I am new to this site, and am impressed with what I see to be a great resource.
An issue that has intrigued me since the last Sagebrush Rebellion, concerns the concept of "public lands", the Constitutionality of the concept (which I don't see), the abuse of power by the government, the blackmailing of the Western States to enter the Union on an "unequal footing" with the other States. Has there been any discussion of this in this site? I didn't see anything in a quick "look around", but land use issues are a constant issue for us Westerners, and I would like to know more of the history of the issue, and the Constitutional justification for the governments stealing of State lands.
Permalink Reply by Jorge Aviles on FEDERAL RESERVE Controls, all as we all waste time talking they are hatching up more trouble for our country we are the only country in their way becuse of our Constitution and freedom and by destroying them they are able to contral us.Also more taxes more control.I dont care what we post is all the same plan is all the same.Iam not a lawyer or Doctor any thing else just a simple american and have been woken up.
P.S. dont beleve the stock market.
as soon as the FedMeeting Stock went up.
Permalink Reply by Charley Kiser on The link you provided, http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/congress-enumerated-p... was full of useful information for me. I will investigate it further. Thanks.
Permalink Reply by JC Daley on Here is another unconstitutional attempt by the Federal Government to "take" more land:
House Republicans will hold an oversight hearing on the Obama administration’s new wilderness policy just a little more than a week after voting to block funding for the initiative.
The so-called “wild lands” policy, which the Department of Interior unveiled in December, allows the administration to protect land that has not been designated as wilderness land. Republicans have slammed the policy as an effort to circumvent Congress’s authority and raised fears that it could be used to make lands off-limits to oil-and-gas drilling.
A bill to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year passed by the House last week includes a provision to block funding for the administration’s “wild lands” policy. The bill faces an uphill battle in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said he’ll pursue a 30-day measure to fund the government while lawmakers negotiate on legislation to fund the government through the end of September.
The House Natural Resources Committee will hold an oversight hearing on the policy March 1. Witnesses at the hearing include Idaho Gov. C.L. Butch Otter and Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, both Republicans. Other witnesses will be announced later.
“This is a prime example of why Congress must exercise vigorous oversight of the Obama Administration,” Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), the chairman of the committee, said in a statement. “The Wild Lands policy expressly circumvents Congress’ statutory authority to establish Wilderness areas. Under this policy, the public’s access to public lands can be limited or halted entirely — impacting our economy, jobs, recreation opportunities and American energy production.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/145531-house-gop-to-ex...
The Federal Government bureaucrats will do what they want until the States put a stop to them. The idea that what they propose is unConstitutional is of no consequence to them because they get paid to so this very thing under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior (in this case) probably urged on by some Congresscritter who will get a ton of campaign money for proposing these kinds of regulations. It is up to WE, the People, to pressure the members of this committee to stop this. BUT, not a lot of people pay attention to this sort of thing because it doesn't effect them--like in the east where the land has already been claimed and there are few "open" spaces to attack.
Obviously the employees of the Dept of the Interior have too much time on their hands and could be downsized IF the Congresscritters had any huevos to REALLY cut the budget. $61 billion--pfffttt, pocket change!
Permalink Reply by Phillip J. Barker on In the Forest Service's own policy declarations, and proposal for shutting down the National Forests to access by the public, they list in writing that one of the big issues is "humans". "We the People" are one of their biggest problems. This is not just a State matter, although it is at the State level where this should be fought (in Kalifornia it isn't going to happen), but it is a local issue that must be addressed with the County Boards of Supervisors (or whatever they are called in your State), and the County Sheriif's office, where primary law enforcement power resides (although many Sheriffs do not understand this).
Resolving the issue may require proactive moves by citizens, including the forceable removal of barriers blocking access to the Forests, and face to face confrontation with FS agents. This type of action was succesfully used in specific instances in the '90's in Nevada. The FS generally does not want a physical confrontation to occur. But the problem doesn't go away with that because they will come back again with more proposals, pretending to seek public input, when their agenda is already determined, and their goals established. So the fight will go on and on until we are able to demand of our States that, at the legislative level, they begin the process of dismantling the "public lands" controlled by the Feds, with the return of sovereignty over State lands to the State, and the people thereof.
Permalink Reply by Phillip J. Barker on JC, thank you for the post. I agree that the States have to stand up to the land grabbing Federal Government. But, it is also a local issue, and our County officials, including the Sheriffs, must join in the fight. So, it is important to elect strong people at all levels, and people who have some modicum of understanding of the Constitution.
I am posting some additional comments and facts concerning Agenda 21:
"The three great rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life,
but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty,
but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty,
is to still leave him a slave."- George Sutherland, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1921.
Opinion of the Court by Justice William Paterson.
After quoting the 1st, 8th, and 11th articles of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights, and the 9th and 46th section of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Paterson writes:From these passages it is evident; that the right of acquiring…property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects, that induced them to unite in society. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labor and industry. The preservation of property then is a primary object of the social compact, and, by the late constitution of Pennsylvania, was made a fundamental law.
UN Agenda 21"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are. And it is important to the rest of the world to make sure that they don't suffer economically by virtue of our stopping them."-- Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
What does the UN say is unsustainable?
“Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paves and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment.” -UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report.
Why Haven't You Heard About Agenda 21?
“Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.” -J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development.
Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.” From the report from the 1976 UN’s Habitat I Conference.
“Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological and aesthetic consequences…The key to overcoming it is through public policy…” Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, page 112.
“Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project
“We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for Capitalists and their projects – we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres or presently settled land.” Dave Foreman, Earth First.
On June 23, 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses - even against their will - for private economic development.
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
Under the full implementation of Agenda 21, there will be no personal property rights. All will belong to the collective. Property includes: livestock, pets. land, farms, single family dwellings, etc.
Over the past decades since the first attempt to bypass the American people in 1995, more and more American land has been "grabbed" so to speak by various local governments for so called "wildland areas", "open spaces". Usually this land is prime agricultural land as well. As the animal rights groups kicked in, including the HSUS, to help, more and more cities, counties, and states are losing the right of animal ownership as well.
Using very harsh penalties, vague wording, and changing the definitions ( known as verbal engineering), the local level of Agenda 21 known as the ICLEI, suddenly farmers, ranchers, animal breeders, and pet owners suddenly find themselves with confiscated land through a perverted form of eminent domain, their animals seized, and a continual loss of legal recourse. What was a Constitutional right has been completely bypassed, most especially in the areas of farm ownership and pet and animal ownership.
Permalink Reply by Mark on Phillip,
Interesting information. Why is it that mankind is so foolish to repeat his errors time and again? The exerpts you present are formidable. Doesn't it make you want to run right out and invest in an Oppenheimer Fund?
Regarding the "Three Great Rights" evinced by Sutherland; To expand on the idea; Note two seperate but immediately related texts; the first, in the Declaration of Independence; the second, in the 5th Article of Amendment, to wit:
"...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights;, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." Declaration of Independence
"...; nor shall any person...be deprived of life, liberty , or property, without due process of law;..." 5th Art of Amendment
(*see also, "A Summary View of the Rights of British America" by Thomas Jefferson (1774)); wherein Jefferson discusses the Saxon principles of holding property in allodial title
Clearly, as Associate Justice Sutherland aptly illustrates, if governments are instituted to secure these rights, and the same Constitution which establishes such government, holds sacred, these three rights (5th Am), can it be doubted that the pursuit of Happiness must include, at a minimum, the right to aquire, hold, and dispose of personal and real property according to individual volition?
Permalink Reply by Phillip J. Barker on Mark, I don't recall who said it, but the essence of it was that "we are too late to save the system, and too early to shoot the bastards".
Unfortunately, our SCOTUS has abdicated its resonsibility to the Constitution, and has accomodated just about everything the Congress wants to do by declaring it "within its authority".
We see "unalienable rights" attacked on every front, but perhaps the most aggregious are in the property rights and "income tax" laws. You recognize the property rights issues to be of paramount importance. We must push our respective States to recognize them also. In my case (Kalifornia), at the State level it is a lost cause. Therefore, the fight has to be on the local level, with the County Officials (including importantly the Sheriff) standing against Federal attempts to violate property rights. In the final analysis, we may have to stand armed at our own property lines in order to bring light on this issue. I hope it doesn't come to this, but it may.
(re: income tax, which is off subject for this site, how can I have "life" if part of my life/labor is subject to the government? How can I have "liberty" if I am not free to do as I wish with my life/labor without constraint? How can I have "happiness" if my life and liberty are constrained by a tax on my life?
Thanks for the comments, and useful citings.
Blessings,
Phil Barker
Permalink Reply by Mark on Phillip,
In any other nation, what you describe would be called a "coup d' etat". Here, in America, it is erroneously refered to as "politics".
Permalink Reply by Phillip J. Barker on 
Permalink Reply by Shirley Eliakis on Permalink Reply by Phillip J. Barker on This is a reply specifically to Mark, but also for general information.
Mark, I have often wondered if any public lands were pledged collateral for national debt, but have seen no evidence that it is.
Re: the question "to whom do we (the Fed's) then sell"?
I own a ranch in the north east corner of Kalifornia. I do not run livestock on "public lands", but I have many friends who do. Here is the situation they face. They have grazing permits on public lands. 1) They must maintain the boundaries of their permits via fencing at their own expense (God help them if a cow gets out); 2) They must maintain water resources at their expense, and fence off any access to stream banks (riparian protection); 3) they must pay property taxes on the permit as if it were private property; 4) they must include the value of the land in their estate for payment of inheritance taxes as though it were their private property; 5) the Fed's (Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management dictates how many head they can run in any given year, and for how long; 6) they pay a cost per head to the government for the privelage.
These people would willingly buy much of the land since they have to act as though they own it anyway, minus the right to use it as they see fit. And, trust me, they are are better environmentalists than any green weenie coming out of any liberal college, and going to work for the Dept. of Interior. Their livelihood depends upon maintaining the property in the best condition. Compare their permited lands to land the government has set aside for non-use, and the comparison is a stark contrast. Where grasses grow abundantly on permited/grazed properties, weeds and thistles abound on the government set asides. Where deer and other critters abound on permited/grazed properties, nothing lives on the government set asides.
Beyond cattlemen/stockmen, there are lumber mills setting idle for years because of a bogus "spotted owl" issue that has virtually shut down the timber industry in Kalifornia. There is now more timber in this State than ever existed before, but it is inaccessable.
In short, I think that there are buyers for the property, but, even if that proved not to be the case, if the State could control its use, the revenues the State could collect from such use would help balance State budgets (at least in most States; maybe not here).
The savings to the Fed's in not having to micromanage (and poorly, I might add) the "public lands", would be significant. It may not take a buyer; it may be that simply giving the lands back to the States from which the land was stolen (blackmailed) would be good enough for everybody concerned.
Permalink Reply by Mark on Phillip,
Very good info. I was unaware of the grazing permit "terms of use". Not all federal possessions or "enclaves" were acquired under the same terms and conditions. Thus there has been discrepencies over the years as to jurisdictional claims, (eg. exclusive fed juris , exclusive State juris, and concurrent jurisdiction), Under the Constitutional clause Art 1, Sec 8, Cl 17 ..the language states; " To exercise exclusive jurisdiction in all cases whatsoever, over such District...as may, by Cession of particular States and the Acceptance of Congress,...and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;"
So we have Constitutional 'conditions' which, if met, provide the federal gov't 'exclusive legislation' (ie. similar power to that of the States, as discussed in federalist #s 39, 45, et al) over that specific property.
The clause identifies 2 separate methods for the general [federal] government to acquire property. For the District of Columbia, the method has 2 primary conditions;
Condition #1 :Cession by the State. This is called "ceded" property.
Condition #2 : Acceptance of Congress. Where the State Cedes, the Congress "Accepts"
The second method of acquiring property, is identified in the remainder of the 18th Clause and imposes 3 separate conditions;
Condition #1- purchased
Condition #1a- by the Consent of the State Legislature
Condition #3- for puposes 'needful' to federal administration of the Constitutionally enumerated powers.
There have been multiple challenges to federal prosecution for crimes upon the various federal 'enclaves', and as is typical of the courts, there is seldom any uniformity to the results. In some cases, State convictions were overturned holding that the Federal govt had exclusive jurisdiction (ie Congress exercised "exclusive Legislation"); other cases overturned federal convictions holding that the State had retained jurisdiction over certain acts; and still others held that the State and Fed exercised Concurrent jurisdiction due to conditional cessions by the State and accepted by the Federal govt. Some cases were overturned because the Federal gov't had never formally "accepted" the cessions or purchases, others were upheld because the Federals were merely leasing properties. And if I say any more about courts, Publius will rap my knuckles with her ruler.
The lands, acquired by the Federal gov't in some cases were through purchases, but it doesn't appear that this is always the case.
At any rate, from a Constitutional view with respect to the conditions laid out in Cl 17, it stands that if the property was not purchased, with the Consent of the State Legislature, and for a needful (ie. implimentation of one or more of the enumerated powers) it is thus unconstitutional holding of property and should, by some mechanism, be returned to the State.
If property was purchased, by the Consent of the State, but NOT for a needful purpose, the State should repurchase it.
If Property was NOT purchased, but ceeded by the State, And it was NOT for a needful purpose; it should be quit claimed back to the State.
Here is the fun one: If property was NOT purchased, NOT ceeded, and NOT for a needful purpose, The fed should be evicted by the local Sheriff, preferably with media cameras rolling!
BLM, Dept of the Interior, US Forest Service, and Dept of Agriculture are neither effective stewards, nor proper landholders within a sovereign State, and have No Constitutional authority for their existence. Article 1 Section 8 does not authorized timber management or harvests, protection of owls or wildlife (spotted or striped) Landlord priveleges, or animal husbandry. These are rights properly reserved to the States, or to the Citizens respectively (10th Am)
Finally, If the land can be repurchased or Quit-Claimed back to the States, they can , and indeed should, sell parcels to legal residents of the State or of the Several States, and use the revenue to balance the State books to whatever extent possible. This would be an equittable as well as Constitutional solution, and you gotta love That!
OK, PH my left hand is extended palms down, rap at will.
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
