Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters

[MarAzul]

I'm fine with the status quo.

I gather most city folk are. I guess I failed to make the difference between ranchers that own their land and those that use public land visible. The difference in most cases is striking.
But I am done, enough.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

On the other hand, I absolutely love the way you're going about your basketball coaching job.... If you ever needed an assistant coach, I'd nod my head in agreement over every right wing(nut), conservative idea that comes off the top of your head....there's nothing like seeing the lights go on in a kid's head as far as the game of basketball goes.....

 

[Denny Crane]

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/05/07/federal-land-ownership-is-it-constitutional/

Federal Land Ownership: Is It Constitutional?

http://works.bepress.com/robert_natelson/19/

Federal Land Retention and the Constitution's Property Clause: The Original Understanding
University of Colorado Law Review (2005)

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/05/07/federal-land-ownership-is-it-constitutional/

Federal Land Ownership: Is It Constitutional?

http://works.bepress.com/robert_natelson/19/

Federal Land Retention and the Constitution's Property Clause: The Original Understanding
University of Colorado Law Review (2005)

Ah.....got it! Since things have changed since since the amendment was written over 200 years ago, we should adjust to current realities. That's reasonable. So why isn't it reasonable to adjust the second amendment to current realities? We can look back all those years and "know" the intent of the writers??? Why can't we do the same with the second amendment? I found it interesting that the author could read dead minds. Personally I would support a regular Constitutional Convention every 25 or 50 years so that modern needs and realities are met. And I'd love to know how our founding fathers would respond to our current state of the Union....

 

[Denny Crane]

Ah.....got it! Since things have changed since since the amendment was written over 200 years ago, we should adjust to current realities. That's reasonable. So why isn't it reasonable to adjust the second amendment to current realities? We can look back all those years and "know" the intent of the writers??? Why can't we do the same with the second amendment? I found it interesting that the author could read dead minds. Personally I would support a regular Constitutional Convention every 25 or 50 years so that modern needs and realities are met. And I'd love to know how our founding fathers would respond to our current state of the Union....

There should be no adjustment without amendment, period.

The government should only own land for military bases, roads, and a reasonable number of museums or whatever. Territories, too. Like the La Purchase, but once the states were formed, no longer. Certainly not 80% of entire states.

I don't see how you can twist this into "fuck the constitution, let's do whatever less than half the country wants."

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

There should be no adjustment without amendment, period.

The government should only own land for military bases, roads, and a reasonable number of museums or whatever. Territories, too. Like the La Purchase, but once the states were formed, no longer. Certainly not 80% of entire states.

I don't see how you can twist this into "fuck the constitution, let's do whatever less than half the country wants."

Whoa Sparky! Back up the bus. I am in no way, shape or form saying have sexual intercourse with the constitution. I'm just saying you can't have it both ways. As you yourself have stated in these conversations, if you don't like it, work to change it. And show me where you get your numbers as far as what the country wants in terms of public land ownership. Things have changed in 240 years. I'm all for amendment of the constitution from top to bottom if that is what the majority actually wants. I'm just not seeing that right now, whacko occupiers be damned. They are just today's squeaky wheel getting today's grease. Tomorrow we'll be on to other issues with the same lack of resolution. I sincerely respect your opinion but do you really think the majority of Americans feel the same way about this topic that you do? If so, show us some indisputable numbers. Unfortunately, in this day and age, even the numbers (including those that buttress my opinions) are completely suspect.....

 

[Denny Crane]

Whoa Sparky! Back up the bus. I am in no way, shape or form saying have sexual intercourse with the constitution. I'm just saying you can't have it both ways. As you yourself have stated in these conversations, if you don't like it, work to change it. And show me where you get your numbers as far as what the country wants in terms of public land ownership. Things have changed in 240 years. I'm all for amendment of the constitution from top to bottom if that is what the majority actually wants. I'm just not seeing that right now, whacko occupiers be damned. They are just today's squeaky wheel getting today's grease. Tomorrow we'll be on to other issues with the same lack of resolution. I sincerely respect your opinion but do you really think the majority of Americans feel the same way about this topic that you do? If so, show us some indisputable numbers. Unfortunately, in this day and age, even the numbers (including those that buttress my opinions) are completely suspect.....

Congress can pass any law it wants, even unconstitutional ones. In order to reverse those, they have to be taken to court and potentially appealed all the way to the supreme court. That's what's been going on for too long.

You did say to fuck the constitution, do whatever government wants:

"Since things have changed since since the amendment was written over 200 years ago, we should adjust to current realities. That's reasonable. So why isn't it reasonable to adjust the second amendment to current realities? "

Those are your words. That's what barfo would say about unconstitutional actions by the government that he favors.

The whole point is a majority of people in New York City shouldn't run the affairs of the state of Montana because there happen to be more people in NY. They have no standing in Montana, while the people who actually live in Montana and have very different rural vs. urban needs do have standing.

I'm not saying the government shouldn't own land, I'm saying the FEDERAL government shouldn't. Let those in Montana elect their own land management regime to handle the land as the people need.

 

[MarAzul]

On the other hand, I absolutely love the way you're going about your basketball coaching job.... If you ever needed an assistant coach, I'd nod my head in agreement over every right wing(nut), conservative idea that comes off the top of your head....there's nothing like seeing the lights go on in a kid's head as far as the game of basketball goes.....

I wanted to hit the like button but this has a couple too many words to permit me doing it honestly.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

Congress can pass any law it wants, even unconstitutional ones. In order to reverse those, they have to be taken to court and potentially appealed all the way to the supreme court. That's what's been going on for too long.

You did say to fuck the constitution, do whatever government wants:

"Since things have changed since since the amendment was written over 200 years ago, we should adjust to current realities. That's reasonable. So why isn't it reasonable to adjust the second amendment to current realities? "

Those are your words. That's what barfo would say about unconstitutional actions by the government that he favors.

The whole point is a majority of people in New York City shouldn't run the affairs of the state of Montana because there happen to be more people in NY. They have no standing in Montana, while the people who actually live in Montana and have very different rural vs. urban needs do have standing.

I'm not saying the government shouldn't own land, I'm saying the FEDERAL government shouldn't. Let those in Montana elect their own land management regime to handle the land as the people need.

So me saying we should adjust the Constitution to meet current realities is the same as saying "fuck the Constitution". Got it.

 

[MarAzul]

why isn't it reasonable to adjust the second amendment to current realities?

So go ahead, get an amendment submitted for ratification. I don't know why Obama doesn't if he is honestly thinks he has a "reasonable" change to propose.
But it isn't called adjust, the process is amending and it does have some major requirements necessary to complete the submission and ratification.

 

[Denny Crane]

So me saying we should adjust the Constitution to meet current realities is the same as saying "fuck the Constitution". Got it.

You didn't say amend it.

Amend away, I'm all for letting you or anyone else try.

If you can amend it to remove the 2nd, so be it. At least it will be done constitutionally. Wrong headed, but done right.

 

[MarAzul]

over every right wing(nut), conservative idea that comes off the top of your head

Actually I sort of think it is more in keeping with the left that we would want to see land in the state on the property tax roles, supporting the schools and all. You usually hear the left
harping on this, quite often it seems to me. Well my suggestion would do it. Right now somewhere around half the States land is not on the tax roles nor contributing to our local government in anyway. It is being used by people, but you see no return from your holdings. Doesn't seem very progressive or wise.

 

[MarAzul]

At least it will be done constitutionally

Hell, he doesn't even have to worry about a "right wing(nut) like me voting against it! I have no vote and I know my Representatives would vote in favor of what ever it said.
It could specify no weapons are allowed larger than a 1 oz club and those lefies would vote Yea.

 

[MarAzul]

Here is a BLM story for you to ponder. Sort of gives you the flavor of BLM as I see it from my right wing high perch. Or the Hard nut view.
The BLM New River Camp ground. All new camp sights constructed about two year after I move to Bandon. It is about 10 mile south of Bandon and the New River was a place
I liked to go fishing. I thought the new Park would be good, make it easier.

No chance, right after construction, they closed the area to protect the Snowy Plover nesting on the beach. The New River is between the Beach and the Camps but all closed anyway
from about May to October. No camping in the camp sights, can't even walk through to the river . Never see anyone camped in the place except the greeter.
He is one lonely old dude.
The fishing was pretty good before the BLM spent millions improving the place 18 years ago. Need refurbishing now though but not from over use.

http://www.blm.gov/or/resources/recreation/site_info.php?siteid=326

 

[barfo]

Here is a BLM story for you to ponder. Sort of gives you the flavor of BLM as I see it from my right wing high perch. Or the Hard nut view.
The BLM New River Camp ground. All new camp sights constructed about two year after I move to Bandon. It is about 10 mile south of Bandon and the New River was a place
I liked to go fishing. I thought the new Park would be good, make it easier.

No chance, right after construction, they closed the area to protect the Snowy Plover nesting on the beach. The New River is between the Beach and the Camps but all closed anyway
from about May to October. No camping in the camp sights, can't even walk through to the river . Never see anyone camped in the place except the greeter.
He is one lonely old dude.
The fishing was pretty good before the BLM spent millions improving the place 18 years ago. Need refurbishing now though but not from over use.

http://www.blm.gov/or/resources/recreation/site_info.php?siteid=326

Honestly, that one doesn't sound like the BLMs fault, except maybe that they should have anticipated the Snowy Plover being listed and thus not built the campground? Was it obvious at the time that the Snowy Plover would be protected?

barfo

 

[barfo]

I'm not saying the government shouldn't own land, I'm saying the FEDERAL government shouldn't.

Yes, you are saying that. But the fact is, the federal government does own land and is not prohibited from owning land, and many, probably most, Americans disagree with you, so...

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, you are saying that. But the fact is, the federal government does own land and is not prohibited from owning land, and many, probably most, Americans disagree with you, so...

barfo

It is prohibited from owning land. Just because they do illegal things doesn't make it legal.

This isn't a national issue so what "Americans" agree with or disagree with doesn't matter.

 

[barfo]

It is prohibited from owning land. Just because they do illegal things doesn't make it legal.

This isn't a national issue so what "Americans" agree with or disagree with doesn't matter.

That's not even self-consistent. Whether or not the federal government is prohibited from owning land certainly is a national issue. What else could it be?

And you have yet to show that it is prohibited from owning land. Because you can't, because it isn't.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

That's not even self-consistent. Whether or not the federal government is prohibited from owning land certainly is a national issue. What else could it be?

And you have yet to show that it is prohibited from owning land. Because you can't, because it isn't.

barfo

What else could it be? Unconstitutional and bordering on criminal.

Legal Scholar.

http://constitution.i2i.org/tag/federal-land-ownership/

This shines through when you study the Constitution’s text, meaning, and background. By “background,” I mean its drafting history, the ratification debates, 18th century law, and so forth. However the constitutional text alone should be sufficient to cast both polar claims into doubt. The text of the Constitution grants the federal government no plenary power to hold land, only to dispose. A general power to hold is just not in there. The second polar position is also contradicted by the text: The equal footing doctrine is not there either. (It was a feature of certainpre-constitutional documents, such as the Northwest Ordinance.)

The Constitution grants the federal government authority to acquire real estate and other property to carry out any enumerated purpose, either in the exercise of a core power (such as “maintain a Navy”) or through the implied powers memorialized in the Necessary and Proper Clause. Thus, Congress may acquire land to build “post Roads” (limited access highways), house tax collectors, and build lighthouses under the Commerce Power.

 

[Denny Crane]

Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 17

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:

Right to buy land for forts, magazines, and other government buildings and only with consent of the state.

Also right to rule over D.C.

 

[barfo]

Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 17

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:

Right to buy land for forts, magazines, and other government buildings and only with consent of the state.

Also right to rule over D.C.

Someday, Denny, you are going to come to the realization that it isn't just the constitution that matters, it is also 230 years worth of court cases, laws, elections, common practice, social and economic evolution, and actual reality.

And then maybe you'll understand why your argument here is so incredibly pointless. Might as well argue that the moon really SHOULD and therefore MUST be made of green cheese.

So, I will grant you victory here. If you say the constitution says that the federal government can't own land, fine.

I will merely note that federal government does own land and it will certainly continue to do.

If the law is on your side, as you seem to think it is, I suggest you file suit. Crane vs. USA, could be a landmark case for generations to come.

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

If the law is on your side, as you seem to think it is, I suggest you file suit. Crane vs. USA, could be a landmark case for generations to come.

Or he could just start a militia and take over the land he wants.

 

[MarAzul]

that one doesn't sound like the BLMs fault

I don't know whom else you could blame. They manage the land they closed. They are the administrator of the protection in the area.
The Plovers nest above high tide on the beach. Fine close it, other places don't they just warn the public not to screw with the plovers and keep your dogs on restraint.
The New river runs parallel to the beach behind the beach and the sand hill above the beach. On the East side of the river is the camp ground that are closed well out of the Plovers nesting habitat.

Funny, you see the website giving info on the camp ground and trails, You can't use it! And if you did you would not disturb a Plover unless you swam the river, climb a sand hill and walked toward the beach. But you can go down to the county park south of the BLM land and walk up the beach, about 20 miles of beach from Bandon to Port Orford, with no one on it.

 

[riverman]

So far BLM land is my favorite neighbor and fingers crossed it stays that way. I sure don't want developers bidding on it and screwing up the watershed

 

[Denny Crane]

Someday, Denny, you are going to come to the realization that it isn't just the constitution that matters, it is also 230 years worth of court cases, laws, elections, common practice, social and economic evolution, and actual reality.

And then maybe you'll understand why your argument here is so incredibly pointless. Might as well argue that the moon really SHOULD and therefore MUST be made of green cheese.

So, I will grant you victory here. If you say the constitution says that the federal government can't own land, fine.

I will merely note that federal government does own land and it will certainly continue to do.

If the law is on your side, as you seem to think it is, I suggest you file suit. Crane vs. USA, could be a landmark case for generations to come.

barfo

There are multiple states filing suit, barfo.

I am not alone in my belief, nor are the american people as much in favor of unconstitutional things as you would like them to be.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

Even though I got this from the dreaded Huff Post (I can already hear screaming) I thought Denny and MarAzul might each get a serious chubby over it....and shockingly enough, I could get behind most of this if the State of Oregon actually had a two party political system.....
Texas Governor Wants To Amend The Constitution So States Can Ignore The Federal Government
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2016/01/08/texas-constitutional-amendment_n_8940958.html

 

[Denny Crane]

DC v Heller.
Citizens United.
Bush v Gore.
Dred Scott.

"The majority of americans support it"
-- barfo

 

[barfo]

There are multiple states filing suit, barfo.

I am not alone in my belief, nor are the american people as much in favor of unconstitutional things as you would like them to be.

It's true that you are not alone in your belief. You aren't in the majority however.

And I think once people realize that what you want is to sell Yellowstone to strip miners, they will be strongly against it.

Get back to me when any of those suits go anywhere (hint- they won't). Filing suits to grandstand isn't terribly meaningful.

barfo

 

[barfo]

DC v Heller.
Citizens United.
Bush v Gore.
Dred Scott.

"The majority of americans support it"
-- barfo

It's true - sometimes the courts go against popular opinion and even overturn election results. But, so far, they haven't in this case, and I don't see much prospect of that changing.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Even though I got this from the dreaded Huff Post (I can already hear screaming) I thought Denny and MarAzul might each get a serious chubby over it....and shockingly enough, I could get behind most of this if the State of Oregon actually had a two party political system.....
Texas Governor Wants To Amend The Constitution So States Can Ignore The Federal Government
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2016/01/08/texas-constitutional-amendment_n_8940958.html

Denny should hate that, if he was at all consistent. After all, the Constitution as written is perfect in every way and the founders thought through every possibility and if they'd wanted the federal government to be able to keep hoverboards off of airplanes, they would have written that power into the constitution explicitly.

barfo