Hey all, not sure where this would go so putting it here. A friend told me this weekend that he heard that a new law would keep property in natioanl forests (private land in the middle of BLM section for instance) could no longer be passed to children and was going to revert back to the governement upon people's deaths. he couldn't remember where he heard it and was seeing if I knew anything about it.

Anybody got any info on this?

Red

Sounds like it's time for that Revolution to start...

I do not know the exact situation you are referring to, but I think there are provisions in existing law that allows people to live on federally owned land (land managed by BLM for example) until they die. This situation comes about when people build homes on public land (land they do not own), but want to remain there until they leave or die. In these situations, the government can either evict the person or they can give the person who built the house a lifetime lease of the land the house sits on. But because the person who built the house did not legally own the land in the first place, their heirs do not have a right to inheret the land. The house itself may be private property, but not the land it sits on. The lease expires when the person dies or abandons the property. I have seen this in California in the Mojave Desert. I never did understand why someone would build a house on property they did not own, but people do it all the time.



This may not be the case you are describing, but it does sound similar.

That's an irresponsble thing to say. Infact it sound anti-American. They have a revolution going on over in Iraq. Why don't you go join that one.

Sorry, that was said "tongue in cheek"... Poor jab at humor!

Yes, that BLM land idea is a poor one, can't imagine anyone doing that. But they should have known from the beginning that is what could happen.

Anybody here ever get bothered by the fact that government entities own land in the first place? Like maybe half of the land in the western states. I find it conceptually curious that the Federal Government is allowed to own any real property in any state for any reason. Seems like putting the tail in front of the dog to me. Wouldn't mind a lease or two from the states, but the status quo seems a vast corruption of State's Rights to me. And the people's rights as well. JMO

DigitalDan, the States, for all practical purposes, have no "State's Rights." Haven't had any since after the War For Southern Independence, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed and ratified (many say ratified illegally).

Since then, when Big Brother screams "Froggy!!," the States jump, and don't ask how far. And it's all done at the point of Big Brother's gun.

L.W.

I agree with Lean wolf!!!!


The Feds have no reason to own the vast acreages that they do.

Even in the beginning, old Thomas Jefferson felt squeamish about the Louisiana Purchase but he justified it by the idea that the U.S. better get it before somebody else does.

And you are right about the loss of state's rights, the 14th Amendment is the vehicle that the Feds use to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states (all but one) and I think it is a crock o shit

458RugerNo1: No need to apologize...we are all on the same side here.



I will say that the history of the United States does spell out how the federal government came into possession of so much land. Individuals did not conquer and establish what is now the United States, the United States government did. Land is a source of our wealth and our system of government is the source of our power.



During the Revolutionary War, those who fought were promised land in return for fighting. The first state created after the revolutionary war was Tennessee in 1796 and then Ohio, in 1803. Both were admitted for two purposes: give land to veterans and to sell land for the purpose of raising money to run the United States government. And it worked. We claimed and took land we did not have to pay for and then we sold it to citizens and companies, and we (the United States) took or sold off the resources on the land.



California was a state in 1849 (I think), long before Oklahoma and Arizona becames states. Anyway, all land in the United States started out as public land, in one way or another, and was disposed of through sales, homesteads, leases, mineral rights claimed, ski resorts, hunting lodges, the boy scouts, every body in Utah, and big business. You name it. Wyoming was not even a state until 1890. Homesteading still existed in Alaska until 1972. Hell, I was in the Tonkin Gulf in 1972. The reason that the United States "owns" so much land is because it is part of our power base.



The US Government saw that it was giving away it is wealth and it stopped doing that or at least slowed the give-a-way down. And if you don't like it call your congressman and/or get a new president. These are the people who make the rules. It is the law of the land. And it is not government entities that owns land, it is the United States that own the land, and different agencies management those lands under the direction of the President of the United States of America. It is not all some happy accident the way things are now.



But it is what drives our economy and it is what supports our government. Our tax dollars pay for our Army and Navy and Marines and Air Force and Coast Guard. But the dirt you are standing on and the trees in the forest and all the other rsources are what makes the United States rich. That is what pays you. It is our government that makes us powerful. If Brazil could figure out how to have a good democracy, it would be powerful too, with its vast size and huge resources. But they haven't and they aren't.



Read some American History to figure out why the United States has so much land. You will figure out why most of the modern public land starts at the Rocky Mountains and goes westward from there.



Robert Jobson

Leanwolf,
I hope it didn't come across that the 14th Amendment automatically incorperated the Bill of rights? We should all be taught in school the process of Selective Incorperation. I know it was coverd many times in my College Am History Survey Class and again in Constitutional History and Law but I feel that it needs to be taught in High School.

Wasn't Gitlow v. NY the case that opened the door to Incorperation? I know they did not use it in that case but it's decision opened the door for future cases, did it not?

Not in reply to 9.3, but I do not agree that states necessarily jump at the behest of Uncle Sam UNLESS THEY WANT TO. There was an interesting case that was related to the Brady Bill as I recall; Went to the Supreme Court, the issue being whether or not the Feds could compel states to spend their own funds to implement provisions of that act. The court said "no". IIRC there was another case, or perhaps part of the same case that also stipulated that county sheriffs were in fact THE supreme force of law in that jurisdiction and feds acted in that realm at his/her will. On another level, states are not required as an example, to comply with federal highway construction/maintenance/enforcement, but do so to maintain the flow of federal dollars. It is a choice, not a requirement.

Anyway, the war of northern aggression did nothing more than establish that the federal government could/would crap on the Constitution, and that some would stand against such behavior. Might isn't always right, but it usually prevails.