Christ-Stewart()  On April 28, U.S. Representatives Chris Stewart (R-Utah) and Rob Bishop (R-Utah) launched the Federal Land Action Group, a congressional team that will “develop a legislative framework for transferring public lands to local ownership and control.”

The group, chaired by Representative Stewart, will build on the work started by Utah and other states in recent years to take back land from federal control. “The federal government has been a lousy landlord for western states and we simply think the states can do it better,” Stewart said. “If we want healthier forests, better access to public lands, more consistent funding for public education and more reliable energy development, it makes sense to have local control.”

Representative Bishop, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said,

This group will explore legal and historical background in order to determine the best congressional action needed to return these lands back to the rightful owners.

We have assembled a strong team of lawmakers, and I look forward to formulating a plan that reminds the federal government it should leave the job of land management to those who know best.

The Federal Land Action Group will hold a series of forums with experts on public lands policy, with the goal of introducing transfer legislation.

Other members of the group include Representatives Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), Diane Black (R-Tenn.), Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), Cresent Hardy (R-Nev.), and Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.).

If it’s “legal and historical background” that Stewart and his congressional colleagues want to explore, then The New Americanoffers the following roadmap to the relevant constitutional and case law considerations.

First, there is the constitutional issue of whether states, in forming the Constitution, gave the federal government power to own land.

In the decision handed down by the Supreme Court in the case of Escanaba Co. v. City of Chicago, 107 U.S. 678, 689 (1883), an important constitutionally based concept known as the “equal footing doctrine” was described as “Equality of constitutional right and power is the condition of all the States of the Union, old and new.”

Basically, this principle requires that any state added to the union do so on equal footing with the 13 original states. As reported by the legal website Justia, “Since the admission of Tennessee in 1796, Congress has included in each State’s act of admission a clause providing that the State enters the Union ‘on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.’”

An issue very similar to that of Cliven Bundy’s situation in Nevada (see here for recent news on that case) was at the heart of a Supreme Court case of Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, decided in 1845. Justia provides a short, helpful summary of the events:

Pollard’s Lessee involved conflicting claims by the United States and Alabama of ownership of certain partially inundated lands on the shore of the Gulf of Mexico in Alabama. The enabling act for Alabama had contained both a declaration of equal footing and a reservation to the United States of these lands.

Rather than an issue of mere land ownership, the Court saw the question as one concerning sovereignty and jurisdiction of the States. Inasmuch as the original States retained sovereignty and jurisdiction over the navigable waters and the soil beneath them within their boundaries, retention by the United States of either title to or jurisdiction over common lands in the new States would bring those States into the Union on less than an equal footing with the original States.

This, the court would not permit.

Alabama is, therefore, entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law, to the same extent that Georgia possessed it, before she ceded it to the United States.

To maintain any other doctrine, is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states, the constitution, laws, and compact, to the contrary notwithstanding….

To Alabama belong the navigable waters and soils under them, in controversy in this case, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States; and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights. [Emphasis added.]

So, regardless of the Obama administration’s insistence that Western lands were ceded to the federal government when those territories became states at the end of the 19th century, the Constitution, common law, and relevant Supreme Court rulings have found otherwise.

Finally, with regard to the power of all states to exercise sovereignty over the territory within their borders, history is illustrative.

First, regarding the federal government’s efforts to annihilate state sovereignty, the group of Founding Fathers known as Anti-Federalists seemed to see clearly into the future — though it is important to keep in mind that these efforts have been helped along by changes to the Constitution such as the direct election of U.S. senators (making the senators no longer beholden to the state legislatures) as well as the growth of extra-constitutional government.

On June 5, 1788, Patrick Henry rose for the third time and addressed the body of 168 delegates gathered in the Richmond Theatre in Richmond, Virginia, to debate ratification of the newly proposed Constitution. In all, Henry delivered 24 discourses blasting away at what he called the most “objectionable parts” of the Constitution.

Remarkably, on that hot June afternoon, the target of Henry’s unparalleled oratory assault was the very scenario — citizens defending themselves against federal seizure of land located within state territory — that is the crux of the showdown between the Western states and the federal government that prompted the creation of Representative Stewart’s Federal Land Action Group.

To read Henry’s powerful speech is to appreciate his remarkable foresight:

Oh, sir! we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors can not assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.

A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited — an exclusive power of legislation, in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square, and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, etc. What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies; their garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress also, in another part of this plan; they will therefore act as they think proper; all power will be in their own possession. You can not force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the State? For, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.

Regardless of the soundness of the preceding analysis of history and constitutional law, there is little doubt that a federal government consumed with and committed to a consolidation of all power will fight to maintain control of the Western states (and all states) as it has done with other recent legislative expressions of state sovereignty.

Challenges filed by the Obama administration against state laws in the areas of immigration and healthcare, reveal that Washington considers the states nothing more than administrative subordinates whose continued existence is tolerated only so long as they faithfully facilitate the execution of the millions of mandates of the multitude of federal programs.

REPORT SOURCE

Views: 192

Replies to This Discussion

"The Federal Land Action Group will hold a series of forums with experts on public lands policy, with the goal of introducing transfer legislation"

That is the first mistake. Is it deliberate?

They do not need "experts" on "public land policy" since the policies they have created are mostly unconstitutional.  What they need is to read the US Constitution or it is another sham, political posturing. 

It is the US Constitution which created the general (federal- bad term since our governments - People, state, and general - together are the "federal" part) government; defining it, assigning the powers to each branch, listing and limiting what they can and cannot do.  That is why, as Dr. Vieira says if those that serve within our governments do not follow the US Constitution they no longer have any LAWFUL AUTHORITY within the USA.

Dr. Edwin Vieira: This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides...

The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights...

The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights.

The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.

... the famous case Norton v. Shelby County... The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution...”

What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment... What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion.

But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability." (End Dr. Vieira quote)

Think not?  Read "Executive Orders" where they pretend to have constitutional authority;

"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America..."

The US Constitution denies any branch other then the legislative - our actual elected representatives - any legislative authority except that the president, along with the legislative branch can create treaties with foreign nations. That is it.

All laws here in the USA MUST be in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution to be lawful here.  Some examples:

"assassination powers" is really First Degree Murder here in the USA.

"emergency powers" and/or "martial law" are the exact OPPOSITE of the US Constitution and NOT lawful here in the USA, is actually an act of war and treason against the American people by those who serve within our governments - state and federal.

The Supreme Court of the United States, 1866 (back when it was a constitutional court): "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism."

Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 425 (1934): Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency and they are not altered by emergency.”

People v Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825): "The people or sovereign are not bound by general word in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign, ...It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King (or the people) he shall not be bound."

Chisholm vs. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419,458: “The law subscribes to the king (in America, the people) the attribute of sovereignty; he is sovereign and independent within his own Dominion; and owes no kind of subjection to any other potentate upon earth. Hence, it is, that no suit or action can be brought against the king, even in civil matters, because no court can have jurisdiction over him; for all jurisdiction implies supremacy of power

 

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.”

Stock v. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 289 In Interest of M.V., 288 Ill.App.3d 300, 681 N.E.2d 532 (1st Dist. 1997) “Where a court’s power to act is controlled by statute, the court is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction, and courts exercising jurisdiction over such matters must proceed within the structures of the statute.” “The state citizen is immune from any and all government attacks and procedure, absent contract.” see, Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 or as the Supreme Court has stated clearly, “…every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.

Brookfield Construction Company V. Stewart 284 F Sup. 94: “An officer who acts in violation of the constitution ceases to represent the government.”

If they want "experts" then they need CONSTITUTIONAL experts.

RSS

"Destroying the New World Order"

TOP CONTENT THIS WEEK

THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE SITE!

mobile page

12160.info/m

12160 Administrators

 

Latest Activity

cheeki kea commented on rlionhearted_3's photo
Thumbnail

2 planes hit buildings then demolition happened.

"That is a very good question. Did the insurance company decline the claim for some reason? or has…"
2 minutes ago
cheeki kea commented on Sandy's photo
Thumbnail

FB_IMG_1711502430662

"( sadly ) The unvaccinated sportsman or woman has an ( unfair ) advantage on the field or water…"
56 minutes ago
cheeki kea favorited Sandy's photo
1 hour ago
cheeki kea commented on Doc Vega's blog post Was Sabotage or Terrorism used in the Collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge?
" Oh Wow Terrorism!/sabotage? Are you sure you want to know more prey tell. Could be a rabbit…"
1 hour ago
Less Prone commented on Doc Vega's blog post Was Sabotage or Terrorism used in the Collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge?
"Perfect for destroying the supply chain. It could well have been intentional."
17 hours ago
Less Prone favorited Doc Vega's blog post Was Sabotage or Terrorism used in the Collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge?
17 hours ago
Doc Vega posted blog posts
19 hours ago
rlionhearted_3 posted photos
22 hours ago
rlionhearted_3 favorited Doc Vega's photo
22 hours ago
tjdavis posted a video

Alabama’s Biggest Secret - Operation Paperclip 🇺🇸

In the north of Alabama is the city of Huntsville. It's here where German scientists built NASA in secrecy after World War II. Operation Paperclip is still s...
yesterday
tjdavis posted a photo
yesterday
Doc Vega commented on Doc Vega's blog post Americans You’re Being Squeezed Out!
"Cheeki kea always nice to her you chime in and you're damn right! "
yesterday
Doc Vega commented on Doc Vega's blog post Americans You’re Being Squeezed Out!
"Les Prone thanks for your support Dude! "
yesterday
Doc Vega posted a photo

The inconvenient truth

Trump spells it out!
yesterday
Sandy posted a photo
Wednesday
Less Prone favorited Doc Vega's blog post What Made the Founding Fathers of America so Brilliant?
Tuesday
Less Prone commented on Doc Vega's blog post Why didn't the Archeological World Announce Proof that Jesus Lived?
"Motives of Joe, to shit in the well by showing totally irrelevant proof?"
Tuesday
Doc Vega commented on Doc Vega's blog post Why didn't the Archeological World Announce Proof that Jesus Lived?
"Less, Motives of Wyatt or Joe? What archeologist wouldn't want proof of Jesus as part of his…"
Tuesday
Doc Vega commented on Doc Vega's blog post Why didn't the Archeological World Announce Proof that Jesus Lived?
"Less Prone, Considering Joe Rogan to be the gatekeeper of anything is just short of ridiculous the…"
Tuesday
Doc Vega posted a blog post
Tuesday

© 2024   Created by truth.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

content and site copyright 12160.info 2007-2019 - all rights reserved. unless otherwise noted