The US Constitution Prohibits The Federal Government From Owning Vast Tracts Of Land

a reply to: Boadicea

The government we have today legally control only 10 miles of land, Washington D.C.

Research the Act of 1871 and the bankruptcy of our country in 1931.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: TheBadCabbie
Beyond this we should consider how it is legal that foreign financial interests can hold mortgages on property in the US. Ect

Definitely!!! As well as foreign ownership of mineral rights... and all our natural resources. We've got Nestle telling us that we do not have right to water, as it steals this natural resource right out from under Californians who are already suffering from an ongoing drought. This is literally a crime against humanity.

originally posted by: evenkeel
the constitution does not authorize the fed govt to do anything. the constitution is a document that lays out what the govt. can not do.

Certainly it does not allow for the federal Government to require or fine citizens of the several states, for NOT engaging in a business venture with it, the AHCA. The AHCA is simply the Federal Government engaging in the insurance business/industry as a competitor and provider of insurance service. Same should go for grazing fees.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: Boadicea

The government we have today legally control only 10 miles of land, Washington D.C.

Research the Act of 1871 and the bankruptcy of our country in 1931.

I have. Many years ago. So I know there was and is much dispute regarding the legal particulars, and that too much time and energy has been focused on arguing these particulars, and virtually nothing has been done to remedy the problem. While I understand the importance of understanding how our natural rights have been usurped and trampled under color of law, and we must learn from our previous mistakes, our goal is to undo the damage and set the course aright once again.

Presuming your concerns are correct, what do we do about it? How do we fix it???

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: Boadicea

The government we have today legally control only 10 miles of land, Washington D.C.

Research the Act of 1871 and the bankruptcy of our country in 1931.

You're just flat out wrong, or flat out lying.
You need to read through the PROPER Constitution, the one used by thousands of scholars, lawyers and elected representatives to make sense of law.

You can rail against what is actually in that Constitution all you like, you can distort it, translate it, add to it or cherry pick the parts that you like while ignoring all others, nothing will change the fact that all of this has been hashed out already and is established in law.

You can believe that the Constitution grants you the right to move cattle onto any land you want, but the LAW, as written by hundreds of individuals over more than a century, will disagree and use the laws of your democratically elected government against you - as they should, and as they have in the case of the Bundy's and their terrorist friends.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Thank you for spelling this out so succinctly. I don't know what the source so many people have been getting their wrong ideas about the federal government not being allowed to own land, and I haven't been able to find the proofs that they are wrong, so this is very helpful.

It is my suspicion that the people spreading the disinformation want people like the Bundy's et al to be able to claim federal lands as their own, to do as they see fit. If that was the case, I would arm up and claim several hundred thousand acres as my own before anyone else did. It's such an absolutely ridiculous notion that I'm shocked whatever the source of the disinformation is has been so successful in convincing so many otherwise-functional human beings.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: evenkeel
the constitution does not authorize the fed govt to do anything. the constitution is a document that lays out what the govt. can not do.

Certainly it does not allow for the federal Government to require or fine citizens of the several states, for NOT engaging in a business venture with it, the AHCA. The AHCA is simply the Federal Government engaging in the insurance business/industry as a competitor and provider of insurance service. Same should go for grazing fees.

As a fellow US Citizen, should I have the right to bring sod farming equipment to dig up sod on those lands (owned jointly by all American Citizens) they want to use to feed their cattle, which they sell at a profit? I could make an awful lot of money if my only cost was in the labor, equipment, and transportation involved, and I didn't need to own, pay taxes on, or take care of any actual land. It is absolutely ludicrous that these people should be allowed to sell their beef to me at a profit, which was raised by eating MY (a citizen's) grass.

So much bad information in this thread. By law, fair market value is required when the United States wants to buy land for any given reason. Let's use the goofy Donald Trump wall as an example of how this works. First you'll need to stop laughing or crying because Trump is President in this example.

He wants to build a wall from Brownsville, TX to whatever city is southernmost on the California coastline. Well, much of that land is privately owned. Some of it is already Federal property, where the crossing stations are, etc.

The first step is for GSA (the most likely agency to acquire the land and solicit the construction contracts) to work up appraisals of the tracts needed, to establish fair market value, which is required by law. Once fair market value is established, for a specific tract of land (not necessarily all the land in the specific parcel, but whatever is needed), the land owner is offered a purchase price. He or she can choose to accept that and sell, or decline.

If the owner declines, then we get eminent domain involved. You Trump lovers better get used to eminent domain being used frequently just to acquire the land across 1,600 miles of border. Many times groups of owners will be included in one sweeping eminent domain suit. The money offered each owner WILL NOT go down one penny from the initial offer, because the law states fair market value must be paid. It won't go up one penny either. the judge will award the forced sale of the tracts of land at the original price, check will be cut, the end.

Now let's reverse it. New example will be tracts of land acquired this exact way in the 1950's for various nuclear missile launch sites all over the Mid-West. All of these missile sites are now decommissioned due to the treaty with Russia in the 1990's. New term: Right of first refusal. GSA has no need for said tracts of land and after required environmental abatement, is ready to dispose of said land from the inventory of the United States.

In many cases, the land would be offered, at fair market value, to the land owner of record, most times the same family who originally sold the land in the 1950's. They have right of first refusal. If they want it back, they pay the established fair market value, receive a quitclaim deed, and that's that. If they don't want it, it goes to auction, with the requirement that the minimum successful bid must be at or above fair market value by law.

That's how it works. Always. Are people necessarily happy about having their land taken by eminent domain? Nope. Are they getting screwed in the process? Not from a legal or financial standpoint.

KrisAnne Hall's videos are a must watch...

There is no legal authority for the feds to own or maintain any land therefore there is no legal authority for anyone to contract with them to do so. All subsequent contracts are illegal and therefore null & void. It is about complete federal control.

The framers did NOT give SCOTUS the ultimate authority to be the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution & federal power. That is a modern abhorrent interpretation of the Constitution and judicial power. James Madison and John Jay and the rest of the framers wrote that the States were the ultimate authority of the application of the Constitution and the people the ultimate power. We need to put down the SCOTUS opinions, the government's desires, and the mainstream ignorance and get the wisdom of the writers of the Constitution.

www.facebook.com...

So glad that KrisAnne Hall stepped up to the plate and put this video together. If you want to try to get down to the brass tacks jurisdictional issue, and want to have any kind of solid understanding of the core principle(s), this is a good place to start. A week later, it has over 260,000 views. KrisAnne Hall nails it!

What is the REAL Issue in Oregon? — Taking Back the Narrative

a reply to: usernameconspiracy

That's how it works. Always. Are people necessarily happy about having their land taken by eminent domain? Nope. Are they getting screwed in the process? Not from a legal or financial standpoint.

No, that's NOT how it ALWAYS works.

That's how it is supposed to work in accordance with current law; in practice, it does not always work that way. Hence the many complaints -- both formal and informal -- regarding the abusive tactics of the feds in acquiring private property.

Not to mention a recent video making the internet rounds showing a federal employee boasting about cheating landowners by paying far below appraised market value for properties acquired by federal agencies...

The Constitution is clear in its statements and references to the US ownership of land.

Within every Act that has made any State is a comment that the US Government owns land within those borders.

The US is party to multiple treaties in which land is ceded to US ownership.

Etc. etc.

a reply to: Boadicea

It's already underway, with or without you.

a reply to: NewzNose

That's it? That's all you've got??? Okay. That and a five spot will get you a cup of coffee. But it sure doesn't fix anything. You keep moaning and groaning and I'll keep looking for solutions.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: NewzNose

That's it? That's all you've got??? Okay. That and a five spot will get you a cup of coffee. But it sure doesn't fix anything. You keep moaning and groaning and I'll keep looking for solutions.

A small peace offering ...

a reply to: Boadicea

Sounds like a plan.

You can start with your birth certificate, follow the trail to who has enslaved you.

Research the SGT and WDS.

Search the truth in the words of Kameran Fally.

And stop by annavonreitz.com webpage with an open mind, you will find info there.

The return of sovereignity of our country to its People began in the late 70's. It is now unfolding as it should.

The death of Scalia after the rebirth of Scully is profound.

Watch China, always watch China.

a reply to: Boadicea

... and don't forget, most of all ...

"Rosebud."

a reply to: Gryphon66

Accepted -- and much appreciated. Thank you.

And ya know what? I really do believe that it will "be alright." I fear that it will have to get worse before it gets better, and I hope I'm very very wrong about that, but the lessons we learn best are the lessons we learn through living. Hopefully we will learn our lessons and humanity will soar higher than ever before.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

... and don't forget, most of all ...

"Rosebud."

Ohhh!!! Yes... I had forgotten about that ugly episode... But you are so right. They fought bravely and valiantly in the face of horrendous odds for all that was sacred to them. Just one of many shameful events in our history.

originally posted by: dogstar23

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: evenkeel
the constitution does not authorize the fed govt to do anything. the constitution is a document that lays out what the govt. can not do.

Certainly it does not allow for the federal Government to require or fine citizens of the several states, for NOT engaging in a business venture with it, the AHCA. The AHCA is simply the Federal Government engaging in the insurance business/industry as a competitor and provider of insurance service. Same should go for grazing fees.

As a fellow US Citizen, should I have the right to bring sod farming equipment to dig up sod on those lands (owned jointly by all American Citizens) they want to use to feed their cattle, which they sell at a profit? I could make an awful lot of money if my only cost was in the labor, equipment, and transportation involved, and I didn't need to own, pay taxes on, or take care of any actual land. It is absolutely ludicrous that these people should be allowed to sell their beef to me at a profit, which was raised by eating MY (a citizen's) grass.

Seriously dude if you think you are entitled to compensation you have to get it from the feds that have been paid for the grass. Only a socialist would think that the ranchers have to pay for your grass and then give you the meat for free on top of that.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: usernameconspiracy

That's how it works. Always. Are people necessarily happy about having their land taken by eminent domain? Nope. Are they getting screwed in the process? Not from a legal or financial standpoint.

No, that's NOT how it ALWAYS works.

That's how it is supposed to work in accordance with current law; in practice, it does not always work that way. Hence the many complaints -- both formal and informal -- regarding the abusive tactics of the feds in acquiring private property.

Not to mention a recent video making the internet rounds showing a federal employee boasting about cheating landowners by paying far below appraised market value for properties acquired by federal agencies...

No, that is exactly how it works. I should know.

Now I can;t tell you how it worked in the 1800's or even in the 1950's, but I know how it works today. Further, there is very little land being purchased by the United States at this point. It really only comes into play with new construction plans, or the expansion of wildlife reserve areas. We sell off a hundred times more land per year that we acquire.