# Is it even legal for the federal government to "own" vast tracts of land?



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

Much less possess the legal authority to toss ranchers off of said land? 

I have a hard time understanding the legality of federal ownership of most of the western united states given Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. constitution.

It states that the federal government has the power "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;".

Unless I am much mistaken, the federal government cannot exercise authority over areas larger than "ten miles square", or unless "purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings". 

I don't recall any of the western states ceding vast swaths of land to the federal government via act of state legislature. And I certainly don't see the feds erecting "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings" on the millions and millions of acres of BLM and forest service land in the western states, either.

What does prepperforums think?


----------



## slewfoot (Nov 6, 2013)

So these agency's are also in some sort of twisted violation of the constitution.Correct?
There are 1.8 billion acres of land in the United States, over two-thirds of which were transferred from federal ownership to individuals, corporations and states. The remaining 29 percent of the land (657 million acres) is in federal hands and is administered primarily by four federal agencies: the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Park Service (NPS) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the Forest Service (FS) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture.


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

It's not illegal if the government says it's not..


----------



## slewfoot (Nov 6, 2013)

Beach Kowboy said:


> It's not illegal if the government says it's not..


Exactly right.


----------



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

Beach Kowboy said:


> It's not illegal if the government says it's not..


This is true...in practice. But is it technically legal (constitutional)? And would the government's position survive a well organized and funded grassroots effort to end the practice of federal land ownership?


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

I always thought it was.
I guess we could blame Teddy Roosevelt for staring it with the whole National Park idea.
For a Republican he was pretty darn progressive.

A good 10th Amendment movement in this country could solve a lot of problems


----------



## slewfoot (Nov 6, 2013)

Charles Martel said:


> Much less possess the legal authority to toss ranchers off of said land?
> 
> I have a hard time understanding the legality of federal ownership of most of the western united states given Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. constitution.
> 
> ...


Well I believe that if you are going to start such a thread you should be able to offer a solution.
I will be waiting for it.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

My understanding is that in 1864 NV changed their state constitution to permit Federal ownership of these lands. It was to be a system of helping states. I think some argued without federal help a number of the new western stated could not govern vast unoccupied areas.


----------



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

slewfoot said:


> Well I believe that if you are going to start such a thread you should be able to offer a solution.
> I will be waiting for it.


The solution is to start a grassroots movement to get individual state legislatures into the fight. We need to make our state legislatures stand up to federal tyranny.

We could take our government back in two election cycles if we were truly determined to do so. We could send shockwaves through the federal establishment if we were to show up in large numbers to our local GOP caucuses and nominate truly independent and conservative candidates for county and state delegate positions. It is the delegates that decide which candidates go on to GOP primary races. If true conservatives/libertarians were to hold the majority of county and state level delegate seats, we could nominate whomever we wanted for state and national congress/senate races. We could literally put guys like OldMurph, Inor, Denton, and other honorable, straight thinking men in positions of power.

Sadly, most conservatives/libertarians have never so much as darkened the door of a local caucus meeting. I attended a caucus meeting where a guy showed up with seven of his buddies and walked away as a delegate. In many places, you can stroll into a caucus meeting with 25 friends and be fairly well assured of winning a delegate seat. Any of us could do this (I've been a delegate twice). But you can't do it from your computer, and you can't do it hiding from your neighbors.

Get involved...become a delegate (or get behind a good guy that wants to be a delegate)...become a candidate...get out there and shake things up! That is the solution.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

My take is, at that time what was there to govern? It was wide open spaces for pete's sake. don't know the folks per sq. mile at the time , but not many for sure. Even back then they wanted to control anyone on American ground. jmho. I refer to these "vast unoccupied lands". I understand immeniet domain (sp) This is why no one actually owns any land in the US.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

You can try and interpret things in the constitution anyway you want. The Federal Government has owned land longer then you and I have been around - combined. Does the Federal Government own the capital building? Does it own our national parks, does it own our military bases? There are seemingly unending examples of the federal government owning land. And I have no trouble with it - to be honest I'd rather have them as a neighbor then Mr. Bundy. He and I would likley end up in a shooting war since I'd be eating his freekin cows!


----------



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

1skrewsloose said:


> My take is, at that time what was there to govern? It was wide open spaces for pete's sake. don't know the folks per sq. mile at the time , but not many for sure. Even back then they wanted to control anyone on American ground. jmho. I refer to these "vast unoccupied lands". I understand immeniet domain (sp) This is why no one actually owns any land in the US.


We don't truly own ANY of our property, anymore. As a business "owner", I have to pay annual taxes on my company's assets (copiers, computers, TV's, projectors, etc.) that I have already paid taxes on multiple times. I paid taxes on these things when I bought them, I pay taxes on them every year than I own them, and I will pay taxes on them when and if I ever sell them. If I fail to play annual taxes on these things, my business will be shut down and my physical assets will be seized (at gunpoint if necessary). We own absolutely NOTHING in America, anymore.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

I was wondering about that! 

I read/heard that Nevada was 85% federally held lands BLM etc. Now I don't know how true that figure is, yet for the sake of argument lets say it's accurate. Then who actually owns Nevada? The people who reside there or the federal government. If it is 85% federal lands then is it even a state or is Nevada just a convenient name for a federal holding.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Charles Martel said:


> We don't truly own ANY of our property, anymore. As a business "owner", I have to pay annual taxes on my company's assets (copiers, computers, TV's, projectors, etc.) that I have already paid taxes on multiple times. I paid taxes on these things when I bought them, I pay taxes on them every year than I own them, and I will pay taxes on them when and if I ever sell them. If I fail to play annual taxes on these things, my business will be shut down and my physical assets will be seized (at gunpoint if necessary). We own absolutely NOTHING in America, anymore.


Save anything that isn't on a 4473 form, did I get that right?


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Seneca said:


> I was wondering about that!
> 
> I read/heard that Nevada was 85% federally held lands BLM etc. Now I don't know how true that figure is, yet for the sake of argument lets say it's accurate. Then who actually owns Nevada? The people who reside there or the federal government. If it is 85% federal lands then is it even a state or is Nevada just a convenient name for a federal holding.


Bingo! I agree with you, if they want to own it, they should pay for upkeep, whatever, that is on desert land. And not ask folks who would never go there to pay for it! This reminds me of folks who build in flood plains, take out no insurance and expect the rest of us to bail them out when the river floods. Folks have to get back to taking care of their own and quit looking to DC. jmho. But I am stupid, have them pay for it, who is them? Us, taxpayers.


----------



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

Ripon said:


> You can try and interpret things in the constitution anyway you want. The Federal Government has owned land longer then you and I have been around - combined. Does the Federal Government own the capital building? Does it own our national parks, does it own our military bases? There are seemingly unending examples of the federal government owning land. And I have no trouble with it - to be honest I'd rather have them as a neighbor then Mr. Bundy. He and I would likley end up in a shooting war since I'd be eating his freekin cows!


Read the clause carefully...the capital building and everything inside the 10 mile square "district" set apart for the nation's capital is specifically mentioned. Military bases can also be very easily justified under the description of "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings" (provided said bases do not exceed 10 miles square).

I would argue that the National Parks are not constitutional, unless they are specifically "purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State" in which the park is to be located. For instance, Yellowstone and Teton would be constitutional if the property was purchased by the consent of the legislatures of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana.

I know the Bundy family personally (old Mormon families are still very tightly woven...my sister married into a related Nevada ranching family...my brother-in-law owns one of the largest private alfalfa/cattle ranches in the state) and you would be incredibly lucky to have them as neighbors. They would give you the shirts off their backs, the food off their tables, or the horses in their corral if you asked them for any of it. They would literally go to war for you if they thought you were being railroaded. This is why they have received so much support from locals and those who know them.


----------



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

1skrewsloose said:


> Save anything that isn't on a 4473 form, did I get that right?


Hah! Yippers.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

I think RPD brought up a good point. Does it really matter whether the State or federal government actually hold the title of the land? Since 1913, the state governments have not had any representation within the federal government. Because of the 17th Amendment, there is no way for the state to assert ownership even if they are the rightful holders of the land.

If you really want to go back to being a Republic, the first step MUST be repeal of the 17th Amendment.


----------



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

PalmettoTree said:


> My understanding is that in 1864 NV changed their state constitution to permit Federal ownership of these lands. It was to be a system of helping states. I think some argued without federal help a number of the new western stated could not govern vast unoccupied areas.


I fail to see how a change to the Nevada State Constitution could be construed to mean the property was "purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State" of Nevada. I assume the Nevada State Legislature to amend the state constitution, but unless it was an actual purchase, I don't see how it is legal.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

I appreciate your response, charles, I only have 2 weeks vacation to help out, but what time did our friends when called to action from Paul Revere have? They gave as much time as needed. They can take my house, my car, etc, but they will NEVER take away my spirit.!!!! I'm all in!!! Enough is enough!!! Now the nsa will be calling me.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

Charles Martel said:


> The solution is to start a grassroots movement to get individual state legislatures into the fight. We need to make our state legislatures stand up to federal tyranny.
> 
> We could take our government back in two election cycles if we were truly determined to do so. We could send shockwaves through the federal establishment if we were to show up in large numbers to our local GOP caucuses and nominate truly independent and conservative candidates for county and state delegate positions. It is the delegates that decide which candidates go on to GOP primary races. If true conservatives/libertarians were to hold the majority of county and state level delegate seats, we could nominate whomever we wanted for state and national congress/senate races. We could literally put guys like OldMurph, Inor, Denton, and other honorable, straight thinking men in positions of power.
> 
> ...


I take it you are from Iowa. Iowa caucuses are equivalent to a poorly run PTA meeting.

True libertarians do not participate in government. A libertarian understands government can only work by overpowering individuals with force.

Conservatives believe in la limited constitutional republic. Libertarian philosophy is incompatible with any form of government.

Like most that post here people cannot adhere to their espoused belief system.


----------



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

PalmettoTree said:


> I take it you are from Iowa. Iowa caucuses are equivalent to a poorly run PTA meeting.
> 
> True libertarians do not participate in government. A libertarian understands government can only work by overpowering individuals with force.
> 
> ...


No, I'm from Utah. I've never experienced Iowa caucuses, but, your description applies to Utah meetings as well.

Really, it depends on what school of libertarian philosophy one subscribes to. There are, in fact, many prominent libertarian thinkers who have published different versions of the ideology. I think most individuals who call themselves libertarian accept the idea that a very limited form of government is necessary to preserve and protect individual liberty. I disagree that mainstream libertarianism is incompatible with any form of government.


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

The government owns whatever THEY decide to own. If they want your land, they will find a reason to take it whether it be turtles,birds or they need to build a ****ing highway. Once they have a reason to want your land, they WILL find a way to take it form you. By the time they are done, YOU will look like the bad guy..

What really surprises me is how many people on this board sticks up for them and gives excuses. I would bet dollars to pesos, a lot of them are the old farts that complain to homeowners associations on their neighbors and calls the police when someone rides a dirt bike in the field across form them. just because you store food and collect guns, doesn't mean you are a prepper. I noticed several people inthe past few weeks on here that truly disappoint me in this community..


----------



## jro1 (Mar 3, 2014)

Map Showing Stunning Extent Of Federal Controlled Land
April 14, 2014, by Ken Jorgustin

federally-controlled-land
image: Reno Gazette Journal

The Cliven Bundy ranch standoff in Nevada with the Federal 'BLM' agency during April-2014 peaked my curiosity to research how much land in the United States is under the control of the Federal government.

I looked on in amazement as I discovered a map produced by the Bureau of Land Management which shows the extent to which the government controls land mass in the United States - especially in the West&#8230;








The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages more surface land than any other Federal agency - approximately 245 million acres.

Much of these lands are located primarily in the West, but the bureau has a national presence with control for some 700 million acres of sub-surface of both Federal and non-Federal lands.

The BLM administers lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Additionally, the BLM manages 58 million acres owned by non-Federal entities such as States and private landowners.

The BLM also oversees operations on 56 million acres of Indian lands.

There is also an ongoing land grab, while Federal agencies are controlling and seizing control of more land (and water), and private property in the United States.

That said, you might want to research the United Nation's 'Agenda 21′ to discover more about the U.N. vision for the rest of us with regards to many things including our private lands and their desire to move us from the rural areas into the city regions. By the way, our current Executive Branch fully supports this agenda and has been implementing executive orders to enable favorable actions in this regard.

One way they the feds are gaining more control of the lands is through all things 'water'.

Reported from The Independent Sentinel, the EPA is redefining the meaning of the word 'water' in such a way as to allow them to seize control over all water and, as a consequence, all private property in the United States.

The Supreme Court of the United States has defined the meaning of 'water' as 'navigable water.' The EPA seeks to redefine the meaning of water as all 'connected water,' and they are seeking to define 'connected water as all water, so they can assume power to regulate every body of water in the United States. Any water, even ditches, on private property will be controlled. They are using a bizarre theory found in a study which says all water is connected underground.

On August 2011, Executive Order 13575 was issued and it gave the government control over 16% of our rural lands. For what reason? Are the rural lands doing badly? Did the farmers ask for this?

Executive Order 13575 allows the President to develop "sustainable communities". The government has no constitutional authority to do this but they are. Last year, Mr. Obama announced his plan to develop "promise zones." He's starting small.

The order is in complete agreement with the UN's Agenda 21 - The UN's View on Property Rights - Straight From the Marxist Manual.

In July 2011, the federal government agreed to allow China to buy up 600,000 acres of gas & oil fields in Texas.

In April 2014 it was uncovered that Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) has apparently colluded with the Chinese energy giant, ENN, in a $5 Billion deal for Nevada land - which apparently requires the removal of Cliven Bundy and his cattle from his ranch in Bunkerville, NV - hence the BLM invasion and attempted removal of his cattle in the guise of protecting a desert tortoise turtle&#8230;

China is buying up land all over the United States and it's being done with the apparent full support of our Federal government.

And this all just the tip of the iceberg&#8230;

I wonder how the Federal land map will look in the future&#8230; more red blotches I suppose&#8230;

On a related note (property grab) this is a good brief synopsis of what happened at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada where Americans drew a line in the sand:


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

Thanks for the map. I became aware of this a few years back. The problem I have with your slant. The reason is except for National Parks the western states could have gotten massive amounts of this land turned over to the states. They do not because they do not want to maintain the highways and roads. They do not want to police the area. This particular problem is NV made. Reid could have gotten the NV federal land turned over to the state anytime in the last dozen or so years. NV voters have returned Reid to the senate many times.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

This is an example of federal agents executing an unlawful act.
They should be brought up on charges - every last agent involved and the agencies that employ them.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

need to keep in mind that in many cases the U.S. Government bought the land - Louisiana Purchase, Alaska, and the Gadsen Purchase or won it as the result of a conflict with another nation. New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada(?), Utah, California. Now there were huge chunks of those territories that had no one laying claim to them.


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

SARGE7402 said:


> need to keep in mind that in many cases the U.S. Government bought the land - Louisiana Purchase, Alaska, and the Gadsen Purchase or won it as the result of a conflict with another nation. New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada(?), Utah, California. Now there were huge chunks of those territories that had no one laying claim to them.


The US government may have negotiated a purchase, but the citizens who pay taxes bought it, or the servicemen who fought conquered it. The government does not own anything.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

PaulS said:


> This is an example of federal agents executing an unlawful act.
> They should be brought up on charges - every last agent involved and the agencies that employ them.


I agree that the BLM that handled this are idiots. However make your case as to who broke what laws. Note if anyone had forced someone to go to the "freedom of speech ares" they would have a civil case.


----------

