Backdrop Info on Oregon Situation

[III]

Regardless of the debate on the tactics being used at the current moment out west in Oregon, here is at least a little perspective on the reason people are upset:

Rep. Greg Walden Addresses U.S. House on Situation in Oregon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx4ocLdWE90

[THE KING]

Very well spoken and worth watching.

 

THANKS

[chislinger]

The Bundys and their ilk have been sucking on the teat of the Federal government and just as we see with other entitlement programs it just makes them want more and more free stuff. Now they want land that belongs to all Americans given to them for free for their own personal use, because even paying 10-15% of what private landowners charge for grazing fees is too much for them.

 

The worst of the worst welfare families could only dream of what the Bundys have taken and got away with.

 

They brought guns into Federal buildings for illegal purposes, they deserve to be charged and convicted of felonies. When they get out of prison they can get jobs that don't require enormous subsidies from the productive members of society.

[milq]

Thanks for the video, there's a lot of info there to take in. I didn't realize how small the area they burned was in comparison to the wildfires.

[DD123]

The Bundys and their ilk have been sucking on the teat of the Federal government and just as we see with other entitlement programs it just makes them want more and more free stuff. Now they want land that belongs to all Americans given to them for free for their own personal use, because even paying 10-15% of what private landowners charge for grazing fees is too much for them.

 

The worst of the worst welfare families could only dream of what the Bundys have taken and got away with.

 

They brought guns into Federal buildings for illegal purposes, they deserve to be charged and convicted of felonies. When they get out of prison they can get jobs that don't require enormous subsidies from the productive members of society.

Most of that land once belonged to families who either were forced to sell to the government, or when they told them where to go, was taken through eminent domain.

 

The constitution clearly indicates how much power the federal government can have. Owning land other than DC is not listed.

 

ETA: I don't really agree with what these guys are doing, but they have a legitimate gripe against the government. Our government has been acting outside of what the constitution allows for a very long time. This isn't something new that Obama put in place and has been going on for nearly a century. Power that rightfully belongs to the state's has been slowly stolen by the federal government.

[Bitter Clinger]

I applaud them for having the courage to stand up to the government, but I don't think anything good will come of this.

 

In order to really stand up to government and force real change, the militia needs to be 100 times the size. They are just too small.

The government needs to fear the people and the militia and that's just not happening right now.

[chislinger]

Most of that land once belonged to families who either were forced to sell to the government, or when they told them where to go, was taken through eminent domain.

No, it didn't. It was land the Federal government owned either because they bought it from France (Louisiana Purchase), by treaty from Britain (Oregon treaty), or won from Mexico in the Mexican-American War.

 

It was US government property before those states even existed, and long before the Bundy's got their first taxpayer-subsidized grazing lease.

 

The constitution clearly indicates how much power the federal government can have. Owning land other than DC is not listed.

Where does it say that? And where is DC even mentioned in the Constitution?

[DD123]

 

Most of that land once belonged to families who either were forced to sell to the government, or when they told them where to go, was taken through eminent domain.

No, it didn't. It was land the Federal government owned either because they bought it from France (Louisiana Purchase), by treaty from Britain (Oregon treaty), or won from Mexico in the Mexican-American War.

 

It was US government property before those states even existed, and long before the Bundy's got their first taxpayer-subsidized grazing lease.

 

So every rancher that had their ranches and land stolen from them through eminent domain, or forced to sell with the threat of eminent domain......they were squatting originally, generations ago, when people could go out west and purchase land for literally pennies an acre?

 

The constitution clearly indicates how much power the federal government can have. Owning land other than DC is not listed.

Where does it say that? And where is DC even mentioned in the Constitution?

 

 

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.

[chislinger]

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.

Nope, that only refers to exclusive legislative power. The feds do not have exclusive legislative power over federal property outside of DC which is why you can carry in Yellowstone NP but not in Yosemite NP. State law still applies.

[DD123]

 

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.

Nope, that only refers to exclusive legislative power. The feds do not have exclusive legislative power over federal property outside of DC which is why you can carry in Yellowstone NP but not in Yosemite NP. State law still applies.

 

....meaning that they cannot own land and rule over it like jackboot thugs if it's outside of DC. The states are ultimately supposed to own that land, and they don't. Isn't like 70-80% of the land in Nevada federally owned? When Nevada became a state, those land rights should have transferred to the state, not have remained under the rule of the federal government.

 

The problem is that there are bureaucratic agencies operating lawlessly out west, as well as everywhere in the country and that needs to stop, but it won't, because people don't recognize the fact that anything not specifically mentioned in the constitution as having federal oversight, those powers are left to the states.

 

ETA: go out to a federal national park, erect a tent, and camp out for a week. Will a ranger come and ask you for your camping permit? The answer to that is yes. If the lands belong to us, the people, why do we need to pay to use our own lands? They do belong to "the people" right? People can insert whatever tortured justification for all of this stuff, but the bottom line is that it's worlds apart from what our founders intended.

[chislinger]

....meaning that they cannot own land and rule over it like jackboot thugs if it's outside of DC.

It means nothing of the sort, and no binding court decision has ever agreed with your interpretation.

 

The states are ultimately supposed to own that land, and they don't. Isn't like 70-80% of the land in Nevada federally owned? When Nevada became a state, those land rights should have transferred to the state, not have remained under the rule of the federal government.

No, when Nevada became a state they agreed that the federal government would retain ownership of those lands. As did all the others.

 

The problem is that there are bureaucratic agencies operating lawlessly out west, as well as everywhere in the country and that needs to stop, but it won't, because people don't recognize the fact that anything not specifically mentioned in the constitution as having federal oversight, those powers are left to the states.

You mean "the courts won't recognize". And it doesn't seem to have occurred to the many living Founding Fathers that their purchase of Louisiana Territory from the French in 1803 was unconstitutional. In fact President Thomas Jefferson specifically rejected that idea, and I think he knew a thing or 2 about the Constitution and what it was all about.

 

And if you think that the acquisition of these lands was illegal then it doesn't follow that it be given to the Bundys and their ilk, shouldn't it be returned to the respective countries they were acquired from?

[Smallbore]

http://settingrecordstraight.blogspot.com/2016/01/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon.html?m=1

 

I hope this link works. It gives some history for this event.

[DD123]

Chislinger: You're comparing apples with tomatoes.

 

When we purchased those lands that you've referred to, were the states that currently sit on those lands in existence at the time? That was a time when our country was growing and gaining more land was an asset to our future.

 

Show me where in the constitution it says that the federal government is allowed to rule over the lands and hold them as their possessions. You're confusing this with "territories". When a territory becomes a state, they are able to claim their power as granted under the 10th amendment. If the states decided to allow the federal government to retain stewardship of the land, that's all it is is stewardship. The land rightfully belongs to the state, and to us.

 

I'm pretty sure Jefferson would walk into DC right now, see how politicians have perverted the constitution, and start shooting. No questions asked.

[chislinger]

Chislinger: You're comparing apples with tomatoes.

 

When we purchased those lands that you've referred to, were the states that currently sit on those lands in existence at the time? That was a time when our country was growing and gaining more land was an asset to our future.

 

Show me where in the constitution it says that the federal government is allowed to rule over the lands and hold them as their possessions. You're confusing this with "territories". When a territory becomes a state, they are able to claim their power as granted under the 10th amendment. If the states decided to allow the federal government to retain stewardship of the land, that's all it is is stewardship. The land rightfully belongs to the state, and to us.

 

I'm pretty sure Jefferson would walk into DC right now, see how politicians have perverted the constitution, and start shooting. No questions asked.

The federal government owned them before they became states, thus those lands weren't purchased from or ceded by a state and the Article I clause you cited is not applicable.

 

This is well-settled law, the legal arguments put forth by the Bundys are just as nutty as Freemen on the Land nonsense. Soon they'll be ranting about Admiralty law and such if the courtroom flag has a fringe on it...

[DoverGunner]

DD123

THANK YOU FOR PUUTTING HIM IN HIS PLACE

[DD123]

 

Chislinger: You're comparing apples with tomatoes.

 

When we purchased those lands that you've referred to, were the states that currently sit on those lands in existence at the time? That was a time when our country was growing and gaining more land was an asset to our future.

 

Show me where in the constitution it says that the federal government is allowed to rule over the lands and hold them as their possessions. You're confusing this with "territories". When a territory becomes a state, they are able to claim their power as granted under the 10th amendment. If the states decided to allow the federal government to retain stewardship of the land, that's all it is is stewardship. The land rightfully belongs to the state, and to us.

 

I'm pretty sure Jefferson would walk into DC right now, see how politicians have perverted the constitution, and start shooting. No questions asked.

The federal government owned them before they became states, thus those lands weren't purchased from or ceded by a state and the Article I clause you cited is not applicable.

 

This is well-settled law, the legal arguments put forth by the Bundys are just as nutty as Freemen on the Land nonsense. Soon they'll be ranting about Admiralty law and such if the courtroom flag has a fringe on it...

 

We can agree to disagree on this. I would highly recommend revisiting the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers again to see exactly how much power our founders thought the government should have. I just recently reread both.

 

We fought to remove ourselves from an overly bureaucratic style of government. We're currently worse than England was at that time.

 

ETA: I wouldn't put much stock in how the courts decided (which you've provided zero links to), as we've seen with the Highland Park decision recently, as well as many others. I'm willing to bet that more than half of judges out there, along with half of SCOTUS, can't interpret their way out of a cardboard box, especially considering some of their decisions that they say are based on the constitution and bill of rights. When you read their tortuous reasoning, it makes ones head spin and become nauseous at the though of how these people ever became judges to begin with.

[DD123]

Our founders would be disgusted by 80% of the citizens in this country because none of them are doing their jobs, which is constantly questioning government. We currently have people that just shrug their shoulders and say "well, it must be true if it's coming from the government", meanwhile a day later they're saying the government lies. LOL. Which is it, the government lies, or faith based belief in everything that the government says?

 

Just look at what has come out of the White House just this week concerning guns. He and they were blatantly lying through their teeth. They weren't even trying to hide the lies. It was just as bad as if it were Bloomturd himself up there telling us that garbage. If they're lying about something that I catch onto, what else are they lying about that I don't catch?

[otb4evr]

 

 

Chislinger: You're comparing apples with tomatoes.

 

When we purchased those lands that you've referred to, were the states that currently sit on those lands in existence at the time? That was a time when our country was growing and gaining more land was an asset to our future.

 

Show me where in the constitution it says that the federal government is allowed to rule over the lands and hold them as their possessions. You're confusing this with "territories". When a territory becomes a state, they are able to claim their power as granted under the 10th amendment. If the states decided to allow the federal government to retain stewardship of the land, that's all it is is stewardship. The land rightfully belongs to the state, and to us.

 

I'm pretty sure Jefferson would walk into DC right now, see how politicians have perverted the constitution, and start shooting. No questions asked.

The federal government owned them before they became states, thus those lands weren't purchased from or ceded by a state and the Article I clause you cited is not applicable.

 

This is well-settled law, the legal arguments put forth by the Bundys are just as nutty as Freemen on the Land nonsense. Soon they'll be ranting about Admiralty law and such if the courtroom flag has a fringe on it...

 

We can agree to disagree on this. I would highly recommend revisiting the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers again to see exactly how much power our founders thought the government should have. I just recently reread both.

 

We fought to remove ourselves from an overly bureaucratic style of government. We're currently worse than England was at that time.

 

ETA: I wouldn't put much stock in how the courts decided (which you've provided zero links to), as we've seen with the Highland Park decision recently, as well as many others. I'm willing to bet that more than half of judges out there, along with half of SCOTUS, can't interpret their way out of a cardboard box, especially considering some of their decisions that they say are based on the constitution and bill of rights. When you read their tortuous reasoning, it makes ones head spin and become nauseous at the though of how these people ever became judges to begin with.

 

I am most definitely not the constitutional scholar, so bear with me.

 

Why would the District Court of Oregon send the sentencing of the Hammonds back to the trial court and tell them to adhere to the Federal sentencing guidelines for the conviction if it wasn't constitutional for the Federal gov't to own the land and dictate penalties for violations?

 

https://popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Hammond-9th-Circuit.pdf

[TunaOfTheLand]

To be clear, the Hammonds have distanced themselves from the "concerned citizens" who have taken over the reserve.

 

Even if you believe that the federal government cannot legally own this land (which I don't believe), it's not like it should just be given to the ranchers who are leasing grazing rights on it. There are many people who benefit from the currently public land. Is your proposal to give it to the state as public land? That's been proposed seriously in the past, and it's not hard to imagine a political climate conducive to that returning in the future. I think you'd have more luck trying to get friendly representatives elected than an armed takeover of the land, but that's just me.

 

In my opinion, public land that can be used and enjoyed in multiple ways is a good thing. Would it be better if there was more local control over it? I think that's a colorable argument, though I suspect that the people currently occupying the reserve want to benefit from the land at the expense of others who also currently enjoy its use.

[Smallbore]

I am afraid our government claims absolute ownership of all property ignoring the concept of private property and ignoring the wisdom of private property. Our government has claimed absolute power over too much land. Pres TR was not good for our country.