Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Arizona Demands Return of Federal Lands - A Step in the Right Direction?

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
In light of NDAA and other draconian bills passed by this administration as well as the collapse of the global economic system, could we be witnessing the first signs of secession in the US? Which state will be first to give the thumb to the FED?

I always thought it would be Texas but I could be partial.


Arizona seems to be on the forefront in the battle against the overbearing US Government. With the SCOTUS set to defend Arizona’s immigration policy, this is yet another sign of the state growing weary of the usurpation of power by the FED. Following Utah's lead:


Arizona is poised to join next-door neighbor Utah in demanding the U.S. government transfer title to millions of acres of federal property to the state, fanning a renewed "sagebrush revolt" over control of public lands in the West.

The Arizona state Senate, on a 19-9 vote, gave final legislative approval on Wednesday to a measure calling for federal agencies to relinquish roughly 48,000 square miles (124,000 sq km) of acreage they own in the Grand Canyon state by 2015.

The Republican-backed bill was approved by the state House of Representatives on Monday. It now goes to Republican Governor Jan Brewer, who has five days once the bill reaches her desk to sign or veto it. Otherwise, it becomes law automatically.
link

What say you, Americans?? Is this a step in the right direction?




posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Oh ya, hopefully they will use Arizona for a toxic waste dump like they want to
do with West Texas and spent nuke matter. Free Market!



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 
I would say yes. Doesn't the State Protect Federal Lands anyways??



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


With the flourish oi a single pen stroke...Obama will negate it. He'll use one of the thousands of executive orders he so loves to autograph, to justify it.....money will be the bottom line.

I hope I'm wrong...but I don't think so....


Des



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
www.foxnews.com...


Four years after federal officials quietly surrendered thousands of acres of America's border to Mexican drug gangs and illegals, there still are "no plans to reopen" the taxpayer-owned national park lands. Read more: www.foxnews.com...


www.foxnews.com...

Considering this is happening everyday in America and thousands more acres are un policed i say Arizona doesn't need permission from the government.

It was their land to begin with before statehood and still is there land

i say Arizona give the middle finger to the Government like those drug dealers are doing and and take back what is already theirs.

For crying out loud there was a battelship named after Arizona think its time they lived up to that name.
edit on 25-4-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Oh it's a Republican backed bill

Translation;

They are going to turn the Grand Canyon into Garbage Pit...

All makes sense now



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I would like to see Arizona keep their lands open to the public instead of wanting to sell off all of that land.

Selling that land is not right, it is public land, for public use.

Taking back the land just to sell will let other countries like China come in and buy up all of that land with the trillions of US dollars that they have that is otherwise worthless.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 



With the flourish oi a single pen stroke...Obama will negate it. He'll use one of the thousands of executive orders he so loves to autograph, to justify it.....money will be the bottom line.

I hope I'm wrong...but I don't think so....


He has no authority to negate a secession from the union. That’s the beauty of our country.

11 states succeeded from the union between 1860 and 1861. It happened once during the civil war and it can happen again.

edit on 25-4-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 



Oh it's a Republican backed bill

Translation;

They are going to turn the Grand Canyon into Garbage Pit...

All makes sense now


If Obama keeps them it’ll be used for FEMA camps!


Bottom line is that the FED has no right to ‘occupy’ a state’s land without approval from the citizens of that state. Apparently the ‘citizens’ of Arizona have seen, heard and experienced enough BS from the FED! More power to them!!!



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Really. Why does the Federal Government NEED all that land?



I dont want to hear that its to protect the wildlife either...............



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by RussianScientists
 



I would like to see Arizona keep their lands open to the public instead of wanting to sell off all of that land.

Selling that land is not right, it is public land, for public use.

Taking back the land just to sell will let other countries like China come in and buy up all of that land with the trillions of US dollars that they have that is otherwise worthless.


As much as YOU or I may not like it, the citizens of Arizona have the right to decide what they do with the lands in their state. If those lands can be turned into a profit (Alaska is a good example) and the citizens benefit then more power to them (literally
)! The quality of life and affordable energy that can be provided from utilizing their land in a productive way can benefit everyone in Arizona and Utah.


Maybe the FED shouldn’t be solely responsible for the fate of US citizens? Could that be what the founders had in mind?



edit on 25-4-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
The quality of life and affordable energy that can be provided from utilizing their land in a productive way can benefit everyone in Arizona and Utah.



In the short-run absolutely.

In the long-run, it just means they will have used up their valuable resources.

But if they want to do that, for short term gain, to patch up their own budget shortfalls, I guess they are free to do so...

Isn't the same group of buffoons who sold their state house and then bought it back at a loss?

I doubt brewer will actually sign this...
edit on 25-4-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 





Oh it's a Republican backed bill Translation; They are going to turn the Grand Canyon into Garbage Pit... All makes sense now


Ah yes. Grab that Federal land and sell it off to their corporate friends at a discount price!

edit on 25-4-2012 by MiddleClassWarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 





Bottom line is that the FED has no right to ‘occupy’ a state’s land without approval from the citizens of that state.


If we are so worried about "lands" being taken away, why doesn't Arizona hand over their entire state back to the Indians?

Come on Freedom bleeding lovers!



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 



In the short-run absolutely.

In the long-run, it just means they will have used up their valuable resources. But if they want to do that, for short term gain, to patch up their own budget shortfalls, I guess they are free to do so...


There are enough resources below our feet to sustain us for hundreds of years without a single import (which won’t happen) so I don’t consider that a valid concern.



Isn't the same group of buffoons who sold their state house and then bought it back at a loss?


How many programs have the FEDS bankrupted? Fanny and Freddy, USPO, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, THE COUNTRY!!!


I doubt brewer will actually sign this...


If she doesn’t sign it then it automatically becomes LAW after 5 days!
edit on 25-4-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by RussianScientists
I would like to see Arizona keep their lands open to the public instead of wanting to sell off all of that land.

Selling that land is not right, it is public land, for public use.

Taking back the land just to sell will let other countries like China come in and buy up all of that land with the trillions of US dollars that they have that is otherwise worthless.


Do you not think that the people of that state should be the one to make that kind of decision?

If they want to protect their land, they should be able to fight their LOCAL government to protect it. This is a battle that should be fought state by state.

The federal government is just as corrupt as regional government - of not more so. If I were in the USA, I would want my state to be answerable to their citizens on the protection or sale of land. It's much easier for the people of that state to fight corruption and corporatism and protect their natural resources if the people they have to fight are just down the road, and you don't need millions of $'s in lobbying either.

I have no doubt that those in state government have little "secret deals" with developers here, they are seeing an opportunity to make money. But it's up to the people of that state to fight it.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag


There are enough resource below our feet to sustain us for hundreds of years without a single import (which won’t happen) so I don’t consider that a valid concern.


That is a highly subjective statement.

Based on what rate of consumption?



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
There's no need for secession now just as there wasn't one in 1861.
We just need to allow the states to return to the level of power they had in 1860. As the Founders intended. 1 of the many unintended consequences of the Civil War was the unchecked power of a federal government gone awry. Legislators from Oregon, Michigan, and New Jersey really have a say on what the people in Arizona can do or not do with their own land? Or a near dictatorial executive (regardless of race/ideology)? Unless their actions are negatively affecting another state's citizens, the federal government should have NO say in the matter.

It is time for the states to reassert their rights. In order to do so, they will have to shed their fiscal dependency on the feds, though. You can't count on federal subsidies for all your social programs and law enforcement and then demand sovereignty.
Some states are moving in that direction. Most aren't. Mine is moving in that direction, but its so dependent, it'll be a long time before it can really demand sovereignty. Mores the shame.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MiddleClassWarrior
 



If we are so worried about "lands" being taken away, why doesn't Arizona hand over their entire state back to the Indians?

Come on Freedom bleeding lovers!


Really???


If liberals are so worried about freedom of choice then why don’t they stop worrying about what states do with their own land? Isn’t it the state’s choice?

Last time I checked the FED was supposed to honor state’s rights.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Same people who cry about how the evil Federal Government stole Indian land but have no problems with them stealing state land.

Hypocrites they are.









 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join