The Bundy Siege: Federal Imperialism v State Sovereignty

The Bureau of Land Management’s siege of the Bundy Ranch in Nevada compels me to re-publish this post. I ask readers to carefully research this issue and to decide for yourself whether or not the federal government has violated public trust and the Rule of Law.

For a painfully long time now, our federal masters and their judicial enablers have ignored and, to my way of thinking, flagrantly violated the Constitution with impunity. All too often, Supreme Court rulings have served to override common sense, constitutionality and original intent.

And so long as black-robed, unelected and unaccountable judicial oligarchs, aka judges–as well as the submissive states themselves–allow “judicial supremacy” to trump “constitutional supremacy” on a whole host of foundational constitutional issues, our economic growth will be hobbled, our liberties diminished, state sovereignty further degraded, constitutional order imperiled, common sense and Rule of Law abandoned.

To wit, per Art 1.8.17 of the Constitution and provisions of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and despite a veritable cesspool of clubby, contrived and revisionist court rulings over the years through which I was barely able to wade, it appears glaringly obvious to me that our federal overseers are occupying millions of otherwise productive acres within the several states without the “concurrence” of those states and without constitutional justification.

Article 1.8.17 (“Enclave Clause”) granted power to 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 [i.e. the District of Columbia], 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.” Crystal-clear what the original meaning is here despite the shamelessly self-serving litany of subsequent spin on the part of our judicial overlords, lap dogs of the federal government.

POLL: Will Lois Lerner go to jail to protect Obama?

Clearly this clause meant that the people of the states empowered Congress to exercise complete jurisdiction and authority over all lands or facilities purchased within a state, provided it was with the consent of the legislature of that state, and that such lands would be used for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings.” Clearly implied in this clause is that the several states, the immediate fiduciary agents of the people, reserve the right to assume title to all lands within their borders which are not being used by the federal government for the specific purposes provided in the clause, that being “the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings.”

It is also important to note that nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the enumerated power of complete jurisdiction and authority over state territory; thus, state retention and ownership of public lands stems from the 10th Amendment which reserves all rights to the states which are not specifically granted to Congress. The twisted and carefully crafted Delphic court rulings notwithstanding, the original meaning seems abundantly clear to me.

Art 4.3.1 allowed a mechanism for the formation and admission of new states into the union, and Art 4.3.2 described the extent of congressional authority over federal territory within those states. Subsequently, the Supreme Court ruled that federal property applies only to the territory at the time of the Constitution’s adoption and is considered public land only until that territory is granted statehood and the national debt incurred by the Revolutionary War is paid. In other words, temporary federal control over those lands.

In accordance with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which was re-enacted after the Constitution’s ratification, all new states were to be admitted to the union on the basis of full equality with the original thirteen states. It was generally understood that as territories were granted statehood, the people of those states would acquire title to all lands within their state boundaries—except, of course, those lands granted to the feds for those well-defined purposes cited in Art 1.8.17.

To help pay down the national debt, Congress assured the states of full title to those lands not used for federally sanctioned purposes when that land was sold off. The following then became the established policy for new states:

1. The feds would retain all ungranted public lands.

2. The feds guaranteed that it would dispose of these lands as soon as possible.

3. The new state would acquire jurisdiction over these lands as fast as they were sold to private individuals.

4. States would be admitted on the basis of “equal footing” with the original 13 states (each of which retained complete ownership/control over their respective territories.

As a result, all states east of the Mississippi and those comprising the Louisiana Purchase eventually acquired title to all but a very small portion of the land lying within their state boundaries.

However, following our war with Mexico, Congress inexplicably digressed from this policy and virtually eliminated the sale or disposal of federal lands in the western states. This resulted in Congress’s retaining major portions of those state lands, this in seemingly direct contravention of the Constitution and of the Northwest Ordinance. Essentially, the federal government became the sole owner and manager of nearly 30%, or a whopping 650 million acres, of America’s landmass, for the constitutionally unspecified purposes of maintaining national forests, national parks, national monuments, Indian reservations, coal and oil reserves, lands leased to farmers and ranchers, and resources-rich so-called “wilderness areas”. And, of course, the cost to taxpayers for maintaining the sprawling federal bureaucracy in order to manage these federally controlled lands is in the billions of dollars.

Federal defenders of this overreach breathlessly point to the so-called “property clause” (Art 4.3.2) which provides that “Congress shall have power to dispose of and make any needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States and any territory or property belonging to the United States.” Clearly, doesn't this create a convenient constitutional ambiguity by contradicting the original intent of Art 1.8.17? Does this not exact restrictions on the western states, which had never been imposed on earlier states? So much for states being admitted into the union on “equal footing” and “full equality” with earlier states. Is federal retention of 30% of America’s real estate really a “necessary and proper” exercise of federal powers? For me to believe that would require a willful suspension of common sense.

To give you an idea of how much state land is now imperially held by the feds, check this out: NV 85%, AL 70%, UT, 60%, OR 53%, AZ 47%, CA 45%, WY 42%, NM 42%, CO 37%, and poor Alaska 96%! Note: 65% of federal land holdings are located west of the Mississippi and a paltry 1% of all federally controlled land in the country is currently being utilized for those specific purposes cited in Art 1.8.17. One must wonder why these lands are still being held by the feds. Pay off the Revolutionary War debt? Gee, I don’t think so. Lofty, if not entirely contrived, constitutional justifications? Or, more likely, the relentless federal grasp for power and, today, a way to placate a host of environmental allies by denying the states and the country access to those climate-warming pollutants such as oil and gas.

Regarding the Enclave Clause, James Madison stated that “the public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned in every such establishment.” But, have the courts sought the concurrence of the states? Nope.

Clearly, the federal government is occupying millions of acres without the “concurrence” of those states, but maintains their grip with the twisted and self-serving judicial sanction of federal Courts intent upon expanding and strengthening federal power.

So, what is the recourse of the several states? My opinion, which is shared by many other originalists, is that in keeping with the doctrine of state sovereignty, original intent and the 10th Amendment, states should simply legislatively assume title of all lands not being utilized by the federal government as specified in the Enclave Clause. Of course, to placate the courts and public opinion, states should first sue the federal government to acquire title. And since the states will not prevail in such a lopsided judicial struggle, they should then rightfully and unhesitatingly assert their 10th Amendment rights by immediately assuming direct ownership and control of what I have dubbed the “royal federal reserves” lying within their state boundaries.

But, do the chastened, weak-kneed, and heavily bribed states have the backbone to hazard the restoration of their constitutional sovereignty and honor? Ah, yes, that’s the burning question.

The constitutional issue aside for a moment, in truth the achievement of energy independence alone should provide ample motivation for the states and their people to step up and take back their land, which is illegally held by the feds. And should the states fail to assert their rights under the original constitution, they should quietly accept their bondage and compliantly move on with their drab, submissive lives.

“An injustice unchallenged is justice denied. “Author Unknown

“Nothing should ever be implied as law which leads to absurd or unjust consequences. “Abraham Lincoln (1861)

Views: 591

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comment by Kimberly Boldt on April 17, 2014 at 6:01am

Excellent article, Jim. You did your research! These are same conclusions my husband and I came to when doing our research on the Constitution and a thorough knowledge of The Federalist papers to understand the original intent of the Constitution and the mindset of the Founding Fathers.

As for the Bundy's, they may have what are known as prescriptive rights, where they have obtained the right of use and passage, or easement through public lands by way of being unchallenged for nearly 20 years. This may be why BLM didn't want to go through "due process" in a court of a jury because it would be found that Cliven Bundy was NOT in violation of any law and the federal government has NO jurisdiction in Clark County. Still the BLM has no Constitutional authority to seize property period. ONLY true law enforcement via due process can do this. Nevada legislators are working now a resolution that will force the federal government out of unauthorized state lands and keep them to only the federal buildings, or military bases as the Constitution states.

Also, CSPOA (Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association) is taking donations for the Bundy's here: http://cspoa.org Scroll down to Donate to the Bundy Ranch Fund. We sent in a donation ourselves. It was the least we could do. We know this is not over. 

Comment by Lou Mndia on April 17, 2014 at 5:49am

I wish someone would show me in the constitution where it says the federal government has the right to acquire state land and charge citizens for the right to use it. I must have missed that part when I read it.

Comment by Stephen F Hertach on April 17, 2014 at 5:44am

Maybe we should take up a collection for the Bundy's legal defense.  Although. I'm not sure the Bundy's would accept it.

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Gary VarvelPolitical Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

ALERT ALERT

BREAKING:   Hillary Clinton Donor Ed Buck Arrested After Another Male Overdoses In His Seedy LA Apartment

Democrat donor and Hillary friend Ed Buck was finally arrested Tuesday night after a third man overdosed in his apartment.

The man who overdosed in Ed Buck’s Los Angeles apartment last week survived, however the other two victims previously died.

Ed Buck will be in court Wednesday.

Ed Buck loves to inject young black gay escorts with methamphetamine — the mother of one of Ed Buck’s victims described it as a fetish.

He was finally arrested after two black gay escorts died in his apartment from overdoses.

KTLA 5 reported:

The prominent Democratic donor and LGBTQ political activist Ed Buck was arrested Tuesday and charged with operating a drug house and providing methamphetamine to a 37-year-old man who overdosed last week, officials said.

Buck was charged with three counts of battery causing serious injury, administering methamphetamine and maintaining a drug house, according to the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office. Buck is accused of injecting the victim, who survived, with methamphetamine on Sept. 11.

CBSLA Assignment Desk @KCBSKCALDesk
 

: Democratic donor Ed Buck has been arrested and charged by @LADAOffice. Buck is accused of running a drug den out of his home. @JeffMichaelNews has details on .

Video of Ed Buck getting taken away by Sheriff deputies:

Bill Melugin    @BillFOXLA

BREAKING: Democratic donor Ed Buck has been arrested at his West Hollywood apartment on drug charges, per @WHDLASD. Neighbor on scene tells me Buck is currently in the back of one of the cruisers. Two gay black men previously died of meth overdoses at his apt. @FOXLA

Bill Melugin    @BillFOXLA
 

BREAKING: Here is video of being taken away by deputies following his arrest at his apartment on drug charges tonight. @FOXLA

of another young black gay escort was found at the West Hollywood home of Ed Buck, a top Democrat donor and political activist.

As previously reported, a black gay escort named Gemmel Moore died of a meth overdose at Ed Buck’s West Hollywood home in July of 2017.

The LA County District Attorney’s Office previously declined to prosecute Ed Buck saying the evidence was “insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (Buck) is responsible for the death of Gemmel Moore,” which sparked an outrage from family members and others in the community.

Jasmyne Cannick told FOX and Friends nearly a dozen black men have come forward to speak on their experiences with “serial predator” Ed Buck.
Cannick also went off on the Democrat Party: “Over 77% of black people in California vote Democratic. We vote for Democrats.

It is a shame that when something like this happens, when you have the chair of your state party when at the time of this , Eric Bauman, who was willing to turn a blind eye as well as instruct others not to speak on it. As a black woman, as a black Democrat, I expect more from my party.

Last week, a black male was seen entering Ed Buck’s seedy LA apartment.

Update: Top Democrat Donor Ed Buck Charged with Maintaining Drug House – Police Find HUNDREDS OF PHOTOS of Men in Compromising Positions in His Home

Buck was charged with operating a drug house.

According to the LA Times — Sheriff’s investigators found hundreds of photographs in Buck’s home of men in compromising positions.

Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 @JackPosobiec
 

Sheriff’s investigators found hundreds of photographs in Ed Buck’s home of men in compromising positions

Democratic donor Ed Buck arrested, charged with operating drug house

Buck was charged with three counts of battery causing serious injury, administering methamphetamine and maintaining a drug house, according to the Los Angeles County district attorney's office. Buck...   latimes.com

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service