Bundy Ranch

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

it sounds as if the antiquities act of 1906 is in violation of the property clause. I'm not trying to nitpick or argue.....I'm just curious as to how they're not in contradiction with eachother.

Parts are unConstitutional, others are not.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

The entire Enclave Clause refers to D.C., and never expands it further.

 

 

Wrong. Totally wrong. The first part is DC, 10 square miles. The second part expands it further to forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings.

 

The court has defined needful buildings for over a century now. That includes conservation areas. Buildings is defined as a "building." Like building a conservation area. If you don't like, take up with last centuries' court.

 

Also check out 18 USC $ 7.

 

The constitutionality is simple here. Did Nevada legislature consent? Of course they did.

[ExiledInIllinois]

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm

 

"The "structures" limitation does not, however, prevent the United States from holding or acquiring and having jurisdiction over land acquired for other valid purposes, such as parks and irrigation projects since Clause 17 is not the exclusive method of obtaining jurisdiction. The United States may also obtain jurisdiction by reserving it when sovereign title is transferred to the state upon its entry into the Union or by cession of jurisdiction after the United States has otherwise acquired the property. See Collins v. Yosemite Park Co., 304 U.S. 518, 529-30 (1938); James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. at 142; Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. at 650-52; Fort Leavenworth R.R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 526-27, 538, 539 (1885)."

 

 

 

 

 

I guess according to this, they didn't have to legislate transfer. It was obtained when Nevada was accepted into the Union back in 1864. ??

[boyst]

I try not to say much on stuff like this but from my study and from talking with those in my business I have learned this is going to eventually spin off to two storylines. Now, I am not as smart as ya'll folks but I do know a little and know even more on who to talk to about this.

 

1). This is about. water rights and getting federal control of all water. To keep everyone out of the water for envirnmoental reasons is the bet was for the feds to secure supreme power.

 

2). Effiency in Ag. The resources it takes to do the Ag. The big fuss will turn in to why does it take 300 acres in central Iowa to make corn when we can make food more economically. And idiots who suck the rest of media and popular stories will begulible enough to ask this question.

[OCinBuffalo]

Except it wasn't "20 years of nothing."

In your DOD world, or my corporate world? In my world yes, in fact, that was 20 years of nothing.

 

In my corporate world, this problem dies before it starts, largely because we would never have acted so stupidly as to solve the "turtle problem" this way in the first place. Moreover, we would have looked for a deal with the ranchers that made both them and us the most $ possible. For example, rather than restricting grazing by attaching a fee to it, I would want a regressive cut of the cattle price. This incentivizes the guy to produce as much cattle as possible, because the more he produces, the smaller % he owes me. This way, the more cattle they produce, the cheaper the cost of meat, AND, I get plenty of $ for the land usage, which I can then use to ensure the land remains viable, and take care of stupid turtle. Grass/weed whatever seed is dirt cheap when you're buying it by the ton.

 

"The poor" pay less for their food, so even the biggest political hack, on any side can take credit, and, we can point to how well we take care of small business owners.

 

But, that requires somebody who solves problems for a living, and not somebody who spends all their time trying to get more free schit/whining about their pension.

Edited April 19, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

In your DOD world, or my corporate world? In my world yes, in fact, that was 20 years of nothing.

 

In my corporate world, this problem dies before it starts, largely because we would never have acted so stupidly as to solve the "turtle problem" this way in the first place. Moreover, we would have looked for a deal with the ranchers that made both them and us the most $ possible. For example, rather than restricting grazing by attaching a fee to it, I would want a regressive cut of the cattle price. This incentivizes the guy to produce as much cattle as possible, because the more he produces, the smaller % he owes me. This way, the more cattle they produce, the cheaper the cost of meat, AND, I get plenty of $ for the land usage, which I can then use to ensure the land remains viable, and take care of stupid turtle. Grass/weed whatever seed is dirt cheap when you're buying it by the ton.

 

"The poor" pay less for their food, so even the biggest political hack, on any side can take credit, and, we can point to how well we take care of small business owners.

 

But, that requires somebody who solves problems for a living, and not somebody who spends all their time trying to get more free schit/whining about their pension.

 

In your corporate world, you don't have to spend 20 years on Congressional-mandated paperwork.

 

God, I wish I lived in your corporate world.

[OCinBuffalo]

In your corporate world, you don't have to spend 20 years on Congressional-mandated paperwork.

 

God, I wish I lived in your corporate world.

Au contraire....part of my corporate world is now dealing with useless government paperwork plenty. I've already posted examples. The thing is, I could probably start a new thread every week, if not every day, of examples I've found of hilarious idiocy/incompetence. The reason I don't: at what point does it become useless to PPP? It's not funny if it's essentially the same joke over and over.

 

Of course, I chose this, so I have no one to blame but myself. But make no mistake: I'm often standing right next to you, glaring in disbelief equally at the utter failure of the paperwork to actually accomplish its intended goals, in fact it often achieves the opposite, and, the fact that no one seems to understand that most of it only exists to make work for government employees.

 

I am working on a few ways to expose all of this as the sham that it most certainly is. We'll see...

[3rdnlng]

http://onpolitics.us...tic-terrorists/

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says supporters of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy are “domestic terrorists.”

The comments by the Senate’s top Democrat, made in Las Vegas on Thursday, seem to ratchet up the rhetoric in a dispute over grazing rights that the rancher’s supporters say is an example of government overreach.

“These people who hold themselves out as patriots are not,” Reid said at a forum sponsored by the Las Vegas Review Journal. “They are nothing more than domestic terrorists.”

Edited April 22, 2014 by 3rdnlng

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

http://onpolitics.us...tic-terrorists/

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says supporters of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy are “domestic terrorists.”

The comments by the Senate’s top Democrat, made in Las Vegas on Thursday, seem to ratchet up the rhetoric in a dispute over grazing rights that the rancher’s supporters say is an example of government overreach.

“These people who hold themselves out as patriots are not,” Reid said at a forum sponsored by the Las Vegas Review Journal. “They are nothing more than domestic terrorists.”

domestic terrorists? ??

 

Wonder what he thinks of bill ayers and the weather underground. ..

[Dante]

Yet another land grab by the feds. Thank god Texas has a spine

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/04/22/Exclusive-Greg-Abbott-to-BLM-Come-and-Take-It

[Koko78]

domestic terrorists? ??

 

Wonder what he thinks of bill ayers and the weather underground. ..

 

They are clearly damn fine Americans.

[Dante]

They are clearly damn fine Americans.

And it shows just how un American the liberal left and Reid are.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

And it shows just how un American the liberal left and Reid are.

like... "extreme conservatives have no place in new york" -ny governor andrew Cuomo

[Tiberius]

 

Please point out the portion of the Constitution which authorizes the Federal government to acquire new territories.

Oh no!!! Do we have to give back the Louisiana purchase????

[Chef Jim]

Oh no!!! Do we have to give back the Louisiana purchase????

 

Even Jefferson thought the purchase was unconstitutional but he went ahead with the purchase anyway ya dummy.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Oh no!!! Do we have to give back the Louisiana purchase????

 

Please point out the portion of the Constitution which authorizes the Federal government to acquire new territories.

 

[Tiberius]

 

 

Even Jefferson thought the purchase was unconstitutional but he went ahead with the purchase anyway ya dummy.

 

Thank you, I love it when you morons make my point for me

 

 

 

Please point out the portion of the Constitution which authorizes the Federal government to acquire new territories.

 

Yes

[TakeYouToTasker]

Yes

Ok, then quote it.

 

 

[Chef Jim]

Thank you, I love it when you morons make my point for me

 

You had a point?

[Tiberius]

 

 

You had a point?

Yes, the vast majority of people have interpreted the Constitution more liberally or broadly than you. And thank goodness! You really think Jefferson should have stuck to his strict interpretation and not bought Louisiana? Really?

 

 

Ok, then quote it.

 

 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.