On the pardoning of the Hammond family by Donald Trump

If I am understanding this correctly, we have here splendid evidence of the current administration, Donald Trump’s, commitment to originalist and libertarian values for the USA. This, again to the extent that I understand this story, is stunningly good.

Those familiar with this particular story, please post relevant links in the comments.

I did follow it closely at the time, but I suspect that this is more meaningful to Americans who also followed a number of other FBI events where they appeared to breach constitutional rights and kill people. Ruby Ridge, and the David Koresh compound if memory serves me at all well.

 

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

8 Replies to “On the pardoning of the Hammond family by Donald Trump”

  1. Your take is the same as mine, this is a signal to the left that he (Trump) is intent on returning the US to a free nation.

    One of the things not mentioned (at least not that I remember) is how the Federal Ownership of so much of the States is Unconstitutional, (see: https://i2i.org/what-does-the-constitution-say-about-federal-land-ownership/ ). Once a state is formed all land that is not used for the enumerated purposes (Post Offices, Court Houses, Military Bases) is to be turned over to the State. The acquisition of other lands inside a state require the permission of the State Governments. A check of the percentage of the states owned by the Federal Government (see: https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_land_ownership_by_state ) shows that in many of the western states an incredibly large percentage of the states is owned by the Federal Government.

    The question that needs to be answered is how much of that land was acquired with the permission of the State Government and how much was just acquired by various means and the State told to shut up? I am willing to bet that the most of that land was acquired after we went to the direct election of the Senators which meant there was no one to watch out for the states rights. In my opinion the purpose of the 17th Amendment was to remove any State Control over members of Congress and that this was done so the left could chip away at States Rights. They removed the teaching of civics (The US Constitution) from the high schools so they could start removing rights from the individuals.

    The left plays a long game and with the election of Obama thought they had reached the end game, if Hillary had been elected they would have been right. But Donald Trump stepped up and threw their plans in the trash can by winning the Presidency. His Judicial appointments are (in the long run) going to be what saves this nation from the socialist trap that the rest of Western Civilization has fallen into. The Judges he has been appointing have been people who think that Judges enforce the laws and use the original intent of the laws and the Constitution to guide their actions. FYI originalist Judges reversing laws that Judges illegally wrote is not Judaical activism it is Judges doing the job they were appointed to. As an example there is nothing in the Federal Constitution that allows the Federal Government to have a say in 1: Abortion, 2: Same Sex Marriage, 3: The education of children. Those are the illegal actions that spring to mind without research, there are many others including but not limited to those who use the “Promote the General Welfare” phrase to justify their actions. The Founders stated that that phrase was not to be used as justification for any specific action.

    • Ownership of Federal Land: Answers Suggested by the Bundy Standoff
      You are here:

      The Bundy stand-off in Nevada has induced several people to ask me about the extent to which the federal government can own land, at least under the Constitution’s intended meaning. As it happens, in 2005 I studied the issue in depth, and published the following article: Federal Land Retention and the Constitution’s Property Clause: The Original Understanding, 76 U. Colo. L. Rev. 327 (2005).

      In a nutshell, here’s what I found:

      (1) Most commentators on the issue have staked out one of two polar positions. One position, which is current U.S. Supreme Court doctrine, is that the federal government may acquire and own any land it wishes for any governmental purpose, not just for its enumerated powers. The other polar position is that the federal government may own land only for the purposes enumerated in the Enclave Clause (the national capital and “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”) and that the “equal footing doctrine” requires that all other federal land within a prospective state be handed over the state government upon statehood.

      (2) In fact, both polar positions are false—and very clearly so. This shines through when you study the Constitution’s text, meaning, and background. By “background,” I mean its drafting history, the ratification debates, 18th century law, and so forth. However the constitutional text alone should be sufficient to cast both polar claims into doubt. The text of the Constitution grants the federal government no plenary power to hold land, only to dispose. A general power to hold is just not in there. The second polar position is also contradicted by the text: The equal footing doctrine is not there either. (It was a feature of certain pre-constitutional documents, such as the Northwest Ordinance.)

      (3) The Constitution grants the federal government authority to acquire real estate and other property to carry out any enumerated purpose, either in the exercise of a core power (such as “maintain a Navy”) or through the implied powers memorialized in the Necessary and Proper Clause. Thus, Congress may acquire land to build “post Roads” (limited access highways), house tax collectors, and build lighthouses under the Commerce Power.

      (4) Further, the Constitution’s Treaty Power authorizes the federal government to acquire territory.

      (5) However, land acquired—through, for example, the Treaty Power—may be held only for enumerated purposes. Land not needed for such purposes must be disposed of within a reasonable time. The federal government should have disposed of BLM grazing land long ago.

      (6) In fact, for the federal government to own a large share of American real estate (currently about 28 percent) is directly contrary to certain values the Constitution was designed to further.

      (7) “Disposal” does not require handing real estate over to state government. On the contrary, in many situations doing so would conflict with federal officials’ duties of trust. In each instance, disposal should be effectuated so as to further the general welfare. In the case of some parcels, it may mean transferring to state government. But it may also require selling to the highest bidder, or, in the case of environmentally sensitive lands, transferring to perpetual environmental trusts, as is commonly done in England.

      (8) The Enclave Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17) is really more about governmental jurisdiction than ownership. The federal government can have an enclave in which much of the territory is titled to private parties—as is true of Washington, D.C. It’s just that in an enclave, federal rather than statejurisdiction is supreme. Enclaves may be held only for enumerated purposes (as signaled by the use of the 18th century legal term “needful”). State consent to creation of an enclave is required, and consent can be conditional upon the federal government honoring particular terms.

      (9) The Enclave Clause was sold to the ratifying public on the basis that enclaves would be relatively small. Holding massive tracts of undeveloped land (such as in Yosemite National Park, nearly 750,000 acres) as enclaves is not what the Founders had in mind.

      (10) This is signaled by the Constitution’s use of the word “Building.” In the 18th century, the term did not have to mean an enclosed space, but it did have to refer to a fabricated construction of some kind, since as a dockyard or (in modern terms) an airport runway.

      (11) But not every parcel of federal land need be an enclave: In fact, most are not and should not be. Non-enclave land owned by the federal government is held under the Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2), and should be held only for enumerated purposes. Grazing, for example, is not an enumerated purpose.

      (12) Non-enclave federal property within states is subject to state law. Contrary to current Supreme Court doctrine, when the federal government owns non-enclave land, the federal government usually should be treated like any other landowner, so long as the state respects the discharge of legitimate federal functions.

      https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/04/25/ownership-of-federal-land-answers-suggested-by-the-bundy-standoff/

    • TL;DR: tortoises don’t eat vegetation; they eat dung. The more large grazers, the more tortoises. As commercial grazing got restricted (and wasn’t replaced by the once-much-larger herds of native grazers), tortoise population shrank because they were starving to death. Rinse and repeat until they’re “endangered”.

      As to the Bundy Ranch debacle, there’s quite a bit about it on
      https://4thst8.wordpress.com/
      (blog of a NV journalist)

      Left out of most accounts is that a “solar energy” company had a sweetheart deal that gave them exclusive access to a large chunk of Bundy’s grazing lease (and solar farms are scorched-earth destructive to the desert habitat); I forget the details but that was why suddenly Bundy was a priority target.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*