Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: How about we put together a concise argument as to why the BLM has no...

  1. #1

    How about we put together a concise argument as to why the BLM has no...

    How about we put together a concise argument as to why the federal government (in the form of the BLM) has no authority to general land ownership within states - according to the Constitution - and rebut the history of court rulings to the contrary?

    This video featuring Ryan Bundy http://youtu.be/GLC9oDHUaYI?t=27m15s talks about the federal gov't's authority over territories (outside of established states) and how the constitution enumerates five places the feds can own outside of D.C., with general land ownership not being one of them.

    Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 reads: 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; and (goes on to clause 18)

    Notice that only five kinds of places beyond Washington D.C. are recognized by the Constitution for legitimate ownership, and those five places have to be purchased from the state with the consent of the state legislature. General land ownership within states is NOT included among the enumerated places. Even if the states wanted to sell general land to the federal government, the federal government is (supposed to be) constrained by the Constitution from accepting the land. In order for the federal government to be able to own general land, the Constitution first needs to be amended to allow for it.

    Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2: 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.

    In this part, the Constitution does give the feds control over territories and property (as listed in I,8,17 above).


    I just found this pdf, "Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority and the History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention"; have to read it: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...,d.aWw&cad=rja

    Anyone else care to help flesh out and distill the argument against federal ownership/management of land within states beyond the five enumerated places?
    "Sorry, fellows, the rebellion is off. We couldn't get a rebellion permit."



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

  4. #3
    The Feds forcibly extract tribute from me every paycheck: ergo, they are always wrong.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by FloralScent View Post
    The Feds forcibly extract tribute from me every paycheck: ergo, they are always wrong.
    I agree, but was thinking of making the argument using the Constitution's own language concerning the limits of it's authority as the starting point
    "Sorry, fellows, the rebellion is off. We couldn't get a rebellion permit."

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Tod View Post
    I agree, but was thinking of making the argument using the Constitution's own language concerning the limits of it's authority as the starting point
    There was a thread like this a while ago, but I think it got moved. It had a good starting point with some Supreme Court cases where people tried to use that language (quoted in post #1); the thread had a few making arguments whether or not those rulings would apply in this case.

  7. #6
    It's not a bad idea for persuading public opinion. As far as courts are concerned, legal precedents generally can be found to support either side of an argument. Leaving the decision maker the luxury of making a ruling which best fits his politics.
    Last edited by Henry Rogue; 05-12-2014 at 03:33 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddyRey View Post
    Do you think it's a coincidence that the most cherished standard of the Ron Paul campaign was a sign highlighting the word "love" inside the word "revolution"? A revolution not based on love is a revolution doomed to failure. So, at the risk of sounding corny, I just wanted to let you know that, wherever you stand on any of these hot-button issues, and even if we might have exchanged bitter words or harsh sentiments in the past, I love each and every one of you - no exceptions!

    "When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will." Frederic Bastiat

    Peace.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Tod View Post

    Anyone else care to help flesh out and distill the argument against federal ownership/management of land within states beyond the five enumerated places?
    Pretty much covers it.
    The Federal Government Can NOT own this land. Despite any rhetoric or rulings since.
    It is simply not allowed.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Henry Rogue View Post
    As far as courts are concerned, legal precedents generally can be found to support either side of an argument.
    Not so, especially if you're trying to argue that the federal government's authority to own land is restricted to I.8.17. All precedent is to the contrary.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Not so, especially if you're trying to argue that the federal government's authority to own land is restricted to I.8.17. All precedent is to the contrary.
    The feds also created precendent to support slavery, but that didn't make them right.
    "Sorry, fellows, the rebellion is off. We couldn't get a rebellion permit."

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Henry Rogue View Post
    It's not a bad idea for persuading public opinion. As far as courts are concerned, legal precedents generally can be found to support either side of an argument. Leaving the decision maker the luxury of making a ruling which best fits his politics.
    Screw federal courts! They just rubber stamp and State Nullification is the way to go about it.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Not so, especially if you're trying to argue that the federal government's authority to own land is restricted to I.8.17. All precedent is to the contrary.
    You mean that the federal government sides with itself for more authority? Tell me ain't so.

    How about lower court cases?
    "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law

    "nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence

    "I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin

  14. #12
    Arguing about how they interpret laws in their courts doesn't make sense to me...

  15. #13
    Somewhere along the line I became unbanned from Maine Prepper's you tube channels, so I have commented on his video about the Bundy situation.

    His video and it's description:



    Was the land "stolen" from the people of Nevada?

    Sorry but the land was not stolen from the state of Nevada by the Federal Government. Here is the chain of ownership:
    Land occupied by Native American Shoshone, Paiute and Washoe tribes
    In the 1500s, the Spaniards conquered the area calling it New Spain which includes what we refer to as Mexico, California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and New Mexico
    http://www.learner.org/interactives/h...

    When the Mexican war for independence was concluded in 1836, it put these territories under the control of Mexico.

    When America won the Mexican American war in 1848, MEXICO CEDED THE TERRITORIES we refer to today as California, Nevada, Utah, most of Arizona and half of New Mexico and Colorado over to the US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia...

    At this point, the land belonged to THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. It did not belong to Nevada because Nevada was not a state but was part of the Utah territory.

    The discovery of silver at the Comstock Lode in 1859 led to a population boom that was an impetus to the creation of Nevada Territory out of western Utah Territory in 1861.

    In 1864, Nevada applied for statehood and the LEGAL CHARTER SIGNED BY CONGRESS AND THE STATE you and others obviously did not bother to read goes as follows:
    Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that the lands belonging to citizens of the United
    States residing without the said state shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States.

    http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/R...

    At no time was the land "stolen" from the people of Nevada,
    My initial reply:

    Judge Andrew Napolitano disagrees with your assessment, and explains why, here: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...-rancher-case/
    His response (still on the handle!)

    Napolitano states his opinion which is not shared by the courts on this matter. States can not decide ownership of Federal Land. What law gives the citizens of Nevada the right to decide on land that belongs to ALL of us?
    Another person, Nicholas, adds

    It was the States that created the Federal Government.
    And I replied

    Nicholas is right.

    The US Constitution is pretty clear that the Feds control Territories before they become States (Art4Sect3Clause2) but after States form, the Feds are limited (beyond D.C.) to only five kinds of places (Art1Sect8Clause17): "Forts", "Magazines", "Arsenals", "dock-Yards", and "other needful Buildings". Further, it must purchase the land and it must obtain the authorization of the State Legislature to purchase those places. That procedure makes it plain that when a Territory becomes a State, the land transfers from the Feds to the State. The US Constitution contains no provisions for general land ownership by the Feds within States; that is for States. Also, since the US Constitution predates Nevada's, the feds do not have the authority to accept land from Nevada no matter how badly the people of Nevada, through their State Constitution, wants to rid themselves of their land; the US Constitution would need to be amended first to allow it.

    I will concede that the courts (part of the federal government) have repeatedly ruled in favor of themselves (no surprise there!) but that in and of itself is not an acceptable argument for real legitimacy. Here is a more obvious example: slavery. While it was once routinely upheld by the courts, such rulings did nothing to create real legitimacy. The individuals that make up government, while supposedly governing "of the people, by the people, for the people", take on a mission of their own, continually striving for more control and power. It is a natural result of "der Wille zur Macht".

    So, to answer MP's question, "What law gives the citizens of Nevada the right to decide on land that belongs to ALL of us?", the answer is, The US Constitution, which was ratified by delegates from the States, the basic law of the land.

    And how can Bundy and his supporters not abide by the ruling of Federal courts? The same way that people who operated the Underground Railroad did: by disobeying unjust laws. Under what authority? The same authority that gave our forefathers the right to tell the Brits to go pound sand, that of God and Nature.

    Is this over? I have yet to meet anyone who believes that it is. The Declaration of Independence was only the start for our forefathers. Let us hope that the current differences can be settled amicably but be prepared in case those who claim the special rights to rule us continue to overstep any traditional notion of authority. (which is a topic of it's own)
    Then at another place in the comments, MP posted

    Bundy and the other ranchers who run their cattle on OUR land are receiving an enormous subsidy, here are the numbers broken down and displayed on a map.

    http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_...Fees/gf_hm.asp
    Notice that Nevada is $15.50 per head on private land.

    http://www.westernwatersheds.org/rep...eport-2005.pdf
    You should read the history of this and why the fees are at $1.35 when they would need to be at above $7.64. This is the actual cost to the government in 2005 per animal unit, the grazing fees have not gone up since then.

    State Ownership? This link will educate you more about how grazing fees are determined and show you that State ownership of land puts the cost per animal unit grazing at $8.48 in 2012. This obviously is taxpayer subsidized as well.
    http://www.oregon.gov/dsl/LW/Pages/rangeland.aspx

    Ranchers who use Federal and State lands are subsidized, there is no other way to put it. It should come as no surprise that ranchers who are making their living by using federally subsidized lands would have a problem surviving in the real world.

    That land belongs to all of us; Bundy and hs supporters do NOT make a majority, do NOT get to choose which rules they want to obey. Bundy could not exist as a rancher without taxpayer subsidy.
    And I replied

    Bundy has stated that he does not have a problem with paying grazing fees. In fact he has offered to pay grazing fees. The issue is not whether he should pay grazing fees. The issue is that the US Constitution makes it clear that the land belongs to the State and it is to the State that Bundy wishes to pay grazing fees.
    The land does not belong to all of us. It belongs to the State of Nevada, according to the US Constitution. The US Constitution is pretty clear that the Feds control Territories before they become States (Art4Sect3Clause2) but after States form, the Feds are limited (beyond D.C.) to only five kinds of places (Art1Sect8Clause17): "Forts", "Magazines", "Arsenals", "dock-Yards", and "other needful Buildings". Further, it must purchase the land and it must obtain the authorization of the State Legislature to purchase those places. That procedure makes it plain that when a Territory becomes a State, the land transfers from the Feds to the State.
    If it were Federal property, the Feds would not be required to seek approval from the State Legislature and pay the State for the place.
    We shall see if he is able to offer a rebuttal beyond merely banning me again.
    "Sorry, fellows, the rebellion is off. We couldn't get a rebellion permit."

  16. #14
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009

  17. #15
    If grazing rights can be dismissed so easily, then what of other homesteading?

    I think I may need to do some research on the "homestead exemption" on my property and just what that really means. I know that it saves me yearly on property taxes, but are there, or could there be, drawbacks to that?

    It seems that man cannot do anything that can be understood without the need to twist and contort ones body, mind and soul into painful configurations in order to attempt to understand it. smdh
    "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law

    "nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence

    "I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin

  18. #16
    Concise argument.
    Three parts.
    First,, the Federal Government can not own this land.
    Second, The bureaucracy should not exist.. Government should be limited. (bureaucracy is expansion)
    Third, The Federal Government should have no Law Enforcement capability,, there is no provision for such in the constitution. Law Enforcement is a State function,, and as that,, a local function.

    The people were meant to be the Law enforcement,, with elected officials at the local level.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Well, Mao really nailed it when he said all political power comes from the barrel of a gun.
    There are two opposing viewpoints here, and the feds aren't the only ones willing to "exercise political power" this time.

    So it really only boils down to picking sides. One side's argument is "This is the way it is, and if you don't like it we're going to do something nasty to you."
    The other side's argument relies on a traditional American philosophical understanding of what government is.
    In as few words as possible: one side has reasoned arguments for doing what it's doing, and the other side just wants to push people around.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Tod View Post
    The feds also created precendent to support slavery, but that didn't make them right.
    I didn't say precedent is always right. But the notion that one can find precedent to support both sides of a legal argument is simply false.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Tod View Post
    My initial reply:

    The US Constitution is pretty clear that the Feds control Territories before they become States (Art4Sect3Clause2) but after States form, the Feds are limited (beyond D.C.) to only five kinds of places (Art1Sect8Clause17)...
    The Constitution doesn't say that. IV.3.2 is pretty clear that Congress can do whatever it wants with federal property, and it's not limited to using it for the purposes expressed in I.8.17.

    Further, it must purchase the land and it must obtain the authorization of the State Legislature to purchase those places. That procedure makes it plain that when a Territory becomes a State, the land transfers from the Feds to the State.
    That doesn't follow at all. If, as the courts have ruled, the federal government can acquire land through the exercise of the treaty power, then by virtue of IV.3.2. Congress can determine what portion of federal land will or won't become part of a new state. It's abundantly clear that when Nevada became a State, certain lands remained federal property. It appears you're reading into the treaty power a limitation that isn't there -- i.e., that the federal government can't acquire land by treaty.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    I didn't say precedent is always right. But the notion that one can find precedent to support both sides of a legal argument is simply false.
    Dude..
    The Second Amendment clearly says that the right to Keep and Bear arms is not to be infringed..

    And yet it is infringed.. Wrongly.

    The government has a habit of ignoring and subverting the constitution.. It has for years,,but that does not make it right or correct.

    And if push comes to shove,, men with guns will decide the issue.. The "courts" be damned.

    Do you want that? (I don't) I would rather see the Government back the $#@! off.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Not so, especially if you're trying to argue that the federal government's authority to own land is restricted to I.8.17. All precedent is to the contrary.
    Not - see this discussion http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...and-in-a-State

    When Alabama was admitted as a state, the federal government retained the navigatable waterways and underlying land. The SCOTUS said no, all territory not private property became property of the state upon admission, otherwise Alabama would not be admitted a state on an equal basis as the original 13 states, who had absolute sovereignty of their own territory.
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    When Alabama was admitted as a state, the federal government retained the navigatable waterways and underlying land. The SCOTUS said no, all territory not private property became property of the state upon admission, otherwise Alabama would not be admitted a state on an equal basis as the original 13 states, who had absolute sovereignty of their own territory.
    But this case doesn't stand for the proposition that the federal government's ownership of land is restricted to the purposes set forth in I.8.17, which was the point I was making.

    As I've pointed out before, this decision is distinguishable from the dispute in Nevada.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The Constitution doesn't say that. IV.3.2 is pretty clear that Congress can do whatever it wants with federal property, and it's not limited to using it for the purposes expressed in I.8.17.

    Federalist Paper, # 45, Para 7:

    The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them.
    Federalist Paper, # 33, Para. 4-8:
    But the same process will lead to the same result, in relation to all other powers declared in the Constitution. And it is EXPRESSLY to execute these powers that the sweeping clause, as it has been affectedly called, authorizes the national legislature to pass all NECESSARY and PROPER laws. If there is any thing exceptionable, it must be sought for in the specific powers upon which this general declaration is predicated. The declaration itself, though it may be chargeable with tautology or redundancy, is at least perfectly harmless.

    But SUSPICION may ask, Why then was it introduced? The answer is, that it could only have been done for greater caution, and to guard against all cavilling refinements in those who might hereafter feel a disposition to curtail and evade the legitimate authorities of the Union. The Convention probably foresaw, what it has been a principal aim of these papers to inculcate, that the danger which most threatens our political welfare is that the State governments will finally sap the foundations of the Union; and might therefore think it necessary, in so cardinal a point, to leave nothing to construction. Whatever may have been the inducement to it, the wisdom of the precaution is evident from the cry which has been raised against it; as that very cry betrays a disposition to question the great and essential truth which it is manifestly the object of that provision to declare.

    But it may be again asked, Who is to judge of the NECESSITY and PROPRIETY of the laws to be passed for executing the powers of the Union? I answer, first, that this question arises as well and as fully upon the simple grant of those powers as upon the declaratory clause; and I answer, in the second place, that the national government, like every other, must judge, in the first instance, of the proper exercise of its powers, and its constituents in the last. If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. The propriety of a law, in a constitutional light, must always be determined by the nature of the powers upon which it is founded. Suppose, by some forced constructions of its authority (which, indeed, cannot easily be imagined), the Federal legislature should attempt to vary the law of descent in any State, would it not be evident that, in making such an attempt, it had exceeded its jurisdiction, and infringed upon that of the State? Suppose, again, that upon the pretense of an interference with its revenues, it should undertake to abrogate a land tax imposed by the authority of a State; would it not be equally evident that this was an invasion of that concurrent jurisdiction in respect to this species of tax, which its Constitution plainly supposes to exist in the State governments? If there ever should be a doubt on this head, the credit of it will be entirely due to those reasoners who, in the imprudent zeal of their animosity to the plan of the convention, have labored to envelop it in a cloud calculated to obscure the plainest and simplest truths.

    If individuals enter into a state of society, the laws of that society must be the supreme regulator of their conduct. If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies, and the individuals of whom they are composed. It would otherwise be a mere treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a goverment, which is only another word for POLITICAL POWER AND SUPREMACY. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION; which I mention merely as an instance of caution in the convention; since that limitation would have been to be understood, though it had not been expressed.

    Though a law, therefore, laying a tax for the use of the United States would be supreme in its nature, and could not legally be opposed or controlled, yet a law for abrogating or preventing the collection of a tax laid by the authority of the State, (unless upon imports and exports), would not be the supreme law of the land, but a usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution. As far as an improper accumulation of taxes on the same object might tend to render the collection difficult or precarious, this would be a mutual inconvenience, not arising from a superiority or defect of power on either side, but from an injudicious exercise of power by one or the other, in a manner equally disadvantageous to both. It is to be hoped and presumed, however, that mutual interest would dictate a concert in this respect which would avoid any material inconvenience. The inference from the whole is, that the individual States would, under the proposed Constitution, retain an independent and uncontrollable authority to raise revenue to any extent of which they may stand in need, by every kind of taxation, except duties on imports and exports.
    Federalist Paper, # 7, Para. 5, 9:
    WE SHOULD BE READY TO DENOMINATE INJURIES THOSE THINGS WHICH WERE IN REALITY THE JUSTIFIABLE ACTS OF INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGNTIES CONSULTING A DISTINCT INTEREST. . . .

    Laws in violation of private contracts, as they amount to aggressions on the rights of those States whose citizens are injured by them, may be considered as another probable source of hostility. We are not authorized to expect that a more liberal or more equitable spirit would preside over the legislations of the individual States hereafter, if unrestrained by any additional checks, than we have heretofore seen in too many instances disgracing their several codes.
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius

    They’re not buying it. CNN, you dumb bastards!” — President Trump 2020

    Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-01-2011, 04:21 PM
  2. Most concise argument against either Intellectual Property or Monopoly
    By socialize_me in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-22-2009, 09:02 PM
  3. Need fast and concise rebuttal to this: read
    By Lord Xar in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-15-2008, 05:17 PM
  4. Concise points that need to be made
    By MikeSmith in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-15-2008, 04:01 PM
  5. Concise Statements on Ron Paul's Position
    By archemeedees in forum Utah
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-30-2007, 12:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •