trump moves to reverse obomba's massive land grabs

[cheka.]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/04/25/zinke-to-review-large-national-monuments-created-since-1996-to-make-sure-the-people-have-a-voice/?utm_term=.8438c961ef2a

Trump orders review of national monuments, vows to ‘to end these abuses and return control to the people’

President Trump signed an executive order Wednesday instructing Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to review any national monument created since Jan. 1, 1996, that spans at least 100,000 acres in a move he said would “end another egregious use of government power.”

Referring to the 1906 law that empowers a president to take unilateral action to protect cultural, historic or natural resources on federal land that is under threat, Trump declared, “The Antiquities Act does not give the federal government unlimited power to lock up millions of acres of land and water, and it’s time that we ended this abusive practice.”

The sweeping review — which Trump predicted would “end these abuses and return control to the people, the people of all of the states, the people of the United States” — could prompt changes to areas designated not only by former president Barack Obama but also by George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

Speaking to reporters Tuesday evening, Zinke suggested he would keep an open mind as he scrutinized past monument designations and that in and of itself the order would not repeal any existing monuments. “I’m not going to predispose what the outcome is going to be.”

But Trump indicated that he was eager to change the boundaries of a 1.35-million acre national monument Obama declared in December in Utah, Bears Ears, and that he wanted governors and those living near these sites to have the ultimate say over how it’s managed. He noted several opponents of recent Antiquities Act designations, including Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and GOP Govs. Gary R. Herbert of Utah and Paul LePage of Maine, saying, “Today we are putting the states back in charge.”

“I’ve spoken with many state and local leaders, a number of them here today who care very much about preserving our land, and who are gravely concerned about this massive federal land grab. ” Trump said. “And now we’re going to free it up, which is what should have happened in the first place. … And tremendously positive things are going to happen on that incredible land, the likes of which there is nothing more beautiful anywhere in the world.”

[How Obama came to embrace national monuments as a way to leave his mark]

The order, which appears to affect 25 existing national monuments, it is sure to spark an intense political and legal battle.

[crimethink]

Still no pardon and withdrawal of persecution for the Bundys and team.

If he were serious about "returning control to the people," that would be immediate.

In fact, Trump is reversing this so the land can be sold at pennies on the dollar to corporations.

[monty]

More than likely it is all bullshit. I haven't listened to Lorri Anderson's analysis yet . . .



http://youtu.be/ESYABphaEE4

https://youtu.be/ESYABphaEE4

[osoab]

I don't remember where, but I read that there really is no mechanism in place to revoke past designations of national monuments.

[singular_me]

never trust any elites saying "we stand with the people or it is for the people, etc" ... never, ever...

if you pay attention ((they)) like to play passive aggressive games that make people believe ((they)) are fixing it, but over time everybody is fooled.

[crimethink]

I don't remember where, but I read that there really is no mechanism in place to revoke past designations of national monuments.

Pro-revocation legal opinion:

https://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/sites/default/files/attachments/presidential-authority-to-revoke-or-reduce-national-monument-designations.pdf


The Antiquities Act of 1906 grants the president the power to designate national monuments in order to protect archeological sites, historic and prehistoric structures, and historic landmarks, such as battlegrounds. We are confident that, pursuant to this power to designate, a president has the corresponding power to revoke prior national monument designations, although there is no controlling judicial authority on this question. Based on the text of the act, historical practice, and constitutional principles, we have even more confidence that he can reduce the size of prior designations that cover vast areas of land and ocean habitat, although his power of reduction may in some instances be related to his implicit power of revocation.

An attorney general opinion in 1938 concluded that the statutory power granted to the president to create national monuments does not include the power to revoke prior designations. The opinion has been cited a few times in government documents, including by the solicitor of the Interior Department in 1947 (although for a different proposition) and in legal commentary, but the courts have never relied on it. We think this opinion is poorly reasoned; misconstrued a prior opinion, which came to the opposite result; and is inconsistent with constitutional, statutory, and case law governing the president’s exercise of analogous grants of power. Based on a more careful legal analysis, we believe that a general discretionary revocation power exists.

Apart from a general discretionary power to revoke monuments that were lawfully designated, we think the president has the constitutional power to declare invalid prior monuments if they were illegal from their inception. In the first instance, there is no reason why a president should give effect to an illegal act of his predecessor pending a judicial ruling. Beyond this, we think the president may also have a limited power to revoke individual monument designations based on earlier factual error or changed circumstances, even if he does not possess a general discretionary revocation power.


And, the environ-mentalist opposition:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/opinion-no-president-trump-can’t-revoke-national-monuments/ar-BBz0Ugr

[Cebu_4_2]

Pro-revocation legal opinion:

https://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/sites/default/files/attachments/presidential-authority-to-revoke-or-reduce-national-monument-designations.pdf


The Antiquities Act of 1906 grants the president the power to designate national monuments in order to protect archeological sites, historic and prehistoric structures, and historic landmarks, such as battlegrounds. We are confident that, pursuant to this power to designate, a president has the corresponding power to revoke prior national monument designations, although there is no controlling judicial authority on this question. Based on the text of the act, historical practice, and constitutional principles, we have even more confidence that he can reduce the size of prior designations that cover vast areas of land and ocean habitat, although his power of reduction may in some instances be related to his implicit power of revocation.

An attorney general opinion in 1938 concluded that the statutory power granted to the president to create national monuments does not include the power to revoke prior designations. The opinion has been cited a few times in government documents, including by the solicitor of the Interior Department in 1947 (although for a different proposition) and in legal commentary, but the courts have never relied on it. We think this opinion is poorly reasoned; misconstrued a prior opinion, which came to the opposite result; and is inconsistent with constitutional, statutory, and case law governing the president’s exercise of analogous grants of power. Based on a more careful legal analysis, we believe that a general discretionary revocation power exists.

Apart from a general discretionary power to revoke monuments that were lawfully designated, we think the president has the constitutional power to declare invalid prior monuments if they were illegal from their inception. In the first instance, there is no reason why a president should give effect to an illegal act of his predecessor pending a judicial ruling. Beyond this, we think the president may also have a limited power to revoke individual monument designations based on earlier factual error or changed circumstances, even if he does not possess a general discretionary revocation power.


And, the environ-mentalist opposition:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/opinion-no-president-trump-can’t-revoke-national-monuments/ar-BBz0Ugr


Is it just me or does that go in circles? Yes he can, no he can't etc.

[singular_me]

never trust any elites saying "we stand with the people or it is for the people, etc" ... never, ever...

if you pay attention ((they)) like to play passive aggressive games that make people believe ((they)) are fixing it, but over time everybody is fooled.

an example of what I meant... give it some slack here but pull it back there...


Trump surprises with sudden support for NAFTA
27 April 2017 GMT
http://nypost.com/2017/04/26/trump-tells-leaders-of-mexico-canada-he-wont-kill-nafta/

[monty]

Trump's executive order is to "review" only. Neither Trump or Zinke are in favor of states controlling their un appropriated lands. Both cater to the sightseer, recreational, hunter, fisherman and environmentalist types. Neither are in favor of cattle grazing on the deserts or loggers cutting timber in the forests.

[palani]

I read that there really is no mechanism in place to revoke past designations of national monuments.
The landscape would surely be littered with monuments to past (aka "dead") generations if these things really existed. The body is equipped with five senses: sight, feel, taste, hearing and odor. If these senses don't detect something then likely that thing is a product of an overactive imagination. Learn to respond to what is real and not supposed.

[monty]

I think Bill Goode hits the nail squarely on the head:

From his facebook post

Bill Goode shared a link (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717765141769695/permalink/1907120182834189/).

Yesterday at 12:07am (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717765141769695/permalink/1907120182834189/)

It seems to me that Zinke is not aware that ranchers do in fact graze their cattle on public lands. I feel he needs to be reminded of this fact. All Trump and Zinke talk about in relation to public lands is energy and recreation. They never talk about ranching, which does in fact utilize substantially more public land than energy.

"Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke says the executive order President Trump will sign Wednesday won’t jeopardize monuments or public lands for the purposes of developing oil, gas, coal, drilling.

"Zinke briefed reporters on the “Review of Designations under the Antiquities Act,” which Mr. Trump will sign Wednesday in his office at the Department of Interior. The act will direct Zinke to review prior monument designations and suggest modifications to the monuments during the period stretching from Jan. 1, 1996 to now. The monuments bookending that period are the Grand Staircase-Escalante in Utah and the Bear Ears Inter Tribal Coalition, both in Utah, both declared monuments by Democratic presidents."



https://external.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQD7rAyw9C_yooAo&w=476&h=249&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwdef.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F04%2Fcbsnews2.cbsistati c.comhubir201701096b172567-2e54-4c0c-a3d5-69880d282da6thumbnail620x3501bcf1e544fdf948e632d5d cb972509aesstonewall-gettyimages-169252220-eca1afc1ac910dfb0191bdc027d831bfedac47ea.jpg&cfs=1&upscale=1&_nc_hash=AQBxJBMKpJQPC9BN

(https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwdef.com%2F2017%2F04%2F25%2Fi nterior-secretary-says-executive-order-wont-jeopardize-public-lands%2F&h=ATMUNr6DkUQKjzKG-qckhqaBsmr_Qde_3Ts-mQJRw8J6sQk6CPNfnPZXM5OitNQ4GdM5vPMirxCKluX4Up_j0D G6KYezlhrp7Yyzd9N875M-Z16l_ZkKzp6w5A&enc=AZPkqRKZ-wM-5z0BLAHGKnuSLgYtAGTp5MoUGsZrlNjc8paRcaQcyjBpMjyEHS AOI1nciIMDyBucr_kP7T5o9VcjwP5tVVdqh0s8XwMudZ5SCEoo AO86ofnOWC06FRlrd7w3rg1ebM1IEkFpBpWIR2W-9sFJ-0mtmqr-gVZ6tu2NC8IlxRxj3jZgxMDiGNpdJ1I&s=1)
Interior secretary says executive order won't jeopardize public lands - News 12 Now (https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwdef.com%2F2017%2F04%2F25%2Fi nterior-secretary-says-executive-order-wont-jeopardize-public-lands%2F&h=ATOafTTr8YR3wTACj18m7uMSC0-jEiYeVpv9l0bEoE5fO9WOj2FHrvBFMcgjTeqtSds50iHaNgLAX YYQFFNKhEvLwkj4iJo9-jWsHM5p4rkRjxBBSY5o_TRa4w&enc=AZM-N6tQV6mO1yjM81ztt-8fKNmTIPxnpiekcBs2rKCyVF21UAzH38WnPs_Adj2e_8M-eprSyShea8SknaQSRszdg-mDB4lO1diX1xxI11m8nTE_KvAXio-eck7cm2vsgM53FnlaI2L89RJ_vwKlHU-jBvt_MITuJVX5hA3ionkvLeNcCrjRJXZpNph7GEtg__4&s=1)

President Trump’s executive order review will not include culture monuments like the Stonewall Inn, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said. Photo by Spencer…

WDEF.COM|BY CBS NEWS

Like (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717765141769695/#)Comment (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717765141769695/#)Share (https://www.facebook.com/ajax/timeline/sign_up_dialog/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fgroups%2F17 17765141769695%2F&entity_id=541544002&context=share&feedback_referrer=%2Fgroups%2F237360123055985%2F&feedback_source=0)

Joe Eldred, Peg Clary, Rebecca Crea and 12 others like this.

3 shares (https://www.facebook.com/shares/view?id=1907120182834189)
Comments

View 3 more comments (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717765141769695/#)

https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/c9.0.32.32/p32x32/1379841_10150004552801901_469209496895221757_n.jpg ?oh=9c7b0351370783d5a802c3dac65c1bc3&oe=5985C482

Jolene Kniffing Whatever they are doing is unconstitutional and against God. The land belongs to God who has given the land to the people for their use and benefit, not their corrupt government representatives. God is over all and our judge. If you are going against God, you will suffer the consequences unless you repent and do right.
Like (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717765141769695/#) · 3 (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717765141769695/#) · Yesterday at 7:42am (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717765141769695/permalink/1907120182834189/?comment_id=1907243372821870&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R0%22%7D)

https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/c5.0.32.32/p32x32/12717439_1659024661025854_8868176731891871596_n.jp g?oh=55fd4eec77115b418efa8b358d00eb7b&oe=59C04494

Vickey Gray The key is 1996, this is when the executive branch took over and denied state rights. Executive order # 12898, then set up environmental law, that has no congressional regulation or oversight. It is at the whims of the executive branch.
Like (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717765141769695/#) · 1 (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717765141769695/#) · 4 hrs (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717765141769695/permalink/1907120182834189/?comment_id=1907729499439924&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D)

[monty]

I don't remember where, but I read that there really is no mechanism in place to revoke past designations of national monuments.

Perhaps there is:
The Wall Street Journal pointed out (http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-can-reverse-obamas-last-minute-land-grab-1483142922) earlier this year, “In Myers v. United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/272/52) (1926), the Supreme Court ruled that the president’s power to appoint officials, with the advice and consent of the Senate, includes the power to unilaterally remove them.”The court said, “The power of removal is an incident of the power to appoint …”


Editorial: Does it really take a million acres of national monuments in Nevada to protect a few artifacts? (https://itmattershowyoustand.com/2017/04/editorial-does-it-really-take-a-million-acres-of-national-monuments-in-nevada-to-protect-a-few-artifacts/)

Posted on April 27, 2017 (https://itmattershowyoustand.com/2017/04/editorial-does-it-really-take-a-million-acres-of-national-monuments-in-nevada-to-protect-a-few-artifacts/) by Doug Knowles (https://itmattershowyoustand.com/author/doug-knowles/)
by Thomas Mitchell (https://4thst8.wordpress.com/author/thomasmnv/)

President Trump’s signing of an executive order calling for a review of the national monument designations made in the past 20 years prompted the local newspaper to drag out the usual suspects (https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-nevada/2-nevada-monuments-face-scrutiny-as-trump-orders-review/) to moan and groan about the need to “protect” the million acres of Nevada land that Obama designated as national monuments in his last months in office.

Trump called (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-interior-monuments-idUSKBN17S1MH) Obama’s use of the Antiquities Act of 1906 to create monuments an “egregious abuse of federal power.”

“We’re very dismayed,” one of the lock-up-th-land advocates told the local paper. “We worked hard on this for 15 years. I think the issue has been decided.”
Largely decided without any input for local officials and residents.

“Today we’re putting the states back in charge,” Trump said Wednesday.

His Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said his agency will recommend which monuments should be lifted or, perhaps, reduced in size. He also said local feedback will be sought.
Before Obama created with a stroke of his pen the 700,000-acre Basin and Range Monument on the Nye and Lincoln border and the 300,000-acre Gold Butte Monument near Mesquite, he might have asked someone to actually read that 1906 law (https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/anti1906.htm) which gives the President the power to declare land off-limits to productive use for the purpose of protecting “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest” on public land. The law also says that the designation “shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.”

Does it take a million acres to protect a few petroglyphs and artifacts?

Though the monuments’ backers say the Antiquities Act grants the president power to create monuments but does not grant the power to rescind previous designations, there is legal precedent that states a presidential right to declare implies a presidential right to rescind (https://4thst8.wordpress.com/2017/01/03/how-obamas-national-monumental-land-grab-can-be-undone/).

The Wall Street Journal pointed out (http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-can-reverse-obamas-last-minute-land-grab-1483142922) earlier this year, “In Myers v. United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/272/52) (1926), the Supreme Court ruled that the president’s power to appoint officials, with the advice and consent of the Senate, includes the power to unilaterally remove them.”



The court said, “The power of removal is an incident of the power to appoint …”


https://i1.wp.com/ktvn.images.worldnow.com/images/9044527_G.jpg (http://www.ktvn.com/story/30289262/officials-dedicate-basin-and-range-national-monument)

Advertisements



Share this:



Twitter (https://itmattershowyoustand.com/2017/04/editorial-does-it-really-take-a-million-acres-of-national-monuments-in-nevada-to-protect-a-few-artifacts/?share=twitter&nb=1)
Facebook
123
(https://itmattershowyoustand.com/2017/04/editorial-does-it-really-take-a-million-acres-of-national-monuments-in-nevada-to-protect-a-few-artifacts/?share=facebook&nb=1)
Google (https://itmattershowyoustand.com/2017/04/editorial-does-it-really-take-a-million-acres-of-national-monuments-in-nevada-to-protect-a-few-artifacts/?share=google-plus-1&nb=1)
Email (https://itmattershowyoustand.com/2017/04/editorial-does-it-really-take-a-million-acres-of-national-monuments-in-nevada-to-protect-a-few-artifacts/?share=email&nb=1)
Print (https://itmattershowyoustand.com/2017/04/editorial-does-it-really-take-a-million-acres-of-national-monuments-in-nevada-to-protect-a-few-artifacts/#print)
More (https://itmattershowyoustand.com/2017/04/editorial-does-it-really-take-a-million-acres-of-national-monuments-in-nevada-to-protect-a-few-artifacts/#)

[monty]

The Washington Times reports the Department of Interior inbox is filling with emails re the undoing of Obama's land grabs. I read the environmentalists have already got their lawers working to stop any actions to undo these monuments

US Interior inbox filling with emails about Nevada monument (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/27/us-interior-inbox-filling-with-emails-about-nevada/)

http://twt-thumbs.washtimes.com/media/image/2017/05/27/gold_butte_monument_72344_s878x555.jpg?a84b44480b1 3b48bb89761ea80733fd631f6e29c

In this May 26, 2017, photo, a snake lies dying in a road at the Gold Butte National Monument near Bunkerville, Nev. The monument along the Arizona border in Southern Nevada is among the national monuments under Trump administration review. (AP Photo/John Locher)


By KEN RITTER

LAS VEGAS (AP) - A debate is raging in the inbox of the U.S. Secretary of the Interior about whether President Donald Trump should keep the scenic, ecologically fragile and artifact-rich Gold Butte area in southern Nevada as a national monument.

Comments ranging from “I hope this area will remain protected” to “shut down this monument designation” have been posted in recent weeks about the future of the rugged and arid rangeland covering about 470 square miles (1,217 square kilometers) northeast of Las Vegas.

Many messages are unsigned. Some only mention Gold Butte among the 27 national monuments under Trump administration review, including the vast Basin and Range region covering 1,100 square miles (2,849 square kilometers) of central Nevada. About half of the 109,000 public comments as of Friday referred to Bears Ears monument in Utah.

Gold Butte may be best-known as the grazing area at the center of a cattle round-up and armed standoff in April 2014 involving federal land management agents and Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy.

The remote area is east of the Virgin River, west of the Arizona state line and northeast of the Lake Mead reservoir behind Hoover Dam. It was named for an early 1900s tent town built by miners and ranchers.
Today, it attracts hikers, campers, all-terrain-vehicle enthusiasts and researchers trying to decipher ancient rock art symbols of bighorn sheep, desert plants, hand-crafted weapons and human clans.

“Those lands are part of Nevada’s heritage,” said Rob Mrowka, a senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity. He fought for years to get support from elected officials, Indian tribes and other groups to protect the area as habitat for the threatened Mojave desert tortoise and rare local species of buckwheat and bear poppy.

Mrowka said he planned to submit comments for Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s review by a July 10 deadline. “Now is not the time to reverse the process and throw open the doors to more development and abuse,” he said.

Proponents including former Democratic U.S. Sen. Harry Reid convinced former President Barack Obama to designate the area a national monument last December. They point to its Native American artifacts,
sandstone formations and Joshua tree forests. U.S. Rep. Ruben Kihuen, a Democrat whose district includes Gold Butte, calls the monument a national treasure.

But Republican members of Nevada’s congressional delegation have been vocal opponents. U.S. Sen. Dean Heller and Rep. Mark Amodei sponsored a measure this year that would restrict the ability of future presidents to designate monuments without approval from Congress.

“The federal government already controls about 85 percent of Nevada’s public lands,” Heller said in a statement through his spokeswoman, Megan Taylor. It cited “widespread disagreement at the local level” about the designation, and called it “an example of extreme overreach” and a “Washington-knows-best approach.”

The designation generally allows hiking, hunting, fishing and current oil and mining, but it bans new activity. Livestock grazing in Gold Butte has been banned since 1998, under a Clark County law designed to conserve tortoise habitat.

Some writers who identified themselves as local residents said they want the federal government to leave the land alone.

One who said he lives in the nearby town of Bunkerville complained that ranchers were “kicked off their permits or thrown in jail” and miners had lost their claims. Monument designation only makes matters worse, he said.

Another said she feared that the monument designation would draw more tourists to the area.
LOAD COMMENTS ()

[cheka.]

informative watching nyc.dc try to create enviro-spin to 'protect' the least biologically relevant and most hardy of rural areas - the desert west, the arctic tundra, etc..

at same time nyc.dc pushes for more drilling/producing in prolific and fragile wildlife areas like the gulf of mexico and forest land in NE texas/NW louisiana, rural penn, more..

[osoab]

informative watching nyc.dc try to create enviro-spin to 'protect' the least biologically relevant and most hardy of rural areas - the desert west, the arctic tundra, etc..

at same time nyc.dc pushes for more drilling/producing in prolific and fragile wildlife areas like the gulf of mexico and forest land in NE texas/NW louisiana, rural penn, more..

Maybe they were mortgaged?

[Joshua01]

This was the best picture they had to post with this story?????
The Washington Times reports the Department of Interior inbox is filling with emails re the undoing of Obama's land grabs. I read the environmentalists have already got their lawers working to stop any actions to undo these monuments

US Interior inbox filling with emails about Nevada monument (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/27/us-interior-inbox-filling-with-emails-about-nevada/)

http://twt-thumbs.washtimes.com/media/image/2017/05/27/gold_butte_monument_72344_s878x555.jpg?a84b44480b1 3b48bb89761ea80733fd631f6e29c

In this May 26, 2017, photo, a snake lies dying in a road at the Gold Butte National Monument near Bunkerville, Nev. The monument along the Arizona border in Southern Nevada is among the national monuments under Trump administration review. (AP Photo/John Locher)


By KEN RITTER

LAS VEGAS (AP) - A debate is raging in the inbox of the U.S. Secretary of the Interior about whether President Donald Trump should keep the scenic, ecologically fragile and artifact-rich Gold Butte area in southern Nevada as a national monument.

Comments ranging from “I hope this area will remain protected” to “shut down this monument designation” have been posted in recent weeks about the future of the rugged and arid rangeland covering about 470 square miles (1,217 square kilometers) northeast of Las Vegas.

Many messages are unsigned. Some only mention Gold Butte among the 27 national monuments under Trump administration review, including the vast Basin and Range region covering 1,100 square miles (2,849 square kilometers) of central Nevada. About half of the 109,000 public comments as of Friday referred to Bears Ears monument in Utah.

Gold Butte may be best-known as the grazing area at the center of a cattle round-up and armed standoff in April 2014 involving federal land management agents and Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy.

The remote area is east of the Virgin River, west of the Arizona state line and northeast of the Lake Mead reservoir behind Hoover Dam. It was named for an early 1900s tent town built by miners and ranchers.
Today, it attracts hikers, campers, all-terrain-vehicle enthusiasts and researchers trying to decipher ancient rock art symbols of bighorn sheep, desert plants, hand-crafted weapons and human clans.

“Those lands are part of Nevada’s heritage,” said Rob Mrowka, a senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity. He fought for years to get support from elected officials, Indian tribes and other groups to protect the area as habitat for the threatened Mojave desert tortoise and rare local species of buckwheat and bear poppy.

Mrowka said he planned to submit comments for Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s review by a July 10 deadline. “Now is not the time to reverse the process and throw open the doors to more development and abuse,” he said.

Proponents including former Democratic U.S. Sen. Harry Reid convinced former President Barack Obama to designate the area a national monument last December. They point to its Native American artifacts,
sandstone formations and Joshua tree forests. U.S. Rep. Ruben Kihuen, a Democrat whose district includes Gold Butte, calls the monument a national treasure.

But Republican members of Nevada’s congressional delegation have been vocal opponents. U.S. Sen. Dean Heller and Rep. Mark Amodei sponsored a measure this year that would restrict the ability of future presidents to designate monuments without approval from Congress.

“The federal government already controls about 85 percent of Nevada’s public lands,” Heller said in a statement through his spokeswoman, Megan Taylor. It cited “widespread disagreement at the local level” about the designation, and called it “an example of extreme overreach” and a “Washington-knows-best approach.”

The designation generally allows hiking, hunting, fishing and current oil and mining, but it bans new activity. Livestock grazing in Gold Butte has been banned since 1998, under a Clark County law designed to conserve tortoise habitat.

Some writers who identified themselves as local residents said they want the federal government to leave the land alone.

One who said he lives in the nearby town of Bunkerville complained that ranchers were “kicked off their permits or thrown in jail” and miners had lost their claims. Monument designation only makes matters worse, he said.

Another said she feared that the monument designation would draw more tourists to the area.
LOAD COMMENTS ()

[cheka.]

Maybe they were mortgaged?

they need to sell some of that sh-t and put the money they stole back into the social security fund. think i remember finding that the dc balance sheet includes 150 trillion in assets. a fraction of that sold would shore up the ss fund for as far as the eye can see. it's only right, they used ss funds to buy/maintain those same assets. sell that shit!

but they never NEVER talk about dc balance sheet. only cash flow.....dims and repugs alike lie lie lie that we need to endure cuts because not sustainable. sustainable was deposited in the fund - the fckers stole it and used it to do all kinds of shit, including bulking up the balance sheet

it's a simple fix and a just fix

[osoab]

they need to sell some of that sh-t and put the money they stole back into the social security fund. think i remember finding that the dc balance sheet includes 150 trillion in assets. a fraction of that sold would shore up the ss fund for as far as the eye can see. it's only right, they used ss funds to buy/maintain those same assets. sell that shit!

but they never NEVER talk about dc balance sheet. only cash flow.....dims and repugs alike lie lie lie that we need to endure cuts because not sustainable. sustainable was deposited in the fund - the fckers stole it and used it to do all kinds of shit, including bulking up the balance sheet

it's a simple fix and a just fix

S.S. is a scam and should be ran down. Set a cut off date. Cut the S.S. tax down in increments to keep it viable. Medicare is a different story. Illinois is under a court order to fund their portion. Ability to pay be damned!

[Stop Making Cents]

I'd rather see these monuments preserved than sold off to a bunch of chinks or Saudis or some POS Hollywood celeb.

[crimethink]

I'd rather see these monuments preserved than sold off to a bunch of chinks or Saudis or some POS Hollywood celeb.

Maybe Trump's Jewish collaborators in Jew York City can buy them?

[osoab]

Maybe they were mortgaged?

I used the wrong term. My thoughts were more that land was used collateral on a LOC or to stave off foreclosure/called note on some other obligation.

[monty]

Democrats introduce bill to increase Utah national monument 10 times its current size

http://www.freerangereport.com/democrats-want-to-blow-up-utah-monument-to-10-times-its-current-size/


http://www.freerangereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/nomonumentblanding-560x416.jpg

Democrats want to blow up Utah monument to 10 times its current size – Free Range Report
“During the meeting, I sat in a room where not one lawmaker indicated to me the intention of introducing a bill affecting Utah’s 3rd District. Even though I represent this area, I was never contacted by the sponsor or any of the exclusively Democrat co-sponsors. To see them introduce a bill, just hours later, was shocking to me,” he said.


Dennis Romboy
Deseret News (https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900053288/utah-rep-john-curtis-cries-foul-over-democrats-bill-to-expand-bears-ears-national-monument.html)

SALT LAKE CITY — Rep. John Curtis cried foul over the way his Democratic colleagues unveiled a bill Wednesday to expand Bears Ears National Monument to more than its original size.

The Utah Republican also opposes the legislation Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., and Rep. Deb Haaland, D-N.M., re-introduced to expand the southeastern Utah monument to 1.9 million acres.

Curtis floated a proposal in a House Natural Resources Committee meeting on Wednesday requiring seven days public notice before the panel could act on a bill impacting federal lands unless it is sponsored or co-sponsored by a House member who represents that area.

Democrats rejected the amendment.

“They claimed it was outlandish to change a rule ensuring that locally impacted legislators would need to be given any notice, emphasizing that we all worked in good faith,” Curtis said.

Haaland said in the meeting she understands the sensitivity of public lands issues and assured Republicans that “there is no secret plan to advance legislation without their knowledge or participation. We are committed to operating this committee in a transparent and open manner.”
Curtis complained that a few hours later Haaland, Gallego and 70 co-sponsors introduced the Bears Ears bill affecting only his district and not telling him.

“During the meeting, I sat in a room where not one lawmaker indicated to me the intention of introducing a bill affecting Utah’s 3rd District. Even though I represent this area, I was never contacted by the sponsor or any of the exclusively Democrat co-sponsors. To see them introduce a bill, just hours later, was shocking to me,” he said.

Curtis said the approach isn’t an effective way to resolve public land issues facing San Juan County.
Continue reading here (https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900053288/utah-rep-john-curtis-cries-foul-over-democrats-bill-to-expand-bears-ears-national-monument.html)
Free Range Report (http://18.223.241.71/support/)

Thank you for reading our latest report, but before you go…

Our loyalty is to the truth and to YOU, our readers!

We respect your reading experience, and have refrained from putting up a paywall and obnoxious advertisements, which means that we get by on small donations from people like you. We’re not asking for much, but any amount that you can give goes a long way to securing a better future for the people who make America great.

For as little as $1 you can support Free Range Report, and it takes only a moment.

[osoab]

Need more collateral for a massive spending spree.

[Jewboo]

https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/uploads/2017/08/img_7153.jpg?itok=KEyPuMui


Kinda obvious guys.

We witnessed just this week that Trump will NEVER be allowed to build any wall or fence. Congress. both GOP and Dem, won't allow it. Ever.

It's OPEN BORDERS now and forever. They will be coming by the millions and homesteading our federal so-called "National Parks":


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ

These so-called federal "National Parks" have already been massive mexican marijuana farms for years...

:rolleyes:

[monty]

Hal Anthony legal adviser and researcher for the largest mining district in the United States, Jefferson Mining District says the latest GOP Senate land grab attempts are ‘War Crimes’ on the American miners and public.

https://www.reallibertymedia.com/2019/02/behind-the-woodshed-blogcaster-2019-02-17/


http://www.reallibertymedia.com/podcasts/btw/BehindTheWoodshed.RLM.2019-02-17M.mp3. 2hr. Podcast

GOP War Crimes!



Senate Passes Massive Public Lands Conservation Bill (https://www.ecowatch.com/senate-passes-conservation-bill-2628872795.amp.html)




Senate passes public lands bill that Utah Republican leaders — except Sen. Mike Lee — pushed for (https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/02/12/senate-passes-public/)


SOS From Future Slaves



Senate Passes Public Lands Legislation to Protect Oregon Wild & Scenic Rivers (https://www.kajo.com/news/news_story.php?subaction=showfull&id=1550216094&ucat=2&template=KAJO17Column&)

[monty]

W
Hal Anthony legal adviser and researcher for the largest mining district in the United States, Jefferson Mining District says the latest GOP Senate land grab attempts are ‘War Crimes’ on the American miners and public.

https://www.reallibertymedia.com/2019/02/behind-the-woodshed-blogcaster-2019-02-17/


http://www.reallibertymedia.com/podcasts/btw/BehindTheWoodshed.RLM.2019-02-17M.mp3. 2hr. Podcast

GOP War Crimes!



Senate Passes Massive Public Lands Conservation Bill (https://www.ecowatch.com/senate-passes-conservation-bill-2628872795.amp.html)




Senate passes public lands bill that Utah Republican leaders — except Sen. Mike Lee — pushed for (https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/02/12/senate-passes-public/)


SOS From Future Slaves



Senate Passes Public Lands Legislation to Protect Oregon Wild & Scenic Rivers (https://www.kajo.com/news/news_story.php?subaction=showfull&id=1550216094&ucat=2&template=KAJO17Column&)



This article may may explain how the United States can take over the unappropriated lands.

The comments on this article are interesting.

The Western Lands Issue

https://redoubtnews.com/2019/02/western-lands-issue/

THE FIRST DOCUMENT YOU NEED TO BECOME ACQUAINTED WITH IS THE NORTHWEST ORDINANCE.

February 14, 2019 (https://redoubtnews.com/2019/02/) BLM (https://redoubtnews.com/category/blm/), Constitution (https://redoubtnews.com/category/constitution/), Featured (https://redoubtnews.com/category/featured/) 4 (https://redoubtnews.com/2019/02/western-lands-issue/#mh-comments)

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/federal-lands-678x381.jpg

The Western Lands Issue

by Ron Nielsen (https://redoubtnews.com/?s=Ron+Nielsen)

I was asked recently what ‘the western lands issue’ means. I use this term when speaking about the 11 western states that have substantial amounts of federally owned land within their borders. If we were making arguments in court as the plaintiff, I would call this ‘the issue at bar’ where the arguments presented would illustrate the moving parties rationale for seeking standing to sue.

The introduction to ‘the western lands issue’ being that there is a common belief system, perpetuated by specific interests, with the intent to obfuscate the details of the matter which then makes resolution not only difficult but impossible because after all, if one cannot identify a problem at its core one cannot fix it. What details am I referring to? Let’s identify the current belief of federally owned lands.

The current belief is that the states ‘gave back’ lands it was granted upon admission. The other belief is that the federal government cannot hold lands Constitutionally. They are both wrong. It is not my opinion that these are wrong, I intend to show these assumptions are wrong in PRACTICE and POLICY. This means the evidence will show that the federal government has engaged in practices from day 1 that refute both of the assumptions above.

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/lands-02-400x300.jpg (https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/lands-02.jpg)

The first document you need to become acquainted with is the Northwest Ordinance (https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/northwest.html), this write up will focus on that piece of legislation with future write ups on the subsequent actions and legislation and case law, in this manner we will paint a complete picture of the situation. The Northwest ordinance began being drafted by Thomas Jefferson right after England ceded the Northwest Territories to the colonies in the treaty of Paris.

The treaty stipulated the terms to which England and the Colonies agreed to in order to settle the issue of England’s vast land holdings on the continent east of the Ohio river. For the purposes of brevity, I will assume each reader has access to Google and can read all the necessary texts upon a word search I will include selective pieces from the texts.

The original NWO (northwest ordinance) was passed by the Confederate Congress in 1787 and was then taken up by the Constitutional government for re-enactment in 1789. The dates are important. So the NWO was a Confederate creation, why is this important? Because of the language in the NWO in article 4, “The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the Articles of Confederation (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp), and to such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto.” You are going to want to save article 4 for later comparison because its going to resurface in the arguments at bar from the governments attorneys in the case law.

What else did the Northwest ordinance do? It created a Temporary government to see to the administration of the NWO as it pertained to the creation of Territorial governments and the requirements of those governments to apply for statehood under the NWO.

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/lands-03-400x126.jpg (https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/lands-03.jpg)
Sec. 3. Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That there shall be appointed from time to time by Congress, a governor, whose commission shall continue in force for the term of three years, unless sooner revoked by Congress; he shall reside in the district, and have a freehold estate therein in 1,000 acres of land, while in the exercise of his office.

Sec. 4. There shall be appointed from time to time by Congress, a secretary, whose commission shall continue in force for four years unless sooner revoked; he shall reside in the district, and have a freehold estate therein in 500 acres of land, while in the exercise of his office. It shall be his duty to keep and preserve the acts and laws passed by the legislature, and the public records of the district, and the proceedings of the governor in his executive department, and transmit authentic copies of such acts and proceedings, every six months, to the Secretary of Congress: There shall also be appointed a court to consist of three judges, any two of whom to form a court, who shall have a common law jurisdiction, and reside in the district, and have each therein a freehold estate in 500 acres of land while in the exercise of their offices; and their commissions shall continue in force during good behavior.

Sec. 5. The governor and judges, or a majority of them, shall adopt and publish in the district such laws of the original States, criminal and civil, as may be necessary and best suited to the circumstances of the district, and report them to Congress from time to time: which laws shall be in force in the district until the organization of the General Assembly therein, unless disapproved of by Congress; but afterwards the Legislature shall have authority to alter them as they shall think fit.

Sec. 6. The governor, for the time being, shall be commander in chief of the militia, appoint and commission all officers in the same below the rank of general officers; all general officers shall be appointed and commissioned by Congress.
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/lands-04-362x400.jpg (https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/lands-04.jpg)

And so every conflict with the Indian nations was under the authority of the governor, using the military might (hardware) of the United States as a ‘police action’. We must re-iterate here, while it is easy to cry ‘unconstitutional’ it is another matter to realize the entire effort was extra-constitutional, what do I mean here? What authorized the governor to use the militia in this fashion? The NWO. Who passed the NWO? It was a confederate creation. How could it be Constitutional? Article 6: All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

Is further confirmation necessary? Very well but we have to go a little deeper now if we are to support the supposition that the NWO was a previous engagement entered into and protected by Article 6. Let’s go point by point;


The NWO was a confederate creation. The stile of the confederacy was ‘The United States of America’
The stile of the Constitutional government was ‘The United States’
The preamble to the Constitution reads, We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#DOMTRAN), provide for the common defense (https://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html), promote the general Welfare (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE), and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#POSTERITY), do ordain (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#ORDAIN) and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is obvious from history that there was NO intent for the confederate government to continue operating after a certain date which at the time was uncertain as new lands were being added and the operation of the NWO continued until 1858 where it (the temporary government) was disbanded upon executive order by James Buchanan after all Territories had been settled and governments created.

However, while the Territories had been settled the Indian wars were not quite finished and the militia found itself fighting Chief Joseph in north central Idaho (among other conflicts around the Territories) in 1877. The militia also found itself on stand-by waiting for Indian rebellion until 1901 and we will get into the events of 1901 in successive write-ups but remember that date.

What was Congresses role in all of this? To answer that we start at the Louisiana purchase and who? Thomas Jefferson, a central figure in this whole mess. Thomas Jefferson had real doubts as to whether the US could make the purchase under the Constitution but the question is why? Thomas had been involved in the disposition of acquired lands from foreign powers from day 1, so how could he suddenly question the practice? Because he drafted the original NWO and knew that the lands were to be held by the confederate created articles of Confederation and not the US created Constitutional government and when he negotiated the deal with France he was negotiating as an officer/agent of the new government…do you see the conflict?

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/constitution2.jpg (https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/constitution2.jpg)

The question is this, how did Congress resolve the conflict? The debates in Congress reveal that Congress decided to apply Article 4 section 3 clause 2 as meaning that the intent of the language was to allow the US government to hold land…. problem solved right? Now to prove this was the outcome of the debate I would normally tell you to consult the Congressional record but that MAY be difficult these days so instead I will turn your attention to a report entitled, “A report of the law of civil government in lands under military occupation by the military forces of the United States”. In this report you will find the arguments in Congress over the Louisiana purchase and much more.

I have asked this question repeatedly, “what was the purpose of putting the lands under the Articles of Confederation instead of the Constitutional government?”. I eventually thought of a compelling theory. You see the original lands in dispute (https://redoubtnews.com/2016/04/state-lands-discussed-cornel-rasor/) prior to England’s cession of them were disputes between the colonies as to which colonies had original claim to said lands. The colonies refused to relinquish their claims to these lands creating quite a mess with the advent of the effort to ‘redraft’ the Articles of Confederation in order to create a more efficient government which we all know culminated in the creation of the Constitution.

Eventually the colonies were persuaded to give up their claims to the Confederate government and one must wonder what the ‘carrot’ was that was used to entice the colonies to do so, certainly the new government holding the lands was not a big selling point but there is a substantial lack of information here and I theorize it was destroyed when the library of Congress was burned to the ground in the war of 1812.

This means we have to try and piece together events the best we can with what is left. There’s no conspiracy here unless it was the English intent to damage our ability for future generations to make sense of this mess and make appropriate decisions based upon real and actual data which I wouldn’t put past the English of that day.

My theory (based out of the verbiage employed in the debates on the Louisiana purchase) was that the colonies had serious misgivings about a new government holding land but agreed to put the land into the old system as a sort of trust where the Articles of Confederation and the United States of America (stile of the confederacy…remember this statement it will come up again in the case law) held the land in trust on behalf of the United States (stile of the Constitutional government) but that the Constitutional government could make Constitutional changes to this system, “and to such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made”.

We need to keep in mind that the Northwest Ordinance language here conveys an important clue as to this possible intent when it uses the term cited above. The Constitution came AFTER the Northwest Ordinance and this entire scheme shows an intent by the framers to have the Articles of Confederation be the holding entity for all the lands…I do not see how it can be viewed any differently and this realization assists us when we finally get to the assenting opinions in Downes v Bidwell because without this rationale the Downes case is simply too confusing and makes no sense.

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/lands-05-400x225.jpg (https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/lands-05.jpg)

So we have several things going on, the original Articles of Confederation system being the land holding company and then the Louisiana purchase being purchased by the Constitutional government, the question remains, who is the holder of the lands acquired during and after the Louisiana purchase?
The proposition put forward by Congress in debate over the Louisiana purchase was in the form of a question; ‘Does the Constitution follow the flag?’ The outcome of the debates was NO it does not. Is this a clue? If the lands purchased were to be held by the Constitutional government wouldn’t the Constitution (https://redoubtnews.com/2017/08/federal-land-violate-constitution/) now extend itself automatically?

The arguments show that the concern was that the people in the newly acquired lands may not have warm feelings toward a Representative style of government and that many of the peoples may still owe allegiance to foreign powers. One tends to believe that the newly acquired lands were automatically held by the Territorial holding company as laid out in Article 4 of the NWO because the NWO was the driving legislation for the creation of Territories and their subsequent conversion into states.

My rational mind cannot fall upon any other explanation that satisfies, but we need to assume we still don’t have enough data to make our case quite yet and so in the next part of this series we will need to examine the states admission acts before we move on to the case law.

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/lands-06-678x300.jpg (https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/lands-06.jpg)
Visit Idaho On Fire (https://idahoonfire.org/)

The views, opinions, or positions expressed by the authors and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions of Redoubt News. Social Media, including Facebook, has greatly diminished distribution of our stories to our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting Main Stream Media sources. This is called ‘Shadow-banning’. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: cash.me/$RedoubtNews (http://cash.me/$RedoubtNews)







(https://redoubtnews.com/2019/02/western-lands-issue/?share=facebook&nb=1)

[osoab]

^^

Interesting piece.

[monty]

Western Lands Issue Part 2.

The author doesn’t mention the Mining Law of 1866 which granted the mineral estate to the public and the right to build roads, trails and highways including the right to ingress and egress in California, Oregon & Nevada http://www.jeffersonminingdistrict.com/mining-law/1866.pdf.

The 1865 laws did not grant the minerals to the States http://www.jeffersonminingdistrict.com/mining-law/1865/Act_of_Jan_30_1865.pdf


http://www.jeffersonminingdistrict.com/BoL/BoL.html


https://redoubtnews.com/2019/02/western-lands-issue-part-2/

The Western Lands Issue Part 2


THE CURRENT SITUATION OF LANDS ARE JUST LANDS THAT HAVE RETAINED THEIR TERRITORIAL CHARACTER SINCE THEY WERE RECEIVED.

February 17, 2019 (https://redoubtnews.com/2019/02/) BLM (https://redoubtnews.com/category/blm/), Constitution (https://redoubtnews.com/category/constitution/)

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/lands-part-2.jpg

The Western Lands Issue
Part 2


by Ron Nielsen (https://redoubtnews.com/?s=Ron+Nielsen)


In part 1 (https://redoubtnews.com/2019/02/western-lands-issue/) we reviewed the Northwest Ordinance and its purpose as enacted legislation that established a legal framework for the creation of Territorial legislatures and judiciaries and the subsequent process for conversion and acceptance as new states of the union.

We also discovered that the Northwest Ordinance language reveals an intent for the Articles of Confederation system to act as a sort of holding or trust for all the lands acquired under the NWO’s operation.

We also talked about the debates in Congress over the Louisiana purchase and how Congress decided to apply Article 4 section 3 clause 2 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv) of the Constitution to give authority to the Constitutional government to hold land.

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/lands-05-400x225.jpg (https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/lands-05.jpg)

In part 2 I would like to introduce a new work, a Book entitled ‘The right of Territories to become states (https://archive.org/details/rightterritorie02joygoog/page/n3)’. The reason we are going here will become apparent as we proceed. It may seem a little premature to go this direction at this stage but unfortunately it is important to lay this foundation before we go any further.

I highly recommend reading this Book as much of the tone of it assists in understanding the dominant mentality that created this issue, in other words; it helps to understand how these people were thinking as we ferret out the evidences we are looking for. I also recommend looking into the authors biography.

Edmund points to a varied system in which the Territories applied for and were granted, statehood. There was seemingly no set of parameters that were used to gauge admission by Congress and Edmund goes on to write about the NWO on page 10 stating, “Soon after its cession (the lands in the treaty of Paris) Congress passed an ordinance for its government, which was succeeded by the more famous ordinance of 1787.

These ordinances are important to the treatment of our subject, as they contain, besides the stipulation for the admission of states, the forms and provisions that appear in most of the enabling acts. And of course, a little further down we get some familiar language again, “The clauses provided that the states should forever remain a part of the confederacy”.

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/lands-2-b-150x150.jpg (https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/lands-2-b.jpg)

The agreement between different authors as far as that one particular policy is what grabbed my attention here and it became clear that this policy was well known at one time. The conclusion that Edmund reached was that admission and conversion into statehood was a political process.

This is important because the current situation of lands are just lands that have retained their Territorial character since they were received. To aid us in understanding this we will now view Idaho’s admission act.

When reading Idaho’s admission act it becomes obvious that the main concern was schools and education. An ‘endowment’ fund was set up using the funds from the sale of the school lands in order to fund public schools. In section 11 the act lays out the specific land grants and doing some quick math you come up with 500,000 acres so lets just stop here for a moment.

Prior to this allocation of land the character of the land was what? It was Territorial, so then what is the character of the unappropriated lands? Still Territorial. The unappropriated lands have NEVER changed their character from the date they were acquired till now which means they are under the Articles of Confederation system right?

Section 12 of Idaho’s admission act states, “The state of Idaho shall not be entitled to any further or other grants of land for any purpose than as expressly provided in this act”. The federal Government controlled how much land Idaho was to receive as a State and also controlled the manner in which the lands were to be used.

The federal Government did not originally intend for the people to harvest mineral resources from state land and so they exempted mineral lands in section 13, “All mineral lands shall be exempted from the grants by this act. But if sections 16, 36 or any subdivision, or portion of any smallest subdivision, thereof, in any township, shall be found by the department of the interior to be mineral lands, said state is hereby authorized and empowered to select, in legal subdivisions, an equal quantity of other unappropriated lands in said state, in lieu thereof, for the use and benefit of the common schools of said state”.

Section 16 and 36 that were areas within mineral lands and it is possible that they were aggregated and reassigned to forested areas of the state. This is where the state receives about $35 million per year in timber sales.

While a part of the intent of Congress was that the state not have mineral lands, Congress shows its full intent by making the lands public lands, passing the 1872 mining law and Organic administration act of 1897. The general government had all the lands surveyed and reconnaissance geological work done to determine the possible wealth of its holdings. Once an idea of the wealth of the west was determined Congress made the lands available (to itself and its posterity) by keeping the lands public.

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/lands-2-c-400x307.jpg (https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/lands-2-c.jpg)

Now of interest to us in this assessment is that the 1872 mining law allowed the patenting of mining claims if a valid discovery was made and improvement were made to the claim. So, some land was disposed by this Act. It is also interesting to note that the Homestead Act of 1863 provided the public a means to patent land but not on mineral lands only as farm tracts.

We must understand that very few regular people in the newly expanded west had the monetary and intellectual capability to put successful logging and mining companies together and Congress had NO INTENTION of allowing the western states to become economically powerful by extracting its own resources, no the West was rich in resources and Congress made sure the Eastern states got some of the pie, all things being equal you see.

(To see the attitude of the Eastern states peoples regarding the western lands I suggest reading the debates over the Louisiana purchase in the report from the previous write up)

But our purpose here is to consult the admission act as to the terms of admission since the lands were under a separate system for holding and we want to specifically know how much land was granted and what was the character of the unappropriated lands. What is the status of the lands now?

In 1989 Congress amended the admission act and in this amendment they admitted that 3.5 Million acres were being held in endowment, of course the language serves to create the idea that the Federal Government is providing a service to the state by holding the lands,

“In writing the 1890 law that made Idaho the 43rd State, Congress set aside 3.5 million acres of land as a permanent endowment to help finance the education of Idaho children in the 20th century. These lands are spread throughout the State, and are managed for the financial benefit of Idaho. The Idaho Admission Act (https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/105th-congress/senate-report/393/1) is very specific about how these lands are to be administered. While these restrictions worked well in 1890, some of them have now become outdated.”

The term ‘endowment’ was used in the admission act and its appearance here gives the impression that the lands were given to the general government as a gift or donation and all I can tell you is THAT never happened.

From Idaho’s admission act on I have found not 1 scintilla of evidence to support this type of endowment, all the evidence supports that the federal government has had control since acquisition and merely granted small amounts of lands to the state upon admission. I have challenged many people over the years to produce the necessary documents for the transfer of ownership from the federal government to the various State political subdivisions of vast amounts of land.

A land transfer of this magnitude would certainly have drawn interest from the press as well…to this day not 1 single piece of evidence has surfaced that this occurred. No, the endowment appearing in the Admission act clearly demonstrates the federal government being the donating entity here and ONLY the funds from the sale of lands were the endowment NOT the land.

Now that we have broached the subject of admission acts we also need to take note that each admission act had variations within the acts, what do I mean here? You will note that Idaho and Montana’s admission acts give different impressions about the future of the lands. In the case of Montana the Federal government stated,

“That the people inhabiting said proposed States do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes;  and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States;”.

This language is missing from the Idaho admission act. One is left wondering exactly what was the intent here? Was the intent to extinguish Title in the future for Montana and North Dakota but not Idaho?

Remember, every states admission into the union was a political process and so one must also be tempted to believe that the extinguishing of title is ALSO a political issue thereby making extinguishing title, disposal, whatever you want to call the handing control of the lands finally over to the state, first and foremost a political matter.

We will discuss this at the end of our series as it is the REASON why we are even reading this or any other works, the people want to know HOW the state gets control over the lands within her geographic boundaries. I suggest reading admission acts from different states so that you can see the variations between these different documents which will assist you in seeing the ‘political nature’ of this entire thing.

An example of a political strategy would be that if the federal government admitted its intent to extinguish title to one states political subdivisions surely (for optics purposes) it does not intend to disadvantage other states under the ‘equal footing doctrine’ does it?

For optics purposes no politician in their right mind would publicly announce there was an intent to extinguish title for one state and not another, it would be political suicide and would prove that there are political limitations on the use of the ‘equal footing doctrine’ thereby making states, in fact, unequal.
The existence of the written intent in Montana’s enabling legislation gives substantial ammunition to whomever attempts to bring this matter to Congress.

In the part 3 we will turn to the different treaties that affected disposition of the lands and the peoples on them.

https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/lands-2-d-400x105.jpg (https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/lands-2-d.jpg)
(photo: https://www.idahowildlife.org)

Visit Idaho On Fire (https://idahoonfire.org/)

The views, opinions, or positions expressed by the authors and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions of Redoubt News. Social Media, including Facebook, has greatly diminished distribution of our stories to our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting Main Stream Media sources. This is called ‘Shadow-banning’. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: cash.me/$RedoubtNews (http://cash.me/$RedoubtNews)

Share this:

[monty]

I may be mixing apples and oranges here but land rights has become a thorny issue between environmentalists, sportsmen and the mining, ranching community.

Here is Todd MacFarlane’s opinion on private land rights are created on publc land in the western states along with some of his family history. The previous writer was discussing how the United States holds title to the public land.

http://rangefire.us/2018/07/10/unfinished-business-constitutional-loose-ends/

Unfinished Business — Constitutional Loose-ends, and How Private Property Rights Are Created on Public Lands — by Todd Macfarlane

First published in Range magazine, Summer 2018 issue (http://www.rangemagazine.com/).
SEE Also The Laws of Prior Appropriation & Beneficial Use — Realities that Nobody Wants to Talk About (http://rangefire.us/2016/08/11/prior-appropriation-and-beneficial-use-realities-nobody-wants-to-talk-about-5-6/).


http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/BW-Texas-Cowboy-1.jpg
Divisions and factions in the western ranching industry are nothing new.
According to some historical accounts, farmers and ranchers have never been friends, and to a large extent the same goes for cowmen and sheepmen. Over the course of the last several years, yet another rift has developed, that may even pit ranchers against their state and local governments. Like previous disagreements, this rift is based on property rights and the definition of “property.”


One of the biggest challenges with ranching in the arid West is that it is virtually impossible to own enough private property to have an economically viable ranching operation to support a family entirely on private land. With the exception of irrigated land, the amount of forage produced on most dry range in the West is often marginal, so it requires a lot of land to graze a herd of cows or sheep big enough to make a viable living. Consequently, many ranchers in the West are dependent upon the forage and water produced on the so-called “public domain.” Although federal or state governments control these lands, do ranchers have legitimate protected property interests in the surface rights for the forage and water?


http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/LE-Sr-France-3-208x300.jpg
How Property Rights Are Created
At the end of World War I when Lawrence Esplin (my wife, Heidi Esplin Macfarlane’s grandfather), returned from military service in France, he took up a 640-acre homestead under the Stock-raising Homestead Act of 1916. In his efforts to support his growing family and succeed as a sheep rancher, he had to utilize the forage and water on the surrounding open range to graze his livestock.


In the 1920s and ’30s, my own maternal great-grandmother, Laura Wood Jenson, worked as an alpine milkmaid in summertime, tending her small herd of cows in mountain meadows on open ranges in southern Utah, making cheese and butter from their milk and cream. While Grandma Jenson was tending her mountain dairy, Grandpa Heber Jenson was harvesting timber on the same open range, which he sawed into lumber in the primitive sawmill that he moved back and forth between Mammoth Creek and nearby Tommy Creek.


During that same time frame, my paternal grandmother, LaRue Quayle Macfarlane, became a registered nurse and worked 40 years in the same southern Utah community, much of that time with a rural country doctor who did house calls. But what does that have to do with this discussion of property rights, including timber and especially grazing rights? Let me illustrate.

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/LaRue-Quayle-Nursing-Grad-Pic-1927-225x300.jpg
The Stock-Raising Homestead Act of 1916 had been passed just five years earlier. Although the homestead acts (including the original 1862 Homestead Act) essentially codified natural law—first in time, first in right; possession is 9/10ths of the law; and use it or lose it—like many settlers, homesteaders, and pioneers since the dawn of time, my teenage grandmother ventured into that wilderness and put her time, energy and resources at risk to claim and tame raw land, possessing, improving, and putting it to productive, beneficial use. In the process it became hers. She acquired property rights to the land and water, and grazing rights to the forage on the adjoining lands that her livestock utilized. These were bona fide property rights that she exchanged for value to finance her education.


http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/HK-Jenson-218x300.jpg
And these were exactly the same kinds of grazing and timber rights that Grandpa and Grandma Jenson, and Grandpa Esplin acquired the same way—utilizing forage, water and timber on the public domain, and later converting to sheep grazing allotments. In private sector enterprise, their property interests in the grazing and timber rights were recognized as sufficient to be bought and sold for money, as well as for banks to recognize and accept as collateral for loans.


To be clear, regardless of congressional acts, our grandparents were simply doing what settlers, homesteaders and pioneers had done since the dawn of civilization to acquire property rights: claim it, tame it, and put it to productive beneficial use. Such property rights were not created by any law of man; they existed naturally from the outset. In the language of the Declaration of Independence, these natural rights were referred to as basic, fundamental, inalienable rights naturally endowed by the Creator, under the laws of nature and of nature’s God.


Since it makes so much sense, what’s the problem? The problem is our society has evolved to the point that it is no longer inclined to recognize such property interests as unalienable, fundamental rights.


Why?


In the aftermath of the Bundy trials, there remain important loose ends and unfinished business regarding this issue that are essentially identical to those that followed the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Debate and ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 and 1788. Until these issues are fully addressed and resolved, that same unfinished business will continue to haunt generations to come. [Check “Tyranny” group at www.rangemagazine.com] (http://www.rangemagazine.com])


The Underlying Constitutional Issue & Principles of Natural Law


Although some constitutional purists will recoil at the thought, the reality is that one of the root causes of the controversy we currently face regarding protection of private property rights and interests stems from vague and ambiguous definitions of property rights, as well as inadequate protection of property and property interests in our founding documents, including our state constitutions.


How and why did that happen, especially when the writings of the Founding Fathers and those who influenced their thinking displayed no misunderstanding or lack of passion for the protection of property interests at the time?


Heavily influenced by philosophers such as John Locke, Thomas Paine, Alexis de Tocqueville, Edmund Burke, and Adam Smith, all the Founding Fathers were strong believers in property rights and the protection of private property interests.


According to Locke’s view, private property existed under natural law long before the establishment of any political authority. He saw the rights of property owners as a bulwark of liberty. Legitimate government was grounded on a compact between the people and their rulers, who governed by consent of the governed.


Before becoming our second president, John Adams said, “Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist.” And, “An economic system grounded on respect for private ownership tends to diffuse power and to strengthen individual autonomy from government.”


According to William Paterson, a leading delegate to the Constitutional Convention who was later appointed justice to the U.S Supreme Court: “The right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man…. The preservation of property then is the primary object of the social compact.”


http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Federalist-AntiFederalist-Debate-1-227x300.jpg
The Federalist/Anti-Federalist Debate
As noted by Carol M. Rose, former law professor at Yale Law School: “This issue spilled into the great American constitutional debates of the late 1780s, where the Anti-Federalists complained that the Federalist plans were part of a monarchic scheme, aimed at empire and mightiness instead of freedom.”


After a lengthy and heated four-month process, a draft of the U.S. Constitution was finally approved by the Constitutional Convention on Sept. 17, 1787. From the time it was signed by the delegates to the time it was ratified by the final state of Rhode Island in 1790, however, a fierce national debate—the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Debate—raged in the states regarding the proposed constitution and the new government it intended to create. This debate occurred in meeting halls, on streets, and on the printed page.


Although the Anti-Federalists had a number of concerns, their single biggest one was that the powerful new federal layer of government that had been created would ultimately devolve into tyranny. Consequently, they were adamant about the need for a Bill of Rights to help protect fundamental individual, inalienable rights against the kinds of government infringements they had experienced.


A majority of the Federalists, on the other hand, opposed any kind of Bill of Rights. Among other things, they argued that any such enumeration, once written down explicitly, could later be interpreted as a list of the only rights the people had. In response to this assertion, in so-called Anti-Federalist No. 84, “Brutus” argued that government unrestrained by such a bill could easily devolve into tyranny. Other supporters of the bill argued that a list of rights would not and should not be interpreted as exhaustive—that these rights were merely examples of important natural rights bestowed by their Creator—but that other such natural rights existed as well, whether they were enumerated or not. People from this school of thought were confident that the judiciary would interpret these rights in an expansive fashion.
Unfortunately, they were wrong.


In a compromised effort to secure ratification, James Madison, a prominent Federalist, and long considered to be the “father of the constitution,” took the first stab at framing the first 10 amendments that became the Bill of Rights. In his first draft he proposed including a broad theoretical declaration about the purpose of government, stating, “That government is instituted, and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” Although Congress did not adopt this wording, it underscored even Madison’s commitment to private property as a bedrock of the new national government.
Although the concept of private property was fundamental to the entire scheme of things, it was also a thorny issue because the practical, working definition of “Property” at the time included, among other things, SLAVES. In an effort to gloss over that ugly fact, some important things were left unwritten. It is fair to say that, to the Founding Fathers, the concept of private property and property rights was so intrinsic and fundamental to their belief system that in declining to explicitly address the subject they made certain assumptions, and didn’t see the need to provide more explicit detail and protection for the inherent, inalienable property rights. It is also fair to say that it is those unstated assumptions, and attendant vagueness and ambiguity, that exacerbate the loose ends and unfinished business that continue to threaten the concept of fundamental, unalienable property rights.



The Watered-down Modern Concept of Protected Property Interests
Fast-forward to 2018. Multiple federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have now repeatedly noted that property, property rights, and property interests are not defined in the U.S. Constitution, and those courts have repeatedly held that nothing in the U.S. Constitution creates or defines such property rights or interests.


In Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court noted that although property interests protected by due process may “extend well beyond actual ownership of real estate, chattels, or money,” such protected property interests are not defined or created by the Constitution. “Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law—rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.”


In the case of western ranchers, for example, this would be the claim of entitlement to the benefit or beneficial use of forage and water on federal lands, based on prior beneficial use. The Roth court noted: “To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it. It is a purpose of the ancient institution of property to protect those claims upon which people rely in their daily lives, reliance that must not be arbitrarily undermined.”


Relying on the Roth case, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals observed: “What constitutes a property interest within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment is not always easy to determine…. ‘Liberty’ and ‘property’ are broad and majestic terms…[that] relate to the whole domain of social and economic fact.”


Now this is where the discussion really gets interesting. As the Roth court noted, “Certain attributes of ‘property’ interests protected by due process emerge from these [various] decisions.” The primary criterion that federal courts have now come to focus on determining whether or not a property interest exists sufficient to require due process protection boils down to an analysis of applicable state and local law, and the amount of discretion those statutes, ordinances and regulations grant to governmental decision makers in regulating and administering the purported property interests involved. How is that for a practical, useful working standard?
http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Turkey-Track-Ranch-Cropped-1-300x237.png
Defining “Property”
Based on these criteria and while applying state law in a variety of situations, federal and state appellate courts across the country have upheld protected property interests that exist in a myriad of “rights” well beyond the stereotypical concept of real property interests. It has been recognized that protected property interests can take a variety of forms, with little, if any uniformity.


But thanks to the lack of clear definition and discussion of property interests in the U.S. Constitution, over the last 200-plus years, federal courts have failed to establish a clear, practical or useful definition or practical formula for analysis of protected property interests. Consequently, federal courts’ approach to property interests resembles the approach taken by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart with respect to obscenity and hard-core pornography. In holding that the Constitution protected all obscenity except “hard-core pornography,” in a concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.s 184, 197(1964), Justice Stewart famously wrote: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of [hard-core pornographic] material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”


Based on these criteria and while applying state law in a variety of situations, federal and state appellate courts across the country have upheld protected property interests that exist in a myriad of “rights” well beyond the stereotypical concept of real property interests. It has been recognized that protected property interests can take a variety of forms, with little, if any uniformity.


But thanks to the lack of clear definition and discussion of property interests in the U.S. Constitution, over the last 200-plus years, federal courts have failed to establish a clear, practical or useful definition or practical formula for analysis of protected property interests. Consequently, federal courts’ approach to property interests resembles the approach taken by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart with respect to obscenity and hard-core pornography. In holding that the Constitution protected all obscenity except “hard-core pornography,” in a concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.s 184, 197(1964), Justice Stewart famously wrote: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of [hard-core pornographic] material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”


Federal courts have seemingly taken a similar approach to the concept of property and “protected property interests.” They have made no real attempt to define it, but have said that they will simply recognize it when they see it, based on the quirky criteria they have developed. In the process they have found protected property interests in a myriad of surprising places and concepts. But their apparent litmus test has nothing to do with fundamental conventional property principles. Substantive and procedural governmental discretion has now become the tail that wags the dog in property rights’ analyses.


Just as in addressing pornography, in terms of coming up with a practical useful definition of property, the federal courts have failed miserably. Can you imagine what might have been considered obscene or pornographic in 1780, compared to today?


If protected property interests are created by applicable state law, wouldn’t it make more sense to address property issues in state courts?


Standards that apply to infringement of unalienable fundamental rights are supposed to be timeless. The central concept of fundamental, inalienable rights is that they are not subject to societal whims, including popular majority opinion. In other words, although a rancher and/or his/her predecessors (such as our western pioneer grandparents) may have ventured into the raw wilderness and under the laws of nature (first in right, first in time; possession; use it or lose it, etc., as codified under the various homestead acts) appropriated land for their homesteads and forage and water for their livestock, if some governmental or regulatory body is given fluctuating discretion to simply disregard such fundamental rights and principles, then where does that leave us?


http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Lawrence-Esplin-Sr.-1-265x300.png
Why It Matters
The current rift over property rights is really nothing more than a continuation of the unfinished Federalist/Anti-federalist Debate and the long-standing failure to adequately define and protect property rights. According to one western rancher, “There are only two kinds of ranchers: those who kiss the government’s ass, and those who tell the government to ‘kiss my ass.’” But the core question boils down to recognition of property rights.


Over the course of the past six years, there has been a big movement among western states to transfer federal lands to state control. Nevertheless, shifting jurisdictional power from the federal to local governments does not necessarily resolve the issue of fundamental property rights. Fundamental property rights should not be infringed upon regardless of which entity has jurisdiction. Unfortunately, state and local governments do not necessarily have any better track record for recognizing and advocating for the protection of private property interests than does the federal government.


Although it may ebb and flow, the 200+ year debate over this important issue—what constitutes protected property interests—does not appear to be going away any time soon.