Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Conservatives -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (28050)	4/11/2014 4:47:41 PM
From: sense	1 Recommendation Recommended By SirWalterRalegh Respond to of 124677

The article doesn't delve into it that deeply... but, if you follow the thread in the logic and pair it up with the history of the politics, what it seems it ends up requiring is that the western states were/are made into virtual colonies of the eastern states, and in particular, with the control of property designed by and exercised by the eastern banking establishment... to their benefit, and not the benefit of the residents of the state. The Constitution ? Article 1, Section 8, empowers Congress: "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 In the east... if the government wants land... it has to buy it. The Constitution doesn't say much... but assumes that States will own the land... not the Feds... and the Equal Footing doctrine saying new states will have equal rights as old ones... appears clearly enough to properly address basic issues in legitimacy ? But, out west... when the government wanted land... it simply declared itself the owner... even if there were prior tenants whose ownership pre-dated the establishment of the state ? The article, in the box, notes the PreEmption Acts, and says it allows "squatters on Federal Land pre-emption rights to buy"... but, many of those "squatters" were there before the territory was made a territory... and before the state was a state ? There's a lot of variation still... the Northwest was not previously occupied so was created out of whole cloth in three steps... establishment with independence, territorial affiliation, and statehood... but, Texas was an already independent Republic longer... and all the southwestern states were previously a part of Mexico. Santa Fe was a thriving community a couple of decades before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock ? en.wikipedia.org How much of a probability is there... that any of the last hundred years in policy change will be walked back ? Could prior claims of ownership under Mexican law be re-ajudicated... or might native tribes succeed in making a claim that any fees being paid to the BLM... should have been paid to them, instead ? The legality of a lot of it... much less the legitimacy... probably wouldn't come close to passing muster by modern standards... but, isn't that the point of giving "precedent" the weight it has... to prevent future re-adjudication of prior decisions that have been imposed, whether rightly or wrongly decided ? And there's the rub... when change that is occurring begins infringing fundamental expectations that put the change in conflict with basic legitimacy. What appears it is increasingly likely... is that the error in "drift" away from fundamental Constitutional principle is GOING to be addressed... somehow. I don't expect the dispute over a cow... to bring down the budding tyranny that our government has become... but, then, nobody expected one guy lighting himself on fire in Tunisia would shake the world, putting the world on the course of the various "Spring" movements ? AS that resistance to growing tyranny occurs... there are inevitably going to be issues that will have to be reconsidered... as those people and issues that have been suppressed by tyrants are liberated... they will have to be considered... rather than ignored. And, THAT is why you see BOTH the "Freudian Error" in the "First Amendment Zone"... and the Feds gross over-reaction to any resistance to their assertion of authority ? Exactly as Obama says about Russia... it's not an invasion that shows itself being an act of strength ? The land holdings out west... are likely to be sold... to settle the national debt ? But, under the Constitution, it is supposed to be the STATES and not the Federal government who own the land ? So, they couldn't sell off the public lands to settle our debts, selling them, to say, China... without first asserting more control than they legitimately have, by law, and by right ? Would the Banksters... want to sell Nevada to China, or surrender it to the consortium of private banks that is the Federal Reserve... the way France sold Louisiana to Thomas Jefferson... or the way Virginia enabled sales of western lands to settle war debts ? Sounds pretty whacky... but, it wouldn't be an issue if... there weren't ALSO an issue with an entirely out of control government generating an impossible DESIGN to create an impossible debt ? History shows... those debts will have to be paid. But, what of "equal footing" and fundamental equality ? Why don't we give them New York instead of Nevada ?