It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cliven Bundy, called 'lawless and violent,' to stay in jail

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vector99

Dude.

Now you're denying the obvious.

Which is what? That the federal government is allowed to own "territory". There is ZERO territory in the continental US. It is all appropriated as state land. Well except Indian reserves.


LOL ... I'll repeat what the Enabling Act says ...



That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;


Do you understand what "disclaim" means?

How about "right and title"?

Does "unappropriated public lands" sound familiar at all?

And goodness, what about "shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States"?

(I'm going to let it go that you obviously don't understand what the word "territory" means.)




posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 01:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Its referring to the Federal Capital and says as much -


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.


It says nothing about the federal government creating federal districts that are not the capital.

All other federal land is approved by the states they are in.
edit on 18-2-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Vector99

Its referring to the Federal Capital

What exactly is that?



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 01:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Vector99

Its referring to the Federal Capital

What exactly is that?


I rest my case.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Once it becomes a state it is no longer territory. It is a state, granted the same rights as all other states.

You referenced Nevada specifically there. You also referenced the wording


unappropriated public lands lying within said territory

Once granted statehood they can appropriate ALL lands within their borders. Thats what state sovereignty guarantees through granted statehood and admission to the USA union.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Gryphon66

Once it becomes a state it is no longer territory. It is a state, granted the same rights as all other states.



That's true.


originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Gryphon66

You referenced Nevada specifically there. You also referenced the wording


unappropriated public lands lying within said territory

Once granted statehood they can appropriate ALL lands within their borders. Thats what state sovereignty guarantees through granted statehood and admission to the USA union.


That is not true. See Section 4. (Once again)



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: WP4YT
I'm confused as to how it's fair and legal to charge someone millions for animals eating grass.


It's part of the corporate takeover of a America.

They don't want these ranchers in business because they represent true American heritage.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 01:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: WP4YT
I'm confused as to how it's fair and legal to charge someone millions for animals eating grass.


It's part of the corporate takeover of a America.

They don't want these ranchers in business because they represent true American heritage.


For once I agree with you after a fashion.

True American heritage: first the ranchers took the lands from the Natives with the Government's help, then they ran out all the smaller farmers, or anyone competing with them, etc.

Reminiscent of so-called "corporate takeovers" after a fashion.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Vector99

Its referring to the Federal Capital

What exactly is that?


Question - Are you American?

Not meant as an attack or anything. My post was pointing out the info you presented applies to the US (Federal Capital) - Washington DC.

It does not apply to anything else.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh god can we give the "took land from the Indians" nonsense a break right now it's not relevant to anything happening today. Yes it sucks that it happened but I can't fix it.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

You are its spelled out in the constitution Article 4, section 3, clause 2, "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

Notice territory or other property this shows the US government can own property and has the right to regulate it and the states have no say in the matter. We can go back did you realize all territory in the US is owned by the US government. They land ownership rights that originate from the Federal government. There are exceptions such as people that purchased land from Indians. See supreme court Jonson v M'Intosh, 1823 basically the supreme court decided that they couldn't regulate a property not given authority through the us government. Every deed is given authority from a common law rule the founding fathers knew. Its called "first in time, first in right" basically speaking the government owns all land and deeds out that land to individuals with their authority this is why the government handles deeds if its not filed with the government any deed in invalid and will always revert back to the previous owner.

People who believe this hogwash want to say that the government corrupted the system. Truth is it never operated that way. These groups believe in a fantasy called Allodial property rights. Meaning there is no restrictions placed on the property by any government. There is very few places this occurs in a sovreign nation in the US that would be Indian reservatuons .For the rest of us we have to follow rules and regulations .
edit on 2/18/16 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh god can we give the "took land from the Indians" nonsense a break right now it's not relevant to anything happening today. Yes it sucks that it happened but I can't fix it.


You brought up "American heritage" and tried to use it to excuse actions.

Not relevant to anything happening today? Okay. Then why bring up what the ranchers have done?

Because the ancestors of those who are involved in what's "happening today" sure as hell did use the Government to steal the lands of others.

At worst, it's a case of "turnabout is fair play" or "poetic justice."



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 03:41 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

So US States aren't sovereign states, according to you. Unfortunately according to the constitution they are. Once they become a state they are no longer considered a territory. They are also granted boundary rights to ensure statehood. The federal government CAN own land, yes you are correct. But like I've said, improper legislation and misconstruation of the constitution allowed the federal government to purchase and claim land they are not legally entitled to.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 03:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Vector99

Its referring to the Federal Capital

What exactly is that?


Question - Are you American?


Yes, now please answer what is the Federal Capital please.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

That is not true. See Section 4. (Once again)

The constitution guarantees all states equal rights. Granting a territory statehood also grants them the right to be a sovereign state, part of a union, with the full rights of dictating every parcel of land in the newly granted state,

It no longer is a territory



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 03:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66


That is not true. See Section 4. (Once again)


Yes, it is. The land is unappropriated at the time of being granted statehood, the STATE at that point in time, can appropriate the land as they see fit through proper state legislation.

That doesn't mean a politician can sell the land to the US federal government. That doesn't mean The US has ownership of the land granted to the state. That doesn't mean the federal government can declare "parks" as part of federal land. You said read the words written in the constitution. It says they cannot own STATE OWNED LAND (with minor exceptions that I have already posted).



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 04:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

They don't have the right to "dictate every piece of land."

The State cannot appropriate Federal lands ... they agreed when they became a State NOT TO DO SO.

You can't twist this around to make yourself correct.

You're wrong.

I've proven it.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

When they became a state there became no more FEDERAL land.

I don't get why that is hard to understand.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 04:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Gryphon66

When they became a state there became no more FEDERAL land.

I don't get why that is hard to understand.


It's hard to understand because it's not true.

The People of the State AGREED that the United States would possess the land it already did and continue to do so.

See Section 4.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 04:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

First off I hardly doubt the "people" agreed to that. 2nd, the federal government cannot override the constitution, which guarantees all states equal rights. 3rd, the possession of land by the federal government ONLY allows them what the constitution dictates, parcels of land, for mainly military purposes.

It is written clear as day.







 
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join