Ranchers vs BLM Oregon this time

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.patriotortraitor.com/category/traitors/

Thanks for the info.

 

[Weston White]

pointing out that federal management allows all kinds of people to enjoy public lands.

Que pasa, como asi?

 

[Weston White]

I'd like further explanation on this because I'm not entirely confident who's right here. Here is Article 4 Section 3 Paragraph 2:
...

What property can belong to the United States? Well, let's refer back to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17:
...

So how on earth can huge swaths of land in the western United States be even remotely considered "needful buildings?" And, while I haven't looked into it yet, I can almost guarantee that few (probably none) of the legislatures of the affected states consented to the original and continuing land grabs of the BLM.

Also, it does indeed appear that the government is misconstruing the Constitution to prejudice claims of all affected states. Not only is this a direct violation of Article 4 Section 3 paragraph 2, but also probably a violation of the 10th amendment.

It appears to me that KrisAnne Hall is correct in her assertions that the vast majority, if not all, of BLM land is unconstitutionally "owned" by the federal government. But I'm certainly no Constitutional scholar, and would love to be shown otherwise.

I concur.

 

[Weston White]

Geez, they cannot even get the narrative correct:

The beef the Hammonds currently have with the feds is over access to land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.

Bundy has told reporters the group would leave when there was a plan in place to turn over federal lands to locals - a common refrain in a decades-long fight over public lands in the West.

So they want free land from the Government. I had inquired earlier what their demands were.

No, they want the lands returned to the states to which it properly belongs. Then it can be provisioned, sold and purchased and taxed as applicable.

 

[Weston White]

I'm not saying that a wildlife resource building is a "needful building," I'm saying that "needful building" is undefined. So long as the term remains undefined then if 50% +1 of Congress decides something is "needful," then it fulfills that clause. Because it was left undefined, the definition is left to Congress. If a majority of Congress decided that a gingerbread house containing a Japanese massage parlor was "needful," then voila.

I in no way, shape, or form agree with Congress's definition of a "needful building" here, but the way this is written it is not up to you, me, Webster's, Samuel Johnson, or anybody else to decide what is needful, it is up to Congress.

I partially disagree, "other needful buildings" stipulation still needs to qualify under Congress's constitutionally prescribed powers and will ultimately be defined by SCOTUS or by future Article V amendments.

ETA:

I would like to see an Amendment that defines "needful buildings" as being "Only those properties and structures required to carry out the powers explicitly enumerated in this Constitution." Voila, no more BS loophole.

OIC However, this is already implied. Just as is the Bill of Rights, as provided within its Preamble and our national Charter.

 

[Weston White]

I wish you people would all learn proper spelling... it's "goonerment"!

Deriving from the Latin ebil gumberment.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I partially disagree, "other needful buildings" stipulation still needs to qualify under Congress's constitutionally prescribed powers and will ultimately be defined by SCOTUS or by future Article V amendments.

ETA:

OIC However, this is already implied. Just as is the Bill of Rights, as provided within its Preamble and our national Charter.

I have a fair bit of expertise in the English language, and nothing currently in Article 1 Section 8 syntactically constrains "needful buildings" to the 19 enumerated powers in that section.

Here is the full section:

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, 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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Note that there is no indicator in the actual language itself connecting the "and other needful Buildings" clause to the preceding enumerated powers.

Here, I will quote the relevant clause:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, 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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

If "and other needful Buildings" is connected to ANY declaration of power, then it would be the "in all Cases whatsoever" at the beginning of this clause, not the 19 preceding enumerated powers.

I don't want Congress to have this power. They are clearly abusing it, but as much as I love her, KrisAnne Hall and others are displaying some amount of wishful thinking here.

 

[Weston White]

I have a fair bit of expertise in the English language, and nothing currently in Article 1 Section 8 syntactically constrains "needful buildings" to the 19 enumerated powers in that section.

United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 69-70 (1936):

'Said the court, in McCulloch v. Maryland, supra, 17 U.S. 421: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.”
...
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 22 U.S. 199. “There are, indeed, certain virtual limitations, arising from the principles of the Constitution itself. It would undoubtedly be an abuse of the [taxing] power if so exercised as to impair the separate existence and independent self-government of the States or if exercised for ends inconsistent with the limited grants of power in the Constitution.”'

Justice Scalia’s DISSENTING opinion in O’Gilvie Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79, 90 (1996):

“We add that, in any event, the view of a later Congress cannot control the interpretation of an earlier enacted statute.”

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920):

“… Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.” See also: Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co., 295 U.S. 330, 346-347 (1935).

ETA:

Alexander Hamilton’s further statements in Federalist Paper No. 84, Para. 7, 11:

“Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations. ‘WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America.’ . . . The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the constitution is itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS.”

Also within Federalist Paper No. 83, Para. 7:

“The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress, or, in other words, of the NATIONAL LEGISLATURE, shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended.”

 

[GunnyFreedom]

United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 69-70 (1936):



Justice Scalia’s DISSENTING opinion in O’Gilvie Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79, 90 (1996):

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920):

ETA:

Alexander Hamilton’s further statements in Federalist Paper No. 84, Para. 7, 11:

Also within Federalist Paper No. 83, Para. 7:

You do realize that not a single one of your quotes addresses "and other needful buildings" right?

 

[Weston White]

You do realize that not a single one of your quotes addresses "and other needful buildings" right?

As I stated it is implied by contextual underpinning of the Constitution itself. Congress CANNOT exceed the powers therein prescribed and remain with its established grant of authority.

Videlicet, Congress may only authorize legislation, buildings and lands for purposes strictly enumerated within the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

As I stated it is implied by contextual underpinning of the Constitution itself. Congress CANNOT exceed the powers therein prescribed and remain with its established grant of authority.

Videlicet, Congress may only authorize legislation, buildings and lands for purposes strictly enumerated within the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments.

You don't get to just make up whatever rules of language you want to justify a given philosophy. This Constitution implies nothing. What it says, it says directly. The most direct statement of power connected to "and other needful buildings" is the phrase "in all Cases whatsoever." For what you are saying to have merit, one would have to assume that Congress only had 19 enumerated powers in DC, when in fact the Constitution says the exact opposite.

The Constitution says what it says. The language is blatantly clear. You don't get to make up your own language just to make the Constitution say what you want it to say. It says what it says even when we don't like it.

 

[Weston White]

You don't get to just make up whatever rules of language you want to justify a given philosophy. This Constitution implies nothing. What it says, it says directly. The most direct statement of power connected to "and other needful buildings" is the phrase "in all Cases whatsoever." For what you are saying to have merit, one would have to assume that Congress only had 19 enumerated powers in DC, when in fact the Constitution says the exact opposite.

The Constitution says what it says. The language is blatantly clear. You don't get to make up your own language just to make the Constitution say what you want it to say. It says what it says even when we don't like it.

There are additional grants of powers outside of those enumerated in Article I.

The scope of the U.S. Government defined within our Constitution's Preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.

And as in our Bill of Rights Preamble, in part:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

Article VI:

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

...And I realize that you really want to patronize one, but sadly, Congress has been granted no such constitutionally relative powers to build gingerbread houses containing Japanese massage parlors.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

There are additional grants of powers outside of those enumerated in Article I.

The scope of the U.S. Government defined within our Constitution's Preamble:



And as in our Bill of Rights Preamble, in part:


Article VI:

Again, the Constitution says what it says, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.

You can talk about how it implies this, or how it really means that, or how we have to assume it means the other, but the Constitution is written in basic English. The meaning of that English is clear. It doesn't imply anything. There are no meanings that are opposite to what the language itself says. You do not have to assume contrary syntax grammar or vocabulary. It means what it says.

...And I realize that you really want to patronize one, but sadly, Congress has been granted no such constitutionally relative powers to build gingerbread houses containing Japanese massage parlors.

What exactly are you trying to claim that I want to patronize?

Since you are adding meaning to the Constitution that is simply not there, I shouldn't be surprised that you are likewise adding meaning to things that I say that also just isn't there.

Again, you don't get to just invent meanings out of thin air that are not contained in the actual language, to justify whatever conclusions you want to reach.

The Constitution says what it means and it means what it says, even when you and I don't like it.

I don't defend just the parts I like, I defend the WHOLE Constitution, and work to amend the parts I disagree with. This was the process set out by our Framers.

If attacking the plain language of the Constitution were not enough, now you are going to attack me for defending a strict and originalist reading of it?

SMDH.

 

[goldenequity]

Bundy Confirms: Sheriff Has Surrendered Constitutional Power to The Feds @ 2:00



=============================

This is what you will be met with if you want to visit the County court house. (did you want to file/record something?)

This is how the Sheriff's Dept says they are not escalating the situation.

 

[goldenequity]

ALERT: 200+ FBI Vehicles On The Ground (they just rolled in to town)



Brandon Curtiss/III Percenter Harney County Updates (New Facebook Page)
https://www.facebook.com/hcmallcops/

 

[goldenequity]

Latest Update: The 'Live Show' is being recorded right now (until 8am PST, then is re-broadcast throughout the day)
**It's livestreamed as 'audio only' (video hogs limited bandwidth and distorts/interrupts broadcasting) audio = better quality streaming info

(The Youtube 'chat' feature is 'live' ALL DAY... to view go to Youtube page https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5obtfR5Fito )
(going to be a busy weekend... stay tuned )



================

To Participate in the Live Show/Call in.. (everyday 5am-8am PST)
LIVE show requires a call in (if you have free weekend minutes?) 605-562-3140 (enter caller code 407265).
Do not dial the call-in line any time other than 5am-8am PST

 

[Weston White]

Again, the Constitution says what it says, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.

You can talk about how it implies this, or how it really means that, or how we have to assume it means the other, but the Constitution is written in basic English. The meaning of that English is clear. It doesn't imply anything. There are no meanings that are opposite to what the language itself says. You do not have to assume contrary syntax grammar or vocabulary. It means what it says.

No, although speaking of adding meaning to what was earlier stated... Yea, whatever. I was not addressing meaning or assumption in basic English or grammar or vocabulary, only to constitutional breadth. At any rate, you are entirely missing or avoiding the point. To appreciate constitutionality, the U.S. Constitution is to be read and applied as a whole, not cherry picked one clause at a time or picked apart sentence by sentence, comma by comma, semicolon by semicolon, period by period, proper noun by proper noun, or by plurals and singulars. To imply is to indicate or to be understood--or more aptly the prior point is inferred.

To clarify, further, I am not asserting that our Constitution implies things that are not clearly contained therein, but that Congress's authority to establish "other needful buildings" is limited by our Constitution's enumerated grant of powers--a truth that is implied by this very document. The logic you are arguing is the precise reason as to why imbeciles in government argue that the Commerce Clause authorizes Obamacare or permits them to establish federal felonies on the matter of intrastate bearing, transferring and selling firearms.

What exactly are you trying to claim that I want to patronize?

It's a joke dude, it was a joke pertaining to your reply a couple of pages back. You know you wrote that hypothetical and that what I was claiming exactly, was implied, basically and applying clear English, it means what it means, and it is not to be assumed to mean the opposite. (See what I did there?)

The Constitution says what it means and it means what it says, even when you and I don't like it.

If that were actually the case there would be no use of common law or judicial review existent within the United States.

If attacking the plain language of the Constitution were not enough, now you are going to attack me for defending a strict and originalist reading of it?

If that were truly the case, you would not be making the argument that you are making, see:

The narrowest conception, which can be called the proprietary theory, maintains that the Property Clause simply allows Congress to act as an ordinary owner of land. It can set policy regarding whether such lands will be sold or retained and, if they are retained, who may enter these lands and for what purposes. Under this conception, the clause confers no political sovereignty over federal landholdings. Unless one of the enumerated powers of Article I applies, such as the power to raise armies or establish a post office, political sovereignty over federal lands remains with the several states in which the land is located. ...any effort to use the Property Clause to sustain legislation that goes beyond protecting federal proprietary interests would seemingly be inconsistent with the original design of the Constitution.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause

Congress would, for example, be acting unconstitutionally if it were to establish police stations, hospitals, and public or private schools--including but not limited to gingerbread houses containing Japanese massage parlors--upon federal lands. (Similarly, as an act of Congress outlawing assault weapons would be unconstitutional being that the 2nd Amendment has been established by common law to apply specifically to military class weaponry.)

Here the question really is, what defines what is a needful building.

SMDH.

Yes sir, indeed.

 

[Weston White]

Bundy Confirms: Sheriff Has Surrendered Constitutional Power to The Feds @ 2:00

Regarding this video, the local sheriff, depending on the whole of circumstances and land history, may be in dereliction of public office or duty and negligent:

The Northwest Ordinance included a number of provisions respecting the governance of the new territory that would have to be described as pure police-power measures. These include clauses preserving the freedom of religion, prohibiting uncompensated takings of property, and outlawing slavery. Other provisions of the Ordinance addressed the status of federal land once new states were formed from the territory and admitted to the Union. Such states were prospectively prohibited from interfering with the disposal of lands by the United States or with regulations adopted by Congress to secure title to bona fide purchasers, and they were barred from imposing any tax on federal lands.

Taking the structural and historical evidence together, we can infer what may plausibly have been the original understanding of the Property Clause. The Property Clause authorized Congress to exercise a general police power within the territories before they were formed into states. Once states were admitted to the union, however, Congress could exercise full police powers over federal land located in a state only in accordance with the Enclave Clause, that is, only when the land was acquired with the consent of the state in question. As to what "needful Rules and Regulations" Congress could enact respecting federal lands in a state not located in an enclave, the Northwest Ordinance suggests that at least some preemptive federal legislation was contemplated, but only if designed to protect the proprietary interests of the United States. In short, the Framers intended that the police-power theory would apply to federal land located in territories, but that the protective theory would apply to non-enclave federal land located in states.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause

 

[goldenequity]

New Dictatorial Controls: (Judge Grasty) Rules for the next 'Community' Meeting (Monday, Jan. 25)
(aka Stuffing the Ballot Box)

Attendance at this 'public' meeting (now at the senior center) requires:
(1) to have one of the 120 tickets available at the (sheriff barricaded) courthouse
(2) must be a resident
(3) no guns
(4) Oregon NPR (National Pentagon Radio) will film and mediate

 

[goldenequity]

Obama Signs Executive Order To Legalize BLM's Land Grabs
Obama 2014 Fed plans vastly expanded the power, reach and control of federal land managers (BLM)