safe and secure through the use of federal troops and US Marshalls and the public was not inclined to hand over lands obtained by federal blood and treasure to land barons and private industry. There was no valid reason for relinquishing control of public lands within a territory just because the residents of a territory wanted the benefits of becoming a state. The public lands were the property of the US government when they were territories. Statehood would not be allowed to strip that ownership and control of public lands. That is why the territories were required to stipulated the ceding of any claims to public lands before obtaining statehood.

Fine, just show me the constitutional justification for that kind of extortion or where it authorizes parks and national forest ect. and I'll be quiet.

Why don't you pull it out of your ass like you do everything else, Tex?

 

[OKTexas]

I did and I proved the retention of lands that don't lend to the critical constitutional mission of the federal government are unconstitutional. That includes about 97% of all federal lands.

You didn't prove a damn thing, other than you will take every opportunity you can to conjure up excuses to avoid taking responsibility for your errors and lack of basic knowledge while displaying how bereft of critical thinking skills you truly are! What does your Madison quote from The Federalist #45 have to do with the topic of this thread? Absolutely nothing, but it does point directly toward your central misconception of Constitutional authority. Your stunt trying to somehow connect the decision in Pollack v. Hagan and the Equality of States Doctrine was just asinine!

Our Constitution was purposefully created as a democratic form of government with shared powers, responsibilities and sovereignty between the National and State governments with the National holding supremacy; in other words FEDERALISM! When the Constitution was ratified in 1788, the decision was made that of the two main factions with different concepts of governance, the federalist plan prevailed, and the antifederalists failed to maintain their concepts of State supremacy which had failed so miserably under the Confederation. The antifederalists lost and we have the Federalist system of today, like it or lump it, Tex!

Whether you like it or not, Federalism prevailed. Because a State was granted statehood, that grant didn't automagically convey all the property rights and titles belonging to the National and the People within that new State's borders. You can't prove that in the Constitution, you can't prove that in law, and you can't prove that in any judicial review! You've tried to bluff it, but failed miserably!

Your argument fails miserably on one pivotal point, Article 5 which give the States the power to change or even abolish the federal government at will. And Federalist 45 has everything to do with the OP in that the federal government was never intended to be involved with the welfare of the individual that is left to the States. The feds are clearly supposed to attend to matters beyond the States. The unnecessary retention of State lands are not within constitutional federal authority.

There you go again trying to get more of your crap to stick to the wall. I haven't a clue of which argument I made you might be claiming failed regarding the amendment process of Article V with your typical vagueness surrounding your comment, but that is not necessary to determine in any case given your failed logic. The national government held title to the lands it had purchased with treasury funds, lands acquired by treaty and lands acquired as the spoils of war. Now where is/are the amendments that have magically changed that? They only exist in your mind and not in the realm of the living! But you keep digging, Tex!

Is The Federalist #45 LAW and AGAIN I ASK, what does it have to do with the public lands held by the national government for which the several States have not lawfully obtained title? What the Hell are you thinking? Here's an ACTUAL law regarding THE ACTUAL TOPIC;

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976), Pub. Law 94-579 - It states in part; "The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that the public lands be retained in federal ownership..." Its Constitutional authority comes from the property powers of Article IV, § 3 and the General Welfare and Necessary and Proper Clauses in Article I, §§ 1 & 18. It is codified in 43 USC, §§ 1701-1787! Now you will probably claim it too is unconstitutional like everything else that disagrees with your warped impression of how things are actually set out in law regarding the topic of this thread, but that is just you trying to exert your impotent will within your cocooned and myopic universe.

Ta ta, Tex!

1, Article 4 has nothing to do with land within a States boundaries.

The Hell it doesn't your Ignorance! Article IV, § 3, Clause 2;
"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;"

You're wrong again but what the Hell is new other than those fresh shit marks you made on the wall! Artivle IV, § 3 is very pertinent to the topic of this thread, whether you like it or not, dimwit!

2. The General Welfare Clause is a spending category and is restricted by the the remainder of the Article which grants no such authority.

Damn, you must really enjoy being shown your ignorance! The taxing and spending authorized for EVERYTHING going into or out of the Public Purse, including the cost of wars fought in which some of the US spoils were vast tracts of territory or territory purchased insured the general welfare was maintained and was absolutely inline with the Necessary and Proper of Cls. 18 of the same Section.

You simply don't know what you're talking about and are just flinging crap attempting to drive away from the actual topic of this thread! Will you ever get back to the topic of the thread, or are you just going to screw around with this repetitive bluffing, Tex?

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

Damn, there you go again with that ignorant sheep herder crap some more! That highlighted provision pertains ONLY to property within a State, the title of which is not held by the Federal government, you bloody fool! Can you find a 3rd grader to explain that to you? What do you think is being done down on the Southern border through eminent domain with that power? DAMN!!!! It has nothing to do with Public lands or the topic of the bloody thread, you dunce!

3. And the Necessary and Proper Clause only applies to the powers enumerated to the feds by the Constitution which grant no such authority.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Do you ever read to the point of understanding what the Hell you copy & paste? What the does, "... and all other Powers vested by this Constitution..." mean to you, dummy? To a thinking person it means the enumerated powers, the direct powers AND the implied powers within the Constitution, dipstick. That's just more dung you've thrown at the wall that didn't stick!

Bottom line is you don't know what the hell you're talking about and your understanding of the Constitution is at around a second grade level.[/QUOTE]


I'll tell you that same as I told the other idiot, show me where the federal government is constitutionally authorized to own and operate national parks, national forest, bird sanctuaries and the like and I won't say another word.

.

 

[Camp]

The National Parks are one of the best ideas we have ever had. Reserving the very best and most unique for the use of all citizens. Fuck bastards like you that want to give them to the very rich.

Fine, get an amendment to authorize them, if they're so popular it should be a piece of cake. All I'm saying is do it the right way instead of using the courts to rewrite the Constitution or just ignoring it just because you think it's a good idea.

Look, dumb ass, Camp has already pointed out that there is a section of the Constitution that specifically states that the federal government has jurisdiction and ownership of those lands. So cease your silly and lying nonsense.

Yeah he did, except it doesn't apply to land within a State, it applies to US Territories. As the SCOTUS case that was posted says, once a State is erected a new sovereign is involved.

I'll bet, or at least assume, that you have not bothered to examine even one single state constitution for the eight western states that that have those huge amounts of federal lands within their borders. If you did, you would discover and be able to confirm what you have already been told. The states agreed to cede and relinquish claims to public lands in the territory as prerequisites to becoming states. That happened because the American public was well aware of the cost of making those lands safe and secure through the use of federal troops and US Marshalls and the public was not inclined to hand over lands obtained by federal blood and treasure to land barons and private industry. There was no valid reason for relinquishing control of public lands within a territory just because the residents of a territory wanted the benefits of becoming a state. The public lands were the property of the US government when they were territories. Statehood would not be allowed to strip that ownership and control of public lands. That is why the territories were required to stipulated the ceding of any claims to public lands before obtaining statehood.

Fine, just show me the constitutional justification for that kind of extortion or where it authorizes parks and national forest ect. and I'll be quiet.

There has been no extortion. The first public lands were created when states in the original 13 colonies became states after the revolutionary war and ceded certain lands of the colonies/state public lands to transfer to the federal government. Article 4 Section 3 was written into the Constitution and has been used ever since as the justification for federal ownership of public lands. There are plenty of bloggers and proponents for a change of the interpretation that has been in force since the 1700's, but until a challenge is made in SCOTUS, the over 200 years of interpretation of the Article will continue to be recognized as the constitutional right and obligation of the US government.

 

[OKTexas]

Fine, get an amendment to authorize them, if they're so popular it should be a piece of cake. All I'm saying is do it the right way instead of using the courts to rewrite the Constitution or just ignoring it just because you think it's a good idea.

Look, dumb ass, Camp has already pointed out that there is a section of the Constitution that specifically states that the federal government has jurisdiction and ownership of those lands. So cease your silly and lying nonsense.

Yeah he did, except it doesn't apply to land within a State, it applies to US Territories. As the SCOTUS case that was posted says, once a State is erected a new sovereign is involved.

I'll bet, or at least assume, that you have not bothered to examine even one single state constitution for the eight western states that that have those huge amounts of federal lands within their borders. If you did, you would discover and be able to confirm what you have already been told. The states agreed to cede and relinquish claims to public lands in the territory as prerequisites to becoming states. That happened because the American public was well aware of the cost of making those lands safe and secure through the use of federal troops and US Marshalls and the public was not inclined to hand over lands obtained by federal blood and treasure to land barons and private industry. There was no valid reason for relinquishing control of public lands within a territory just because the residents of a territory wanted the benefits of becoming a state. The public lands were the property of the US government when they were territories. Statehood would not be allowed to strip that ownership and control of public lands. That is why the territories were required to stipulated the ceding of any claims to public lands before obtaining statehood.

Fine, just show me the constitutional justification for that kind of extortion or where it authorizes parks and national forest ect. and I'll be quiet.

Why don't you pull it out of your ass like you do everything else, Tex?

Why are you typing inside my quote box? And I also see you're not up to the challenge. Once again, it all boils down to a constitutional purpose.

.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I'll tell you that same as I told the other idiot, show me where the federal government is constitutionally authorized to own and operate national parks, national forest, bird sanctuaries and the like and I won't say another word.

In other words, you're waving the white flag again, or are you asking what the definition of "is" is? You're a Gawd damn phony and know nothing bluffer,Tex! You can't find any authorization for the Air Force or the CIA in the Constitution either, but they exist and are Constitutional because of the Implied Powers Doctrine from...are you ready dummy...Article I, § 8, Cls 18 of the ENUMERATED POWERS, which I just cited in post #224, which your obviously did NOT read/understand. What a loser!

 

[OKTexas]

Fine, get an amendment to authorize them, if they're so popular it should be a piece of cake. All I'm saying is do it the right way instead of using the courts to rewrite the Constitution or just ignoring it just because you think it's a good idea.

Look, dumb ass, Camp has already pointed out that there is a section of the Constitution that specifically states that the federal government has jurisdiction and ownership of those lands. So cease your silly and lying nonsense.

Yeah he did, except it doesn't apply to land within a State, it applies to US Territories. As the SCOTUS case that was posted says, once a State is erected a new sovereign is involved.

I'll bet, or at least assume, that you have not bothered to examine even one single state constitution for the eight western states that that have those huge amounts of federal lands within their borders. If you did, you would discover and be able to confirm what you have already been told. The states agreed to cede and relinquish claims to public lands in the territory as prerequisites to becoming states. That happened because the American public was well aware of the cost of making those lands safe and secure through the use of federal troops and US Marshalls and the public was not inclined to hand over lands obtained by federal blood and treasure to land barons and private industry. There was no valid reason for relinquishing control of public lands within a territory just because the residents of a territory wanted the benefits of becoming a state. The public lands were the property of the US government when they were territories. Statehood would not be allowed to strip that ownership and control of public lands. That is why the territories were required to stipulated the ceding of any claims to public lands before obtaining statehood.

Fine, just show me the constitutional justification for that kind of extortion or where it authorizes parks and national forest ect. and I'll be quiet.

There has been no extortion. The first public lands were created when states in the original 13 colonies became states after the revolutionary war and ceded certain lands of the colonies/state public lands to transfer to the federal government. Article 4 Section 3 was written into the Constitution and has been used ever since as the justification for federal ownership of public lands. There are plenty of bloggers and proponents for a change of the interpretation that has been in force since the 1700's, but until a challenge is made in SCOTUS, the over 200 years of interpretation of the Article will continue to be recognized as the constitutional right and obligation of the US government.

Damn you're pretty good at rewriting history. The States ceded no land under the Articles of Confederation. They all remained fully sovereign. States did cede land under the current Constitution to form DC. You also might want to check the definitions of US territory, and public lands, they aren't the same.

 

[OKTexas]

I'll tell you that same as I told the other idiot, show me where the federal government is constitutionally authorized to own and operate national parks, national forest, bird sanctuaries and the like and I won't say another word.

In other words, you're waving the white flag again, or are you asking what the definition of "is" is? You're a Gawd damn phony and know nothing bluffer,Tex! You can't find any authorization for the Air Force or the CIA in the Constitution either, but they exist and are Constitutional because of the Implied Powers Doctrine from...are you ready dummy...Article I, § 8, Cls 18 of the ENUMERATED POWERS, which I just cited in post #224, which your obviously did NOT read/understand. What a loser!

Deflection, how regressive of you. The topic is federal land use, what's wrong, you can't find an authorization for federal parks? BTW the 10th Amendment says there are no implied powers, just those enumerated and the things necessary to carry them out, the States insisted on that clarification as a condition of ratification of the Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OKTexas actually has his opinion in the face of the correct Constitutional arguments by his opponents.

OKTexas is dead wrong.

I have the Constitution as a backup, all you have is your opinion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Camp, Thought Crimes,and Old Rocks have completely dominated the discussion.

That OKTexas cannot admit he is substituting his opinion and wishes for the Constitution and American history is his problem.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The topic is federal land use, what's wrong, you can't find an authorization for federal parks?

SPECIFICALLY for Federal Parks, there's the one I gave you way back on page #6 I believe it was! You should have been reading instead of ignoring it. I cited it multiple times throughout our exchange and the most recent being my post #224 on page 23...here it is again;

The Hell it doesn't your Ignorance! Article IV, § 3, Clause 2;
"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;"

Federal parks are Federal property and the Constitution gives clear power to and in the disposition of those lands including the lands' use! That is clearly written as Constitutional authority for Federal parks as even a 10 year old child could discern. You made this challenge and commitment;

Fine, just show me the constitutional justification for that kind of extortion or where it authorizes parks and national forest ect. and I'll be quiet.

EDIT: OOPS...I missed this one;

I'll tell you that same as I told the other idiot, show me where the federal government is constitutionally authorized to own and operate national parks, national forest, bird sanctuaries and the like and I won't say another word.

Now if your word is any good, admit you were wrong and STFU. I'll bet you come up with an excuse, break your word and keep right on with your ignorance and stupid, stupid antifederalist States Rights dogma/propaganda!

 

[Camp]

Look, dumb ass, Camp has already pointed out that there is a section of the Constitution that specifically states that the federal government has jurisdiction and ownership of those lands. So cease your silly and lying nonsense.

Yeah he did, except it doesn't apply to land within a State, it applies to US Territories. As the SCOTUS case that was posted says, once a State is erected a new sovereign is involved.

I'll bet, or at least assume, that you have not bothered to examine even one single state constitution for the eight western states that that have those huge amounts of federal lands within their borders. If you did, you would discover and be able to confirm what you have already been told. The states agreed to cede and relinquish claims to public lands in the territory as prerequisites to becoming states. That happened because the American public was well aware of the cost of making those lands safe and secure through the use of federal troops and US Marshalls and the public was not inclined to hand over lands obtained by federal blood and treasure to land barons and private industry. There was no valid reason for relinquishing control of public lands within a territory just because the residents of a territory wanted the benefits of becoming a state. The public lands were the property of the US government when they were territories. Statehood would not be allowed to strip that ownership and control of public lands. That is why the territories were required to stipulated the ceding of any claims to public lands before obtaining statehood.

Fine, just show me the constitutional justification for that kind of extortion or where it authorizes parks and national forest ect. and I'll be quiet.

There has been no extortion. The first public lands were created when states in the original 13 colonies became states after the revolutionary war and ceded certain lands of the colonies/state public lands to transfer to the federal government. Article 4 Section 3 was written into the Constitution and has been used ever since as the justification for federal ownership of public lands. There are plenty of bloggers and proponents for a change of the interpretation that has been in force since the 1700's, but until a challenge is made in SCOTUS, the over 200 years of interpretation of the Article will continue to be recognized as the constitutional right and obligation of the US government.

Damn you're pretty good at rewriting history. The States ceded no land under the Articles of Confederation. They all remained fully sovereign. States did cede land under the current Constitution to form DC. You also might want to check the definitions of US territory, and public lands, they aren't the same.

Look up Northwest Territories and state cession dunce.

You might also do a little research on something called the Land Ordinance of 1785. It will explain to you how the federal government used the sale of public lands that had been ceded by the states/colonies to finance the federal government. Thomas Jefferson was one of the guys who designed that system.

 

[flacaltenn]

There are only three Constitutional circumstances wherein the federal government may claim state lands in perpetuity.

Parks and monuments are not included.

Those lands never belonged to the states

I'd be willing to sell them at fair market value

I would not. They are invaluable to citizens. They are places where you can still go and live for a while alone, with just the quiet land around you for company. Most of these lands, BLM, would be classified as badlands. Many areas will only support one cow per hundred acres. Any more, and you damage the land. Before the BLM started controlling those lands, they were being rapidly degraded. In some areas where greedy assholes are still grazing more than the land can support without degrading it, we have assholes threatening the people that are supposed to enforce the laws.

There are only three Constitutional circumstances wherein the federal government may claim state lands in perpetuity.

Parks and monuments are not included.

Those lands never belonged to the states

I'd be willing to sell them at fair market value

This concept that all that unwanted land NEVER belonged to the states, should provide ample work for map-makers and surveyors then.. Because we need a new map of the ACTUAL state boundaries of about 12 states.

It's gonna look a bit strange with 80% of Nevada gone tho.. And kinda hard to teach in school or make wood block puzzles for the kiddies..

 

[OKTexas]

Camp, Thought Crimes,and Old Rocks have completely dominated the discussion.

That OKTexas cannot admit he is substituting his opinion and wishes for the Constitution and American history is his problem.

And yet not one can show where the feds are constitutionally authorized to own and operate parks and national forests, go figure.

.

 

[OKTexas]

The topic is federal land use, what's wrong, you can't find an authorization for federal parks?

SPECIFICALLY for Federal Parks, there's the one I gave you way back on page #6 I believe it was! You should have been reading instead of ignoring it. I cited it multiple times throughout our exchange and the most recent being my post #224 on page 23...here it is again;

The Hell it doesn't your Ignorance! Article IV, § 3, Clause 2;
"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;"

Federal parks are Federal property and the Constitution gives clear power to and in the disposition of those lands including the lands' use! That is clearly written as Constitutional authority for Federal parks as even a 10 year old child could discern. You made this challenge and commitment;

Fine, just show me the constitutional justification for that kind of extortion or where it authorizes parks and national forest ect. and I'll be quiet.

EDIT: OOPS...I missed this one;

I'll tell you that same as I told the other idiot, show me where the federal government is constitutionally authorized to own and operate national parks, national forest, bird sanctuaries and the like and I won't say another word.

Now if your word is any good, admit you were wrong and STFU. I'll bet you come up with an excuse, break your word and keep right on with your ignorance and stupid, stupid antifederalist States Rights dogma/propaganda!

And you have yet to meet the challenge, sure the government has the right to dispose of properties they constitutionally own, like old military installations or post offices and office buildings. You still haven't shown what gives them the authority to own and operate parks or other lands held for purposes not specified in the Constitution, and you won't because it doesn't exist.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Camp, Thought Crimes,and Old Rocks have completely dominated the discussion.

That OKTexas cannot admit he is substituting his opinion and wishes for the Constitution and American history is his problem.

And yet not one can show where the feds are constitutionally authorized to own and operate parks and national forests, go figure..

Sure, the provisions have been provided for you, the cases, the legislation. Your "nuh uh" is simply pitiful. Pitiful. Truly pitiful.

OK will probably come back with something from the Articles of Confederation Congress, not realizing that he is arguing for the legislative power to decide these matters.

 

[OKTexas]

Yeah he did, except it doesn't apply to land within a State, it applies to US Territories. As the SCOTUS case that was posted says, once a State is erected a new sovereign is involved.

I'll bet, or at least assume, that you have not bothered to examine even one single state constitution for the eight western states that that have those huge amounts of federal lands within their borders. If you did, you would discover and be able to confirm what you have already been told. The states agreed to cede and relinquish claims to public lands in the territory as prerequisites to becoming states. That happened because the American public was well aware of the cost of making those lands safe and secure through the use of federal troops and US Marshalls and the public was not inclined to hand over lands obtained by federal blood and treasure to land barons and private industry. There was no valid reason for relinquishing control of public lands within a territory just because the residents of a territory wanted the benefits of becoming a state. The public lands were the property of the US government when they were territories. Statehood would not be allowed to strip that ownership and control of public lands. That is why the territories were required to stipulated the ceding of any claims to public lands before obtaining statehood.

Fine, just show me the constitutional justification for that kind of extortion or where it authorizes parks and national forest ect. and I'll be quiet.

There has been no extortion. The first public lands were created when states in the original 13 colonies became states after the revolutionary war and ceded certain lands of the colonies/state public lands to transfer to the federal government. Article 4 Section 3 was written into the Constitution and has been used ever since as the justification for federal ownership of public lands. There are plenty of bloggers and proponents for a change of the interpretation that has been in force since the 1700's, but until a challenge is made in SCOTUS, the over 200 years of interpretation of the Article will continue to be recognized as the constitutional right and obligation of the US government.

Damn you're pretty good at rewriting history. The States ceded no land under the Articles of Confederation. They all remained fully sovereign. States did cede land under the current Constitution to form DC. You also might want to check the definitions of US territory, and public lands, they aren't the same.

Look up Northwest Territories and state cession dunce.

You might also do a little research on something called the Land Ordinance of 1785. It will explain to you how the federal government used the sale of public lands that had been ceded by the states/colonies to finance the federal government. Thomas Jefferson was one of the guys who designed that system.

Another fail.

The Land Ordinance of 1785 was adopted by the United States Congress of the Confederation on May 20, 1785. It set up a standardized system whereby settlers could purchase title to farmland in the undeveloped west. Congress at the time did not have the power to raise revenue by direct taxation, so land sales provided an important revenue stream. The Ordinance set up a survey system that eventually covered over three-fourths of the area of the continental United States.[1]
Land Ordinance of 1785 - Wikipedia

The land was not ceded from any existing State.

.