-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Far Right
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
Some of these points were settled 150 plus years ago. Such as requiring property ownership to vote and the Federal land ownership.
There are plenty of people today that hold to these positions. Just last winter we had a group of militia members take over a national park in Oregon because they felt the federal government should not own land and deny them grazing rights.
poncho
Well-Known Member
The ongoing Cliven Bundy situation in Nevada has raised awareness of the hazards of federal land management.
In Nevada, the federal government owns a stunning 81 percent of the land. On the land they manage, the feds are threatening to evict tenants who refuse to pay outrageous fees. Bundy is the last of a dying breed, the only holdout who hasn’t been driven off land in Clark County in recent years, land his family has utilized and improved for nearly a century.
This behavior raises and important question: Is this how the Founding Fathers intended for the federal government to manage land when they created the Constitution? A 2005 University of Colorado Law Review article by Robert G. Natelson of the Independence Institute titled “Federal Land Retention and the Constitution’s Property Clause: The Original Understanding” attempts to answer that question by carefully examining the historical record against conservative and liberal interpretations of the Property Clause of the Constitution.
< snip >
The Constitution therefore allows the federal government to possess land in three forms: territories, enclaves and other property. Territories referred to land that was owned by the federal government but had not been formally made into states. Enclaves referred to land within a state that was owned by the federal government for essential purposes such as ‘Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards.’ Other property refers to land holdings for enumerated purposes, and gives the federal government limited discretion to possess land.
However, the Constitution does not authorize permanent land-grabs by the federal government. It authorizes Congress to make “all needful Rules and Regulations” pertaining to land. ‘Needful’ was a word carefully chosen to indicate that the regulatory power only expanded to powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The feds were expected to sell off non-essential land and distribute the subsequent monies in ways that benefited the public good such as paying off the debt or tax cuts.
The current regime of federal land management is blatantly unconstitutional. The founding fathers never intended to create a Republic where the feds could impose draconian fees on peaceful individuals and force them from the land. As a matter of fact, that is exactly the arrangement that the Constitution was written to prevent, as it clearly violates the principles of fiduciary government, sympathy and independence.
When the historical record is examined, it makes it abundantly clear that the Republic has gone awry since the days of the founders. Systematic attacks on the property rights of Americans have been justified through deliberate misreadings of the Constitution. This will only be changed when the public wakes up, re-discovers their rights and takes action against unjust federal power. Natelson’s article can provide a kick start toward creating a proper understanding of the Constitution amongst the American people.
Continue . . . http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/05/07/federal-land-ownership-is-it-constitutional/
In Nevada, the federal government owns a stunning 81 percent of the land. On the land they manage, the feds are threatening to evict tenants who refuse to pay outrageous fees. Bundy is the last of a dying breed, the only holdout who hasn’t been driven off land in Clark County in recent years, land his family has utilized and improved for nearly a century.
This behavior raises and important question: Is this how the Founding Fathers intended for the federal government to manage land when they created the Constitution? A 2005 University of Colorado Law Review article by Robert G. Natelson of the Independence Institute titled “Federal Land Retention and the Constitution’s Property Clause: The Original Understanding” attempts to answer that question by carefully examining the historical record against conservative and liberal interpretations of the Property Clause of the Constitution.
< snip >
The Constitution therefore allows the federal government to possess land in three forms: territories, enclaves and other property. Territories referred to land that was owned by the federal government but had not been formally made into states. Enclaves referred to land within a state that was owned by the federal government for essential purposes such as ‘Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards.’ Other property refers to land holdings for enumerated purposes, and gives the federal government limited discretion to possess land.
However, the Constitution does not authorize permanent land-grabs by the federal government. It authorizes Congress to make “all needful Rules and Regulations” pertaining to land. ‘Needful’ was a word carefully chosen to indicate that the regulatory power only expanded to powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The feds were expected to sell off non-essential land and distribute the subsequent monies in ways that benefited the public good such as paying off the debt or tax cuts.
The current regime of federal land management is blatantly unconstitutional. The founding fathers never intended to create a Republic where the feds could impose draconian fees on peaceful individuals and force them from the land. As a matter of fact, that is exactly the arrangement that the Constitution was written to prevent, as it clearly violates the principles of fiduciary government, sympathy and independence.
When the historical record is examined, it makes it abundantly clear that the Republic has gone awry since the days of the founders. Systematic attacks on the property rights of Americans have been justified through deliberate misreadings of the Constitution. This will only be changed when the public wakes up, re-discovers their rights and takes action against unjust federal power. Natelson’s article can provide a kick start toward creating a proper understanding of the Constitution amongst the American people.
Continue . . . http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/05/07/federal-land-ownership-is-it-constitutional/
There are lots of people, not just a few, who hold to several of those positions who are not part of any militia.
I'm a Baptist, a Marine veteran, a member of the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the NRA, but no political party.
To some, that makes me a wild eyed maniac on the far right and a definite danger to society. Someone to be watched. I definitely cling to my Bible and cherish the 2nd Amendment and agree with the quote in my signature. A person to be feared, accoding to the far left Obama administration. The next generation of home grown terrorists.
Not so bad really. I like hanging out here on the "far right".
To some, that makes me a wild eyed maniac on the far right and a definite danger to society. Someone to be watched. I definitely cling to my Bible and cherish the 2nd Amendment and agree with the quote in my signature. A person to be feared, accoding to the far left Obama administration. The next generation of home grown terrorists.
Not so bad really. I like hanging out here on the "far right".
evenifigoalone
Well-Known Member
I don't know what my ideology is considered, I've heard so many conflict views. Some have said libertarianism is far right (mostly leftists I think). More generally it seems to be categorized as center right. It seems to depend on how one defines the left/right spectrum.
To complicate it further some claim "left wing libertarianism" exists, and that confuses me on a few levels.
To complicate it further some claim "left wing libertarianism" exists, and that confuses me on a few levels.
Last edited:
Did someone say if you are far right you are in a militia?
Libertarianism is not on the left-right spectrum. It is disengagement from those issues into a very limited government role.
IMHO - A libertarian is socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
I like to use the issue of abortion as an example:
A conservative will say there should be no abortions for any reason
A liberal will say any abortion for any reason and the goverment should pay for it.
A libertarian will say they might be personally against abortion - but its a women's choice - but if she does decide to do so - the Government should NOT pay for it.
and I agree with BB on this. The Libertarians prefer the Box spectrum. If fact they have a short quiz. Its ok for a quick view- but it would better to have a much more detailed test.
Last edited:
That's odd. I'm a Libertarian and that is not what I will say.
