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.

 

2016 GOP Platform and the Transfer of Federal Lands to the States

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 01:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
Deadbeats usually hate the people they have stolen from.


Boy that explains why so many in DC openly hate the middle class of America.

I hope this happens. The feds need brought straight back to heel and, ideally, kicked in the ribs a few times to remind them of their place in this world and make them think long and hard before they repeat their overreaches and power grabs of the past 75 years. That process of disciplining and training a mangy dog may as well start with restoring property rights back to the states which that property was misappropriated from.




posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 02:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: BlueAjah



You might want to ask the Bundy family what they think about federal ownership of land.

Deadbeats usually hate the people they have stolen from.


The Bureau of Land Management controls an obscene amount of land.

Yes they do and it's a good thing that they do because if they didn't then corporations would have turned most of it into wasteland.


The GOP proposal calls for certain land to be returned to the states. It remains to be seen what land they intend to return.

It's obvious the land that will be returned is the land their corporate masters want.



Lol what a bunch of bull.

Wasn't Harry Reid making deals with a Chinese corporation over that land? Yes, Yes he was.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 06:27 AM
link   
So glad I went camping in the Clearwater National Forest this weekend. I got to see a black bear run like the wind across the road. The stars with no city lights to compete were close enough to touch. I could see clear down to the bottom of the free running river and the flora and fauna were like from the time before glaciers. Looks like that is another freedom we will soon lose.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
So glad I went camping in the Clearwater National Forest this weekend. I got to see a black bear run like the wind across the road. The stars with no city lights to compete were close enough to touch. I could see clear down to the bottom of the free running river and the flora and fauna were like from the time before glaciers. Looks like that is another freedom we will soon lose.


No one is taking away the national forests. Did you even read the OP?

Regardless, there are these things called state parks that you can also camp in and they exist in every state in the union. You can Google it and find out what I am talking about.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Actually, The American Lands Council, which would push for this platform position, advocates "excluding existing national parks, Congressionally designated wilderness areas, Indian reservations, and military installations from the transfer". It says nothing about excluding national forests. There are parts of forests designated "wilderness areas"; these would be excluded, but any national forest area are not excluded.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

The land deal you refer to was NOT federal govt land. It was Clark County land, and the county was willing to sell it to ENN, a China group.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Olivine

But that is exactly what the Feds are doing. We claim this land because ... turtles. Dominion over animals.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Olivine

Those lands are not being governed by (us) for (our) use.

If you thanks of itself that way anymore. You are sadly deluded. It's theirs, not ours. And they could give a rip what we want or need and whats good for anyone, sadly even the turtles.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   
The vast majority of "Federally-controlled land" has always been the property of the United States government.

As a part of each of the Enabling Acts (based on the original Enabling Act of 1802) that created the Western states similar verbiage is used:

Approximately five percent of proceeds from the sale of the land (from the government to individual citizens) is to be ceded to the State government and used for the welfare of the people of the new States (schools, public roads, etc.) ; and the remainder of the land is to remain under United States (Federal) Control:

Enabling Act of 1802

So, the "question" of whether individual States or the United States should control this land was settled, essentially, in 1802 (as well as within the Constitution).






edit on 18-7-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

(Sale of Louisiana") was the acquisition of the Louisiana territory (828,000 square miles) by the United States from France in 1803.



On March 30, 1867, the United States reached an agreement to purchase Alaska from Russia for a price of $7.2 million. The Treaty with Russia was negotiated and signed by Secretary of State William Seward and Russian Minister to the United States Edouard de Stoeckl.

Picture not needed.

The Mexican Cession of 1848 is a historical name in the United States for the region of the modern day southwestern United States that Mexico ceded to the U.S. in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848.look


So I would like to know when those lands supposedly belonged to the states. Was it before they were actual states or was it after the land was made into states?




posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

The land has always belonged to the United States government. The States (after the original 13 or so, of course) were created out of Federal Territories and lands owned. Some of that land was bought (Alaska, Louisiana), some was ceded as a result of conquest or military treaty (Washington, Oregon, etc.).

Some amount within each territory was ceded to the States for public works, most was sold at public auctions to the residents of the States.

In the Midwest (and east of the Mississippi River), most of the land was sold to and settled by the Citizens of those states, therefore (in say, Ohio or Missouri) there is very little (comparatively) Federally-owned land left (it was mostly sold.)

Out west ... the sizes of the States are much larger, the land is less settled, wide expanses are still under the ownership and control of the United States etc.

edit on 18-7-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh. I knew that. My post was only an attempt to get some of those people that are yelling for lands to be returned to the states to take a moment and learn where those lands came from.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh. I knew that. My post was only an attempt to get some of those people that are yelling for lands to be returned to the states to take a moment and learn where those lands came from.


I assumed you knew the answer to the question before you asked it.

I simply took the opportunity to add to the statement.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Olivine

It's abundantly clear that the GOP has lost all knowledge of the Constitution aside from the 2nd Amendment which conveniently the DNC has lost the plot on.

Good grief America get your # together and vote in some people that at least understand Civics.


geez, Kali....it's hard enough to find a simple majority of citizens who understand civics, even among the ones that vote.
edit on 18-7-2016 by jimmyx because: addition

edit on 18-7-2016 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grimpachi

The land has always belonged to the United States government. The States (after the original 13 or so, of course) were created out of Federal Territories and lands owned. Some of that land was bought (Alaska, Louisiana), some was ceded as a result of conquest or military treaty (Washington, Oregon, etc.).

Some amount within each territory was ceded to the States for public works, most was sold at public auctions to the residents of the States.

In the Midwest (and east of the Mississippi River), most of the land was sold to and settled by the Citizens of those states, therefore (in say, Ohio or Missouri) there is very little (comparatively) Federally-owned land left (it was mostly sold.)

Out west ... the sizes of the States are much larger, the land is less settled, wide expanses are still under the ownership and control of the United States etc.


Exactly! The FEDERAL government cleared those lands and claimed them, then ALLOWED individual states to have stewardship over part of the land. The "state government" didn't exist until AFTER the Federal Gov acquired the land and staked its claim of ownership.

We ALL own the National Forests. Do we want to wrap a bow on them and hand them to the Koch Brothers??? Or Trump for that matter?



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
The land will not be returned to "the people"

Unless by "the people" you mean "the people" who already own 90% of the real wealth in this country.

Unless this plan also comes along with a homesteading provision providing any and all American citizens with free land to live and work on it's nothing but a blowjob for the right-wingers buddies.

Democrats and Republicans are NOT operating in the best interest of ANY significant portion of this country. This is just more proof of it.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join