Feds and Militias stand off over cattle seizures.

[jon_berzerk]

So it sounds like the Bundy dispute is over who owns the land, Nevada or the Federal government?
Does Nevada claim ownership?

Better yet, why does the Feds own or claim this land ? Was it won during the Indian wars back in the early days by the U.S. calvary ? What gives the feds the rights to this land ?

Is it really Federal land or do they just say it is. How did the Fed acquire the land?

Why should the Federal government own most of the land in a sovereign state?

I think the Federal government is wrong on this issue.

it should be the states land

they would simply need to update their Constitution

since it is not a territory anymore

 

[Vandalshandle]

The United States went to war with Mexico, and then dictated the sale of the Western territory from Mexico to the United States. Both the US and Mexico signed that treaty. Nevada does not seem to be mentioned anywhere on this land transfer. Perhaps the stagecoach was late for the signing. How many Nevadans took part in this war? How much of Nevada money was used in the purchase of the land. How many Nevadans died to obtain this land from Mexico. What government entity gave Nevada the authority to apply for admission to the union as a state? What case law, or constitutional law deems that federal land revert to the state, merely on the strength of the state being granted admission to the union?

Seems to me that on one side, we have a freeloading millionaire rancher, backed by a bunch of militia thugs armed to the teeth, who are STILL taking up arms against the government (treason), and on the other, we have 250 years of law and legal precedent. Now, if we all get to choose which laws that we want to obey, and which laws not to obey, I would prefer to drive my motorcycle at 50 miles per hour down main street when traffic is light, and to stop paying any taxes whatever. But, all and all, I would still prefer to live in a nation of laws, than in anarchy.

 

[beagle9]

Either we support law enforcement or not.
As a conservative I support law enforcement and the rule of law.
Either you do or don't support law enforcement.

Oh come on. That's overly simplistic, you're smarter than that. I support LE but can be very sympathetic to Bundy and the like. Supporting LE doesn't mean you agree with the law. In this case they trimmed down the allowable herd size considerably and he refused to get the reduced permit size. If government keeps making laws that grow it's size and scope we will eventually be subjects of the state.

I agree that the best weapon is the voting booth so I blame Americans more than the clowns they put in power.

As far as the lien thing goes, Napalitano's point was that the collection would come when the property changed hands, probably at this death. The amount of the punitive fees would be disputed in court presumably.

Yes, I also support LE when they are totally right in a situation during an incident taking place and/or during an event taking place, but many times they are just free lancing as individuals therefore issuing out their form of justice right on the scene or puppets to some idiot who is foolishly making dumb policy, dumb choices, and dumb commands from above them these days. Hitler comes to mind right now, and look what it got the German people for not being more viligent and aware of what was or was to come upon that nation during that period in world history. Being viligent at the ballot box is the best and only way (as proven), that will stand the longest against these sorts of things always. Obama and crew are not Hitler clones or characters as of yet, but they could easily become such characters if the people rebel against their policies of enforcement against the American people for which they as a collective do not agree, and are being taken advantage of because of their good will that still exist somewhere within them. They (the American people in the majority) figure that they are right, and that they are historically right, but bright ideas by new government heads are being slung all over the place now, and even the policies or laws in which the people hate or disagree with are being pushed to the top against their will, so they know not what to do rather than to wait it all out is what they figure now. Who knew that we would end up with 8 years of bickering that has cost this nation greatly again, so is everyone ready to try such voting methods or a blinded gullable acceptance of a so called singlular American savior once again or would we rather have a President that considers all the people first, and then relies upon a commitee to help guide him as we make our thoughts and ideas known to them as it should be for a stronger and better America for all ?

Underestimating the Americans and their long time historical will to live free, and to pursue their own standards and/or dreams here, is a foolish thing I think, but some just can't help themselves when they become drunken with power that is born out of a weakness in which the Americans have allowed to take place from within and around them.

The feds & corporate greed have squashed the American dream in many ways, and they are continuing to squash it with every stroke of their new pens when signing all these new laws, bills or policies into place or action against the Americans without their consent upon, and especially for the majority that don't agree with many inputs that have been written into these various things that are now stated above. Sadly the Americans don't realize the impact of these things until it's far to late for them and their families, and this as so to counter them these days before the impact is felt or the damage is irreversible. Remember Pelosi in that, "just pass it and we can learn what's in it later" or MSNBC who has that woman that said "your children aren't yours, but rather they belong to the collective instead", in which will be tied into more attempted policy making or processes that will ultimately bring about change in America, and even if it is change without the peoples blessings on such change it will come no matter what now.

How about if they come to get your kids, because you won't comply with their new policies, and therefore you would rather seperate from those policies instead, but that makes you a bad influence on your kids ? A government detached from it's own countrymen is considered what I wonder ? A dictatorship or a tyrannical government ?

What has happened is the American people have somehow dummed down over the years through out the generations now, and the feds have been behind the scenes or front and center to take advantage of this dumming down the whole time.

I guess it's all like a build up to these things that happens within nations all around the world, and this nation isn't excluded from these things that go on, because we are also human beings that are capable of making mistakes just like all others in the world are. If we are guided by our beliefs in God and the scriptures, just as we were in the past for the most part, then I think for the most part we will continue to prosper as a nation who excepts God as it's guide. However, if we allow our nation to crumble due to becoming more and more evil in our hearts, and this within the sight of God, then we shall suffer or reep what we have sewn exceedingly great in the end. Just my thoughts is all. Let not world history be forgotten, and therefore look to it for guidence America, even your own history you should look to it for guidence as well.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Better yet, why does the Feds own or claim this land ? Was it won during the Indian wars back in the early days by the U.S. calvary ? What gives the feds the rights to this land ?

Is it really Federal land or do they just say it is. How did the Fed acquire the land?

Why should the Federal government own most of the land in a sovereign state?

I think the Federal government is wrong on this issue.

They acquired the land by executive orders, claiming the right of doing so by old acts and laws. Currently Obama is taking land via a 1906 Act, BYPASSING Congress.

Carter did the same to create the Sage Bush Rebellion.

the land has always been federal land

currently harry trying to get the land set aside as a conservation area

through congress

the government is treating the land as if it is already a done deal

however it isnt the bill by harry has not moved since last year

 

[jon_berzerk]

Fully agree with that as the $200 a day per head is absurd.
But let me appeal to your reason and common sense.
Background undisputed:
Cattle ranchers at the turn of the century and during the depression had great problems with over grazing on Federal lands so they went to Congress asking for a law to manage that resource. The Taylor grazing Act was passed in 1934 which leased the property.
There are now 18,000 leases on Federal land mostly cattle and sheep grazing.
All legal since 1934.
So under what theory does Bundy offer, and he has offered none to date, does he have to justify never even applying for a lease, which is very simple and not that costly?
What theory does he have, which he has never offered, does he have to claim he is exempt from the fines?
And the bottom line is who was there to serve the order on Bundy, as he had prior notice they were coming, and who were these people there other than BLM to serve the order?
Federal marshals.
So we have men that are Federal marshals that all they are doing is just going about their business of enforcing the law. Men that have families and are there to do a job.
And we have Bundy calling in armed militia groups to stop them.
Now tell me if in your county where you live someone had cattle that came over on your property and a court issued an order to be served on the person that owned those cattle to remove them how is anyone that is in law enforcement doing anything wrong?
You do know that this is exactly what happened in this case, don't you as I doubt you are stupid and do not admit believe Bundy avoided this law since 1993?
So the marshals in your county come out attempting to serve the order on the man that has cattle on your property and the guy that owns the cattle calls every militia group and they show up armed, all of them.
What happens?
All of them are arrested for obstruction of justice because they intervened with law enforcement performing their official legal duties in serving legal process.
Either we support law enforcement or not.
As a conservative I support law enforcement and the rule of law.
Either you do or don't support law enforcement.

his theory is that he paid clark country and would continue to pay clark county

he says that BLM is not the correct managers of the land

BLM on their website states that the rate for grazing fees is

1.35 per head per month counting cow and calf as one head

so money was not the issue

he also claims that BLM has been systematically robbing the livelihood of the ranchers

by limiting the number of head to a hundred cattle

LOL, the county has nothing to do with leasing Federal land.
So when you get a speeding ticket you get to choose who to pay the fine to.
Rich there.
Many claim Elvis is still alive and you support that excuse also.
No one with any sense of the law in this matter supports a very wealthy rancher feeeloading off the government.
Bundy has conned you with the talking points for dummies of "freedom, patriotism" and outright paranoia to further his business interests only to get an advantage over his competitors.
And you buy it hook, line and sinker same as the left wing bought the media drivel that Trayvon Martin was a 6th grade choir boy.
Do not feel bad though as many have been suckered in by the multi millionaire Bundy.
Thousands of ranchers across the west pay the fees for their businesses to graze their cattle. But Bundy and his supporters believe Bundy should get free use of public resources to make a personal profit.
We call folks like that here in the deep south straight up communists.
Bundy's foundational argument is the land has been used by his family for generations and claims to have ancestors that worked the land since the 1800s. LOL, if Bundy wants to make that argument he needs to speak to the native Americans of the many different tribes that occupied the land far before Bundy did.
Also, I thought America was founded on building wealth through capitalism, rather than depending on your daddy to to pass on his membership into the landed aristocracy where Bundy sits. Bundy seems to think himself a member of the neo-nobility.
Bundy has no right to public land for personal profit. Anyone that believes that needs to move to Havanna and smoke one with Fidel.

a million dollar business is not wealthy by any means

 

[beagle9]

The United States went to war with Mexico, and then dictated the sale of the Western territory from Mexico to the United States. Both the US and Mexico signed that treaty. Nevada does not seem to be mentioned anywhere on this land transfer. Perhaps the stagecoach was late for the signing. How many Nevadans took part in this war? How much of Nevada money was used in the purchase of the land. How many Nevadans died to obtain this land from Mexico. What government entity gave Nevada the authority to apply for admission to the union as a state? What case law, or constitutional law deems that federal land revert to the state, merely on the strength of the state being granted admission to the union?

Seems to me that on one side, we have a freeloading millionaire rancher, backed by a bunch of militia thugs armed to the teeth, who are STILL taking up arms against the government (treason), and on the other, we have 250 years of law and legal precedent. Now, if we all get to choose which laws that we want to obey, and which laws not to obey, I would prefer to drive my motorcycle at 50 miles per hour down main street when traffic is light, and to stop paying any taxes whatever. But, all and all, I would still prefer to live in a nation of laws, than in anarchy.

This is why these things are to be ironed out in court, so that these historic findings can be spoken of, and the lawyers can use them as tools in which are given to them to get the job done. The government abusive use of power, and it's acting in the ways in which it did (was plain wrong), and was unessesary I garantee you. I mean just as they did at Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidian complex where the outcomes ended up being wrong in the end for them and the people who were killed because of it, they seem not to learn as adminsitrations change, and another President has to once again prove himself as a bully. There is always a way to arrest a person without a fight, and then court comes afterwards, hmmm unless they don't like the guy and they wanted to ruff him and his cows up a bit. If this was the case, then what won't they do to others in the nation as well in whcih they don't like ? Keep a sharp eye out people, because we may have the beginnings of something that could be like a virus that begins to spread if not careful. Look for the symptoms always to these things.

 

[paulitician]

Media propaganda used to be the only source of information available to the public. When the ATF entrapped Veteran Randy Weaver and killed his wife and son the locals supported him but there was no National outrage or Fox news and no fair and balanced reporting about the "Ruby Ridge siege". When the feds used poison gas and tanks against the Branch Dividian compound the media supported the carnage and so did the public even though nobody really knew what happened. Things are different today and the word gets out quickly especially during a repressive administration and the bloated federal bureaucracy backed down.

Well said. Hopefully, times are changing. Government is everywhere. It's dominating Citizens' lives. Everywhere you turn, Government is there harassing and stealing. You can't do anything these days without groveling and begging for its permission. We've become exactly what our Founding Fathers fought so hard to get rid of. The size and scope of Government needs to be dramatically scaled back. Government is supposed to work for us the Taxpayers. But now, we the Taxpayers work for Government. Something's wrong, and more & more People are beginning to realize it. It's time for change.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The United States went to war with Mexico, and then dictated the sale of the Western territory from Mexico to the United States. Both the US and Mexico signed that treaty. Nevada does not seem to be mentioned anywhere on this land transfer. Perhaps the stagecoach was late for the signing. How many Nevadans took part in this war? How much of Nevada money was used in the purchase of the land. How many Nevadans died to obtain this land from Mexico. What government entity gave Nevada the authority to apply for admission to the union as a state? What case law, or constitutional law deems that federal land revert to the state, merely on the strength of the state being granted admission to the union?

Seems to me that on one side, we have a freeloading millionaire rancher, backed by a bunch of militia thugs armed to the teeth, who are STILL taking up arms against the government (treason), and on the other, we have 250 years of law and legal precedent. Now, if we all get to choose which laws that we want to obey, and which laws not to obey, I would prefer to drive my motorcycle at 50 miles per hour down main street when traffic is light, and to stop paying any taxes whatever. But, all and all, I would still prefer to live in a nation of laws, than in anarchy.

This is why these things are to be ironed out in court, so that these historic findings can be spoken of, and the lawyers can use them as tools in which are given to them to get the job done. The government abusive use of power, and it's acting in the ways in which it did (was plain wrong), and was unessesary I garantee you. I mean just as they did at Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidian complex where the outcomes ended up being wrong in the end for them and the people who were killed because of it, they seem not to learn as adminsitrations change, and another President has to once again prove himself as a bully. There is always a way to arrest a person without a fight, and then court comes afterwards, hmmm unless they don't like the guy and they wanted to ruff him and his cows up a bit. If this was the case, then what won't they do to others in the nation as well in whcih they don't like ? Keep a sharp eye out people, because we may have the beginnings of something that could be like a virus that begins to spread if not careful. Look for the symptoms always to these things.

So, you are saying that the government is being unreasonable to act, after having worked through the courts for 20 years, winning, all the while?

 

[beagle9]

The United States went to war with Mexico, and then dictated the sale of the Western territory from Mexico to the United States. Both the US and Mexico signed that treaty. Nevada does not seem to be mentioned anywhere on this land transfer. Perhaps the stagecoach was late for the signing. How many Nevadans took part in this war? How much of Nevada money was used in the purchase of the land. How many Nevadans died to obtain this land from Mexico. What government entity gave Nevada the authority to apply for admission to the union as a state? What case law, or constitutional law deems that federal land revert to the state, merely on the strength of the state being granted admission to the union?

Seems to me that on one side, we have a freeloading millionaire rancher, backed by a bunch of militia thugs armed to the teeth, who are STILL taking up arms against the government (treason), and on the other, we have 250 years of law and legal precedent. Now, if we all get to choose which laws that we want to obey, and which laws not to obey, I would prefer to drive my motorcycle at 50 miles per hour down main street when traffic is light, and to stop paying any taxes whatever. But, all and all, I would still prefer to live in a nation of laws, than in anarchy.

This is why these things are to be ironed out in court, so that these historic findings can be spoken of, and the lawyers can use them as tools in which are given to them to get the job done. The government abusive use of power, and it's acting in the ways in which it did (was plain wrong), and was unessesary I garantee you. I mean just as they did at Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidian complex where the outcomes ended up being wrong in the end for them and the people who were killed because of it, they seem not to learn as adminsitrations change, and another President has to once again prove himself as a bully. There is always a way to arrest a person without a fight, and then court comes afterwards, hmmm unless they don't like the guy and they wanted to ruff him and his cows up a bit. If this was the case, then what won't they do to others in the nation as well in whcih they don't like ? Keep a sharp eye out people, because we may have the beginnings of something that could be like a virus that begins to spread if not careful. Look for the symptoms always to these things.

So, you are saying that the government is being unreasonable to act, after having worked through the courts for 20 years, winning, all the while?

Yes, I am saying that it has no right to act in the way that it did, and this regardless of the past in which led up to them acting out as bullies when taking the mans cows and abusing them over the case.

Instead of simply arresting the man himself or sending him a supeona to appear in court for the violations, they instead did this ? If he didn't appear in court then catch him at the right time and arrest him, and then set a new trial or court date. To commit an act as the feds did, was for intimidation purposes only I think, and so in other words it was a message to others who are on lookers (Don't mess with the government or else). These are the kinds of actions that get people killed, and causes people to not trust their government in which is supposed to always work in the best interet of we the people, and not against we the people.

There is no excuse.

 

[Vandalshandle]

This is why these things are to be ironed out in court, so that these historic findings can be spoken of, and the lawyers can use them as tools in which are given to them to get the job done. The government abusive use of power, and it's acting in the ways in which it did (was plain wrong), and was unessesary I garantee you. I mean just as they did at Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidian complex where the outcomes ended up being wrong in the end for them and the people who were killed because of it, they seem not to learn as adminsitrations change, and another President has to once again prove himself as a bully. There is always a way to arrest a person without a fight, and then court comes afterwards, hmmm unless they don't like the guy and they wanted to ruff him and his cows up a bit. If this was the case, then what won't they do to others in the nation as well in whcih they don't like ? Keep a sharp eye out people, because we may have the beginnings of something that could be like a virus that begins to spread if not careful. Look for the symptoms always to these things.

So, you are saying that the government is being unreasonable to act, after having worked through the courts for 20 years, winning, all the while?

Yes, I am saying that it has no right to act in the way that it did, and this regardless of the past in which led up to them acting out as bullies when taking the mans cows and abusing them over the case.

Instead of simply arresting the man himself or sending him a supeona to appear in court for the violations, they instead did this ? If he didn't appear in court then catch him at the right time and arrest him, and then set a new trial or court date. To commit an act as the feds did, was for intimidation purposes only I think, and so in other words it was a message to others who are on lookers (Don't mess with the government or else). These are the kinds of actions that get people killed, and causes people to not trust their government in which is supposed to always work in the best interet of we the people, and not against we the people.

There is no excuse.

This may come as a bit of a surprise to you, but there have been no debtor's prisons on this continent since colonial days. You can not arrest a man for a debt.

Want to rethink that?

 

[Katzndogz]

If any good is to come of this, it will be the state legislators meeting to discuss the take land grab of the federal government and what can be done to return land ownership to the states.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So it sounds like the Bundy dispute is over who owns the land, Nevada or the Federal government?
Does Nevada claim ownership?

Better yet, why does the Feds own or claim this land ? Was it won during the Indian wars back in the early days by the U.S. calvary ? What gives the feds the rights to this land ?

Why should the Federal government own most of the land in a sovereign state?

Because there’s no such thing as a ‘sovereign state:’

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

US Constitution, Article VI

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Media propaganda...

A rightist blames ‘the media,’ how tedious, predictable, and lame.

 

[beagle9]

So, you are saying that the government is being unreasonable to act, after having worked through the courts for 20 years, winning, all the while?

Yes, I am saying that it has no right to act in the way that it did, and this regardless of the past in which led up to them acting out as bullies when taking the mans cows and abusing them over the case.

Instead of simply arresting the man himself or sending him a supeona to appear in court for the violations, they instead did this ? If he didn't appear in court then catch him at the right time and arrest him, and then set a new trial or court date. To commit an act as the feds did, was for intimidation purposes only I think, and so in other words it was a message to others who are on lookers (Don't mess with the government or else). These are the kinds of actions that get people killed, and causes people to not trust their government in which is supposed to always work in the best interet of we the people, and not against we the people.

There is no excuse.

This may come as a bit of a surprise to you, but there have been no debtor's prisons on this continent since colonial days. You can not arrest a man for a debt.

Want to rethink that?

Oh, you can't arrest a man if won't adhere to a court order, so it's better to hire mercenaries (Idiots that will do anything for a buck), along with the backing of snipers just to go out and ruff and russel up his cows, and then almost get people killed in the process ? Umm, how stupid was this again ?

 

[beagle9]

Better yet, why does the Feds own or claim this land ? Was it won during the Indian wars back in the early days by the U.S. calvary ? What gives the feds the rights to this land ?

Why should the Federal government own most of the land in a sovereign state?

Because there’s no such thing as a ‘sovereign state:’

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

US Constitution, Article VI

Didn't see anything about land or land ownership in those words. All I saw was the outline concerning the structure of the law, and how it relates to the government and the citizens as it is laid out in concerning the law. Want to give me something more specific maybe where the word land is outlined in a better context , and is mentioned more directly in respect to land ownership, and how it is managed or for whom it is managed by and/or by whom ownership of such lands does fall up under in each case that is brought forth across this vast nation ? Thanks

The law of the land ,does not mean land managment or land ownership, but rather that the LAW or laws as they are laid out for all Americans, is applicable in all of the United states of America. This does not mean that the feds have ownership of land, but rather that the land is subjected to federal laws if those laws should have to apply to said property owner who lives upon a parcel of land in which that law has to cross over to get to that property owner in order to serve a warrant to him or her. Otherwise a person can not say that the law can't come upon their land and serve a warrant to them if they have done something wrong, and this just because it is private property, no because it won't work in that way. The law to prosecute wrong doers does not stop at the gates of private land if the person has done something wrong (i.e. commited a crime). Remember the days of old, where as it was once illegal for the law to cross state lines from another state in order to pursue a person from one state to another, otherwise they would have to notify the other state, and then get them to get after them unless an extreme emergency existed ?

What the feds did was outright wrong the way they went about it and that is that. PERIOD! Reminds me of all the other blunders that get people killed by their idiocy. Gun running into Mexico comes to mind about now or even Ben Ghazi also.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Yes, I am saying that it has no right to act in the way that it did, and this regardless of the past in which led up to them acting out as bullies when taking the mans cows and abusing them over the case.

Instead of simply arresting the man himself or sending him a supeona to appear in court for the violations, they instead did this ? If he didn't appear in court then catch him at the right time and arrest him, and then set a new trial or court date. To commit an act as the feds did, was for intimidation purposes only I think, and so in other words it was a message to others who are on lookers (Don't mess with the government or else). These are the kinds of actions that get people killed, and causes people to not trust their government in which is supposed to always work in the best interet of we the people, and not against we the people.

There is no excuse.

This may come as a bit of a surprise to you, but there have been no debtor's prisons on this continent since colonial days. You can not arrest a man for a debt.

Want to rethink that?

Oh, you can't arrest a man if won't adhere to a court order, so it's better to hire mercenaries (Idiots that will do anything for a buck), along with the backing of snipers just to go out and ruff and russel up his cows, and then almost get people killed in the process ? Umm, how stupid was this again ?

Sorry, Beagle, but the law is based on the Constitution of the United States. If you think that the Constitution is stupid, then by all means support your local Tea Party candidate. They are Definitely in tune with 'stupid".

This may come as a big surprise to you, as well. Law enforcement authorities are armed. It is not a secret.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Better yet, why does the Feds own or claim this land ? Was it won during the Indian wars back in the early days by the U.S. calvary ? What gives the feds the rights to this land ?

Why should the Federal government own most of the land in a sovereign state?

Because there’s no such thing as a ‘sovereign state:’

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

US Constitution, Article VI

Because there’s no such thing as a ‘sovereign state:’


certainly there is

Thus, it appears clearly that once any property within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States is no longer utilized by that government for governmental purposes, and the title or any interest therein is conveyed to private interests, the jurisdiction of the federal government ceases and jurisdiction once again reverts to the State.

The above principles regarding the distinction between State and federal jurisdiction continue through today; see Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. 245, 83 S.Ct. 426 (1963), and United States v. State Tax Commission of Mississippi, 412 U.S. 363, 93 S.Ct. 2183 (1973). And what was definitely decided in the beginning days of this Republic regarding the extent, scope, and reach of each of these two distinct jurisdictions remains unchanged and forms the foundation and basis for the smooth workings of state governmental systems in conjunction with the federal government. Without such jurisdictional principles which form a clear boundary between the jurisdiction of the States and the United States, our federal governmental system would have surely met its demise long before now.

In summary, jurisdiction of the States is essentially the same as that possessed by the States which were leagued together under the Articles of Confederation. The confederated States possessed absolute, complete and full jurisdiction over property and persons located within their borders. It is hypocritical to assume or argue that these States, which had absolved and banished the centralized power and jurisdiction of the English Parliament and Crown over them by the Declaration of Independence, would shortly thereafter cede comparable power and jurisdiction to the Confederation Congress. They did not and they closely and jealously guarded their own rights, powers and jurisdiction. When the Articles were replaced by the Constitution, the intent and purpose of the States was to retain their same powers and jurisdiction, with a small concession of jurisdiction to the United States for lands found essential for the operation of that government. However, even this provision did not operate to instantly change any aspect of state jurisdiction, it only permitted its future operation wherein any State, by its own volition, should choose to cede jurisdiction to the United States.

By the adoption of the Constitution, the States jointly surrendered some 17 specific and well defined powers to the federal Congress, which related strictly to external affairs of the States. Any single power, or even several powers combined, do not operate in a fashion as to invade or divest a State of its jurisdiction. As against a single State, the remainder of the States under the Constitution have no right to jurisdiction within the single State absent its consent.

The only provision in the Constitution which permits jurisdiction to be vested in the United States is found in Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17, which provides the mechanism for a voluntary cession of jurisdiction from any State to the United States. When the Constitution was adopted, the United States had jurisdiction over no lands within the States, possessing jurisdiction only in the lands encompassed in the Northwest Territories. Shortly thereafter, Maryland and Virginia ceded jurisdiction to the United States for Washington, D.C. As time progressed thereafter, the States at various times ceded jurisdiction to federal enclaves within the States. Today, the territorial jurisdiction of the United States is found only in such ceded areas, which encompass Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the States, and such territories and possessions which may be now owned by the United States.

The above conclusion is not the mere opinion of the author of this brief, but it is likewise that of the federal government itself. In June 1957, the government of the United States published a work entitled Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within The States: Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, Part II, which report is the definitive study on this issue. Therein, the Committee stated:

Federal Jurisdiction

 

[beagle9]

Why should the Federal government own most of the land in a sovereign state?

Because there’s no such thing as a ‘sovereign state:’

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

US Constitution, Article VI

Because there’s no such thing as a ‘sovereign state:’


certainly there is

Thus, it appears clearly that once any property within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States is no longer utilized by that government for governmental purposes, and the title or any interest therein is conveyed to private interests, the jurisdiction of the federal government ceases and jurisdiction once again reverts to the State.

The above principles regarding the distinction between State and federal jurisdiction continue through today; see Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. 245, 83 S.Ct. 426 (1963), and United States v. State Tax Commission of Mississippi, 412 U.S. 363, 93 S.Ct. 2183 (1973). And what was definitely decided in the beginning days of this Republic regarding the extent, scope, and reach of each of these two distinct jurisdictions remains unchanged and forms the foundation and basis for the smooth workings of state governmental systems in conjunction with the federal government. Without such jurisdictional principles which form a clear boundary between the jurisdiction of the States and the United States, our federal governmental system would have surely met its demise long before now.

In summary, jurisdiction of the States is essentially the same as that possessed by the States which were leagued together under the Articles of Confederation. The confederated States possessed absolute, complete and full jurisdiction over property and persons located within their borders. It is hypocritical to assume or argue that these States, which had absolved and banished the centralized power and jurisdiction of the English Parliament and Crown over them by the Declaration of Independence, would shortly thereafter cede comparable power and jurisdiction to the Confederation Congress. They did not and they closely and jealously guarded their own rights, powers and jurisdiction. When the Articles were replaced by the Constitution, the intent and purpose of the States was to retain their same powers and jurisdiction, with a small concession of jurisdiction to the United States for lands found essential for the operation of that government. However, even this provision did not operate to instantly change any aspect of state jurisdiction, it only permitted its future operation wherein any State, by its own volition, should choose to cede jurisdiction to the United States.

By the adoption of the Constitution, the States jointly surrendered some 17 specific and well defined powers to the federal Congress, which related strictly to external affairs of the States. Any single power, or even several powers combined, do not operate in a fashion as to invade or divest a State of its jurisdiction. As against a single State, the remainder of the States under the Constitution have no right to jurisdiction within the single State absent its consent.

The only provision in the Constitution which permits jurisdiction to be vested in the United States is found in Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17, which provides the mechanism for a voluntary cession of jurisdiction from any State to the United States. When the Constitution was adopted, the United States had jurisdiction over no lands within the States, possessing jurisdiction only in the lands encompassed in the Northwest Territories. Shortly thereafter, Maryland and Virginia ceded jurisdiction to the United States for Washington, D.C. As time progressed thereafter, the States at various times ceded jurisdiction to federal enclaves within the States. Today, the territorial jurisdiction of the United States is found only in such ceded areas, which encompass Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the States, and such territories and possessions which may be now owned by the United States.

The above conclusion is not the mere opinion of the author of this brief, but it is likewise that of the federal government itself. In June 1957, the government of the United States published a work entitled Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within The States: Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, Part II, which report is the definitive study on this issue. Therein, the Committee stated:

Federal Jurisdiction

Good stuff, and if we didn't have these things in place still, and these things still honored today in order to keep the nation free from tyranny, and to keep it free from becoming a Soviet or other such types of nations for which we have known of in the past, then we must follow what was done years ago in which created and managed properly such a nation as we have here today. For various reasons though, we have seen lately that we have a government being run by people whom want to forget what was done in the past, and therefore move on towards ways in which they see it to be run by them now instead.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Because there’s no such thing as a ‘sovereign state:’

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

US Constitution, Article VI

Because there’s no such thing as a ‘sovereign state:’


certainly there is

Thus, it appears clearly that once any property within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States is no longer utilized by that government for governmental purposes, and the title or any interest therein is conveyed to private interests, the jurisdiction of the federal government ceases and jurisdiction once again reverts to the State.

The above principles regarding the distinction between State and federal jurisdiction continue through today; see Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. 245, 83 S.Ct. 426 (1963), and United States v. State Tax Commission of Mississippi, 412 U.S. 363, 93 S.Ct. 2183 (1973). And what was definitely decided in the beginning days of this Republic regarding the extent, scope, and reach of each of these two distinct jurisdictions remains unchanged and forms the foundation and basis for the smooth workings of state governmental systems in conjunction with the federal government. Without such jurisdictional principles which form a clear boundary between the jurisdiction of the States and the United States, our federal governmental system would have surely met its demise long before now.

In summary, jurisdiction of the States is essentially the same as that possessed by the States which were leagued together under the Articles of Confederation. The confederated States possessed absolute, complete and full jurisdiction over property and persons located within their borders. It is hypocritical to assume or argue that these States, which had absolved and banished the centralized power and jurisdiction of the English Parliament and Crown over them by the Declaration of Independence, would shortly thereafter cede comparable power and jurisdiction to the Confederation Congress. They did not and they closely and jealously guarded their own rights, powers and jurisdiction. When the Articles were replaced by the Constitution, the intent and purpose of the States was to retain their same powers and jurisdiction, with a small concession of jurisdiction to the United States for lands found essential for the operation of that government. However, even this provision did not operate to instantly change any aspect of state jurisdiction, it only permitted its future operation wherein any State, by its own volition, should choose to cede jurisdiction to the United States.

By the adoption of the Constitution, the States jointly surrendered some 17 specific and well defined powers to the federal Congress, which related strictly to external affairs of the States. Any single power, or even several powers combined, do not operate in a fashion as to invade or divest a State of its jurisdiction. As against a single State, the remainder of the States under the Constitution have no right to jurisdiction within the single State absent its consent.

The only provision in the Constitution which permits jurisdiction to be vested in the United States is found in Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17, which provides the mechanism for a voluntary cession of jurisdiction from any State to the United States. When the Constitution was adopted, the United States had jurisdiction over no lands within the States, possessing jurisdiction only in the lands encompassed in the Northwest Territories. Shortly thereafter, Maryland and Virginia ceded jurisdiction to the United States for Washington, D.C. As time progressed thereafter, the States at various times ceded jurisdiction to federal enclaves within the States. Today, the territorial jurisdiction of the United States is found only in such ceded areas, which encompass Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the States, and such territories and possessions which may be now owned by the United States.

The above conclusion is not the mere opinion of the author of this brief, but it is likewise that of the federal government itself. In June 1957, the government of the United States published a work entitled Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within The States: Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, Part II, which report is the definitive study on this issue. Therein, the Committee stated:

Federal Jurisdiction

Good stuff, and if we didn't have these things in place still, and these things still honored today in order to keep the nation free from tyranny, and to keep it free from becoming a Soviet or other such types of nations for which we have known of in the past, then we must follow what was done years ago in which created and managed properly such a nation as we have here today. For various reasons though, we have seen lately that we have a government being run by people whom want to forget what was done in the past, and therefore move on towards ways in which they see it to be run by them now instead.

probably the biggest hazard to states rights was the adoption of the seventeenth amendment

which should be repealed

 

[beagle9]

Because there’s no such thing as a ‘sovereign state:’


certainly there is

Thus, it appears clearly that once any property within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States is no longer utilized by that government for governmental purposes, and the title or any interest therein is conveyed to private interests, the jurisdiction of the federal government ceases and jurisdiction once again reverts to the State.

The above principles regarding the distinction between State and federal jurisdiction continue through today; see Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. 245, 83 S.Ct. 426 (1963), and United States v. State Tax Commission of Mississippi, 412 U.S. 363, 93 S.Ct. 2183 (1973). And what was definitely decided in the beginning days of this Republic regarding the extent, scope, and reach of each of these two distinct jurisdictions remains unchanged and forms the foundation and basis for the smooth workings of state governmental systems in conjunction with the federal government. Without such jurisdictional principles which form a clear boundary between the jurisdiction of the States and the United States, our federal governmental system would have surely met its demise long before now.

In summary, jurisdiction of the States is essentially the same as that possessed by the States which were leagued together under the Articles of Confederation. The confederated States possessed absolute, complete and full jurisdiction over property and persons located within their borders. It is hypocritical to assume or argue that these States, which had absolved and banished the centralized power and jurisdiction of the English Parliament and Crown over them by the Declaration of Independence, would shortly thereafter cede comparable power and jurisdiction to the Confederation Congress. They did not and they closely and jealously guarded their own rights, powers and jurisdiction. When the Articles were replaced by the Constitution, the intent and purpose of the States was to retain their same powers and jurisdiction, with a small concession of jurisdiction to the United States for lands found essential for the operation of that government. However, even this provision did not operate to instantly change any aspect of state jurisdiction, it only permitted its future operation wherein any State, by its own volition, should choose to cede jurisdiction to the United States.

By the adoption of the Constitution, the States jointly surrendered some 17 specific and well defined powers to the federal Congress, which related strictly to external affairs of the States. Any single power, or even several powers combined, do not operate in a fashion as to invade or divest a State of its jurisdiction. As against a single State, the remainder of the States under the Constitution have no right to jurisdiction within the single State absent its consent.

The only provision in the Constitution which permits jurisdiction to be vested in the United States is found in Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17, which provides the mechanism for a voluntary cession of jurisdiction from any State to the United States. When the Constitution was adopted, the United States had jurisdiction over no lands within the States, possessing jurisdiction only in the lands encompassed in the Northwest Territories. Shortly thereafter, Maryland and Virginia ceded jurisdiction to the United States for Washington, D.C. As time progressed thereafter, the States at various times ceded jurisdiction to federal enclaves within the States. Today, the territorial jurisdiction of the United States is found only in such ceded areas, which encompass Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the States, and such territories and possessions which may be now owned by the United States.

The above conclusion is not the mere opinion of the author of this brief, but it is likewise that of the federal government itself. In June 1957, the government of the United States published a work entitled Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within The States: Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, Part II, which report is the definitive study on this issue. Therein, the Committee stated:

Federal Jurisdiction

Good stuff, and if we didn't have these things in place still, and these things still honored today in order to keep the nation free from tyranny, and to keep it free from becoming a Soviet or other such types of nations for which we have known of in the past, then we must follow what was done years ago in which created and managed properly such a nation as we have here today. For various reasons though, we have seen lately that we have a government being run by people whom want to forget what was done in the past, and therefore move on towards ways in which they see it to be run by them now instead.

probably the biggest hazard to states rights was the adoption of the seventeenth amendment

which should be repealed

Could you explain the correlation between this event and the 17th for me ? Thanks

17th Amendment Explained?