Property Clause / Federal Land

[hank4elk]

Blah blah....Bundy is stupid & Jefferson & TR were not.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Seems the basis is the "policing" of territories as a necessity for the Federal Gov't however with respect to the land once defined as a state, by the earlier content presented, it becomes "State sovereignty" and the Fed's interest is only within what is related interstate activity and military / policing from external threats.

I understand that this has a certain logic and appeal to some, but it is not supported by the controlling law and 150 yrs of jurisprudence. Merely providing a plausible rationale is rarely enough to move longstanding precedent.

Those who wish to banish Federal preeminence related to federal lands usage will have to prevail via the political/legislative process, there is no good chance of court driven Hail Mary on this topic in my view.

 

[COEngineer]

Sytes, you seem to be trying to present a facade of unbiased inquisitiveness, but continue to present statements "from the other side" that have little or no bearing on this extemely well settled argument.

I am not an astronaut, but I believe the Earth is round. I am also not a Constitutional scholar, but I believe the federal government is allowed to own and manage land in perpetuity.

 

[BuzzH]

Sytes, you seem to be trying to present a facade of unbiased inquisitiveness, but continue to present statements "from the other side" that have little or no bearing on this extemely well settled argument.

I am not an astronaut, but I believe the Earth is round. I am also not a Constitutional scholar, but I believe the federal government is allowed to own and manage land in perpetuity.

I agree. If there was ANY merit to the crap Sytes is puking out here, it would have already been in front of the SCOTUS.

Sytes is quickly turning into hunttalks version of Cliven Bundy.

 

[Sytes]

It seems a pretty solid Judicially defined precedents. It would be interesting to read a position from the other side of the "Constitutional" debate re: Federal land, our land, rights vs intended State land.

I've made it clear I am a supporter of Federal land staying in OUR hands - time and time again. Buzz, I would say that is beneath you to comment in such fashion though I would be incorrect. carry on.

 

[BuzzH]

I would say its dumb to keep bringing up the same tired arguments we've all heard about 50 times when it comes to PLT and the legality issues surrounding it. I would say that is beneath you, though I would be incorrect.

Carry on.

 

[BuzzH]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h1zYR02-AY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TJCpuj8TjM

 

[Sytes]

EDIT:

I wanted to make sure this was not a typical thread hashed and re-hashed. Using advanced Search function I placed in the search of the ENTIRE forum's history of posts that had the words Property Clause within.

This is it... within individual posts throughout the length of forum kept threads where there was a quoted or comment made that involved the words, "Property and Clause" combined.

Nameless Range: 09/10/2014
Katqanna: 10/02/2016
JoelHunter: 08/17/2016
Nemont: 07/25/2016
JRYoung: 08/15/2016
Big Fin: 01/30/2016
CMC: 01/12/2018
Ben Lamb: 03/15/2015 & 01/26/2016

A snot ton of "Private Property", "Supremacy Clause", "Immunity Clause", and "Commerce Clause".

This is not a horse beat within the HT forum and for the average Joe and Jane faced with various spewed crud from the likes of Bundy declaring Constitutional yammerings, It is good, IMO, to have an understanding of both sides of debates. It is a common use within Debate 101 and a frequent use within discussions - know thy enemy...


*******************************************************************


ORIGINAL POST / PRE EDIT:

Buzz, I've not heard this specific Clause used until a discussion over the Bundy issue came to the forefront.

Maybe for such a distinguished guru, such as yourself, this is a common focus point of contention - for many others, this is a casual discussion to better understand what basis is used by both the supporters and opponents of our federal land.

Shall you sway this to be your forum - and if you don't like a thread you get it locked by debating the person vs the topic. If you have dealt with this topic time and time again, don't force yourself to open the thread. A reasonable observation... then again - keep arguing against the person instead of debating the topic.

 

[BuzzH]

Rule #1: If it comes from a Bundy regarding the constitution and public lands, they're wrong, as per always. Unless you can show me a case where any argument a Bundy has ever made about the constitution in regard to public lands and PLT, to be true or upheld by a court.

Legal scholars say Ammon Bundy is not only misinterpreting the Enclave Clause, but also overlooking the Constitution’s Property Clause, which further undermines his argument. The Property Clause, outlined in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, states the following:

“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

Although challenged periodically in court, federal application of the Property Clause has been consistently supported in a chain of legal precedent that extends back to 1840. “In an unbroken line of cases, the Supreme Court has upheld federal management of public federal lands under the Property Clause,” says Michael Blumm, a law professor at Oregon’s Lewis and Clark College who specializes in public lands.

What else do you need to know about "the enemy" and their bullchit interpretation of anything to do with public lands or the constitution?

Its worth watching those video's in the links I provided again...Randy does a great job and explains if perfectly. IF the federal government was holding federal public lands against anything in the constitution, the States would have had them a longggggg time ago. Its intuitively obvious, even to a casual observer. Factor in the SCOTUS and the opinions of just about an legal scholar worth their salt...no brainer.

I'm not going to go 15 rounds with you on this...just learn to read sign, it isn't that tough.

Oh, and I have seen the enemy, and the enemy is us....

 

[VikingsGuy]

Sytes, here is my problem -- I hear you saying we need to understand the other side's arguments -- something I generally agree with. But once we assess the other side's arguments and find they lack any serious merit, in my book we can safely dismiss them and move on. We do not owe "flat earth", "posse comitatus", invalid 16th amendment, and "enclave clause" argumentation any serious respect. And if we do, we risk legitimizing otherwise illegitimate reasoning which does much more harm than good. So you can label me a koolaid drinker if you like, but I am happy to stand armed with reason and proper application of law and history against these anti-gov't nuts anytime.

 

[Sytes]

VikingsGuy, you ever run across people who are on a different level of knowledge and expect most everyone else is at the same level?

As shown on many occasions in the past on this forum, many learn a hell of a lot here. Up until Bundy pulled his, "Off to join Fielder's in Sanders County, MT", I knew nothing of the Property Clause and I imagine many others did not know as well. I AM VERY INTERESTED TO LEARN THOUGH - and I imagine others are as well. It is not simply those who post that read... Many read and do not post as I imagine we are well aware.
It is evident with the frequency of the Property Clause within this forum, this has been rarely referenced none the less a thread opened by all to have run across the opportunity to read the brief post that mentioned the Property Clause. This thread has enabled me to understand how it has been used in the past, the SCOTUS rulings of the past century and how it was viewed prior. The video links shared by Buzz with Randy were good - again, not something I've run across with the time to watch... and by then back out to work on this or that. I enjoy reading Katqanna's posts and several here... Buzz included when he is not trying to rip someone apart. Haha!

Take for instance it is simply cool to know what one side may throw and to be competent to respond... Meh, it is what it is. we agree on some things, disagree on others though in the end we all walk away better informed.

 

[Handlebar]

The legality of federal ownership , I believe is firmly settled.
I would like to hear others opinions on the Macintosh argument that that the permittee owns the forage similar to split estate.

 

[VikingsGuy]

VikingsGuy, you ever run across people who are on a different level of knowledge and expect most everyone else is at the same level?

As shown on many occasions in the past on this forum, many learn a hell of a lot here. Up until Bundy pulled his, "Off to join Fielder's in Sanders County, MT", I knew nothing of the Property Clause and I imagine many others did not know as well. I AM VERY INTERESTED TO LEARN THOUGH - and I imagine others are as well. It is not simply those who post that read... Many read and do not post as I imagine we are well aware.
It is evident with the frequency of the Property Clause within this forum, this has been rarely referenced none the less a thread opened by all to have run across the opportunity to read the brief post that mentioned the Property Clause. This thread has enabled me to understand how it has been used in the past, the SCOTUS rulings of the past century and how it was viewed prior. The video links shared by Buzz with Randy were good - again, not something I've run across with the time to watch... and by then back out to work on this or that. I enjoy reading Katqanna's posts and several here... Buzz included when he is not trying to rip someone apart. Haha!

Take for instance it is simply cool to know what one side may throw and to be competent to respond... Meh, it is what it is. we agree on some things, disagree on others though in the end we all walk away better informed.

Fair enough, but also, there is a line between educated discussion and "feeding the trolls". Definitely not saying you are a "troll" just saying, sometimes continued discussion on really poor arguments gives the nuts more bandwidth than they deserve - and that is what they want.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I would like to hear others opinions on the Macintosh argument that that the permittee owns the forage similar to split estate.

Angus McIntosh, executive director of the Range Allotment Owners Association, contends that grazing allotments are private property in a “split estate” relationship whereby the government owns the mineral and timber rights and the rancher owns the land for grazing and water rights.

The late Bundy-buddy, Lavoy Finicum, produced a video with his daughter which was online and well-articulated his assertion that the federal public land on which he held a grazing allotment was his private property. He came across as a hardworking rancher and honest family man. Lavoy stated that if the ranch is sold, the federal grazing land is part of the property. His rationale included the description of well cared for grazing land as a result of rotation grazing, as well as his own investments and hard work in improving and expanding water resources for livestock … thus the land is his property.

My analogy is that of a furniture business owner holding a longtime lease on a large commercial building, then with owner’s permission, resurfacing and improving lighting in the parking lot, putting in new sidewalks, renovating and improving the showroom, painting and improving the storage area, and replacing doors and windows. When the furniture owner retires, similarly he then should include the commercial building as an asset of the business, valued at whatever the current real estate appraisal might be.
I’m sure Angus and Lavoy would agree with that assessment.

What say you?

 

[VikingsGuy]

What say you?

A real answer would require reading any agreement, licenses, permits, grants or easements between the rancher and the Feds over the years, but absent some clear grant of rights, the short answer is that occupation of property under the permission or consent of the owner does NOT result in the creation of a personal property interest regardless of how good a tenant you are, or how much you did to improve the property. If you occupy without consent for many years without the owners express objection, rights can pass under the concept of adverse possession, but I do not believe adverse possession applies to the federal govt, only between private parties.

 

[hank4elk]

No.
The warehouse is private property. If he improved it for the owner for his own benefit,it's his deal. How he tries to market/use it is his problem,not ours.

Public Lands are Public Lands. They belong to US.
If part of a lease agreement requires adhering to the wishes/rules/regulations/fees then so be it.
If fencing for cattle, roads for logging & pit rules & waste management for mining...etc is part of lease,there it is.
If you don't like it your free to lease ,rent or buy from a private party.
These same people would not let you stiff them on rent/lease or work done for a days wage.

 

[1_pointer]

Angus McIntosh, executive director of the Range Allotment Owners Association, contends that grazing allotments are private property in a “split estate” relationship whereby the government owns the mineral and timber rights and the rancher owns the land for grazing and water rights.

The late Bundy-buddy, Lavoy Finicum, produced a video with his daughter which was online and well-articulated his assertion that the federal public land on which he held a grazing allotment was his private property. He came across as a hardworking rancher and honest family man. Lavoy stated that if the ranch is sold, the federal grazing land is part of the property. His rationale included the description of well cared for grazing land as a result of rotation grazing, as well as his own investments and hard work in improving and expanding water resources for livestock … thus the land is his property.

My analogy is that of a furniture business owner holding a longtime lease on a large commercial building, then with owner’s permission, resurfacing and improving lighting in the parking lot, putting in new sidewalks, renovating and improving the showroom, painting and improving the storage area, and replacing doors and windows. When the furniture owner retires, similarly he then should include the commercial building as an asset of the business, valued at whatever the current real estate appraisal might be.
I’m sure Angus and Lavoy would agree with that assessment.

What say you?

Regarding range improvements, it depends on the agreement that was signed when they were put as to who "owns" them. There was a brief time when those were put in/authorized where the permittee did retain ownership of the improvements. If the permit was cancelled or the improvement removed the permittee had to be compensated for the loss of the improvement that they "owned". IME that was a brief period and there weren't a whole lot of those around. Unless things have changed, more recent range improvement agreements state that no ownership of the improvement is given the the permittee.

§ 4120.3-3 Range improvement permits.

(a) Any permittee or lessee may apply for a range improvement permit to install, use, maintain, and/or modify removable range improvements that are needed to achieve management objectives for the allotment in which the permit or lease is held. The permittee or lessee shall agree to provide full funding for construction, installation, modification, or maintenance. Such range improvement permits are issued at the discretion of the authorized officer.

(b) The permittee or lessee may hold the title to authorized removable range improvements used as livestock handling facilities such as corrals, creep feeders, and loading chutes, and to temporary structural improvements such as troughs for hauled water.

(c) If forage available for livestock is not or will not be used by the preference permittee or lessee, BLM may issue nonrenewable grazing permits or leases to other qualified applicants to use it under §§ 4130.6-2 and 4130.4(d), or § 4110.3-1(a)(2). The term “forage available for livestock” does not include temporary nonuse that BLM approves for reasons of natural resource conservation, enhancement, or protection, or use suspended by BLM under § 4110.3-2(b). Before issuing a nonrenewable permit or lease, BLM will consult, cooperate, and coordinate as provided in § 4130.6-2. If BLM issues such a nonrenewable permit or lease, the preference permittee or lessee shall cooperate with the temporary authorized use of forage by another operator.

(1) A permittee or lessee shall be reasonably compensated for the use and maintenance of improvements and facilities by the operator who has an authorization for temporary grazing use.

(2) The authorized officer may mediate disputes about reasonable compensation and, following consultation with the interested parties, make a determination concerning the fair and reasonable share of operation and maintenance expenses and compensation for use of authorized improvements and facilities.

(3) Where a settlement cannot be reached, the authorized officer shall issue a temporary grazing authorization including appropriate terms and conditions and the requirement to compensate the preference permittee or lessee for the fair share of operation and maintenance as determined by the authorized officer under subpart 4160 of this part.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Angus McIntosh, executive director of the Range Allotment Owners Association, contends that grazing allotments are private property in a “split estate” relationship whereby the government owns the mineral and timber rights and the rancher owns the land for grazing and water rights.

The late Bundy-buddy, Lavoy Finicum, produced a video with his daughter which was online and well-articulated his assertion that the federal public land on which he held a grazing allotment was his private property. He came across as a hardworking rancher and honest family man. Lavoy stated that if the ranch is sold, the federal grazing land is part of the property. His rationale included the description of well cared for grazing land as a result of rotation grazing, as well as his own investments and hard work in improving and expanding water resources for livestock … thus the land is his property.

I believe that this line of thinking is partially caused by ranchers who have taken out loans agenst grazing leases. I had a local rancher at a town hall meeting claim that he couldn't owe money on the ground if he didn't own it and if the grazing rights were changed it would bankrupt their family.


That's a pretty good example of taking a mortgage out on the home you rent.

 

[1_pointer]

I believe that this line of thinking is partially caused by ranchers who have taken out loans agenst grazing leases. I had a local rancher at a town hall meeting claim that he couldn't owe money on the ground if he didn't own it and if the grazing rights were changed it would bankrupt their family.


That's a pretty good example of taking a mortgage out on the home you rent.

Kinda. For BLM grazing permits, the permit is most often tied to the base (private) property as designated by the permit holder. That increases the value of the property. The permit goes with the property if it is sold. It can be transferred to another base property very easily prior to the sale if one wanted to retain the permit. The permit can be sold as well, but from the BLM perspective that's just a transfer from one base property to another with a different owner.

IIRC, for USFS grazing permits the permit is tied to the herd and not the property

 

[Elkmagnet]

Kinda. For BLM grazing permits, the permit is most often tied to the base (private) property as designated by the permit holder. That increases the value of the property. The permit goes with the property if it is sold. It can be transferred to another base property very easily prior to the sale if one wanted to retain the permit. The permit can be sold as well, but from the BLM perspective that's just a transfer from one base property to another with a different owner.

IIRC, for USFS grazing permits the permit is tied to the herd and not the property

His reasoning was in line with his thoughts but his facts were tweaked or embellished to support his argument.