Thursday, April 24, 2014

Texas Defends States' Rights Once Again as Washington Tries to Take Texas Land

Almost every American state west of the Mississippi River has "public land." In some states, there's more land in the public domain - federally owned - than there is in private hands. In Arizona, for example, only about 10% of the state is privately owned and therefore taxable by the state. All the rest is owned by various American Indian tribes, as their reservations, or federally owned. In Texas, there is practically no "public land" outside state and national parks. Why? The answer is found in how Texas became a state. When the Republic of Texas joined the Union in 1845 as a sovereign nation, it kept title to all its unowned land. The federal government received nothing. This was very important to Texans. Because of the prior rule of Texas by Mexico, Texans had a fundamental mistrust of distant political powers. Out of the carnage of the Alamo, Texans forged a simple rule : Texas should always be in the hands of Texans. And it has remained so to this day - the only large tracts of federal land in Texas have either been bought (military bases) or donated (Big Bend National Park). The rest is in private hands. Unlike all other states west of the Mississippi, Texas owns all but 1.1 million acres of the 171 million acres within its borders. So, the federal government owns just 2% of the land in Texas, compared to the 86% of Nevada and the 64% of Utah federally owned, for example. ~~~~~ So, when Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott sends a clear message to the federal Bureau of Land Management, which is in a dispute about land along the Oklahoma-Texas border, he can back it up with historical facts. Abbott has just issued this challenge to the BLM : "Come and take it." Abbott is referring to a potential land grab of 90,000 acres that belong to Texas landowners. The federal government is considering taking the land, which stretches 116 miles along the Red River. "I am about ready to go to the Red River and raise a 'Come and Take It' flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas," says Abbott, who wrote a letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze about the matter, expressing his concerns about the government's interest in taking the land from Texans, who have owned it for decades, some for generations. "I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations. The BLM's newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles - including the rule of law - that form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box." Abbott expanded on the subject in an interview with Breitbart : "What Barack Obama's BLM is doing is so out of bounds and so offensive that we should have quick and successful legal action if they dare attempt to tread on Texas land and take it from private property owners in this state," Abbott said. ~~~~~ What is the issue underlying the Texas-BLM dispute? It dates back to the 1803 Louisiana Purchase. The physical boundary between Texas and Oklahoma along the Red River can fluctuate, depending on the fluctuation of the riverbed itself. This has led to countless legal battles over the years between Oklahoma and Texas - so the federal government has now decided to settle the long-term dispute by seizing the land and "federalizing" it. According to Breitbart, the Texas Farm Bureau thinks the border moves south when the river shifts in that direction. But when the flow of water shifts to the north, the Texas Farm Bureau maintains that the border stays where it is supposed to be. The BLM has stepped in and wants to take over the land to settle the matter once and for all. "This is the latest line of attack by the Obama administration, where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country," Abbott told Breitbart. "And now they've crossed the line quite literally by coming into the state of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the attorney general of Texas, I am not going to allow this." The Texas situation comes on the heels of the case between the BLM and Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy. The BLM says Bundy had been illegally grazing his cattle on 600,000 acres of federal land for 20 years. Bundy disagreed, saying the land belongs to the state. The BLM had started to seize Bundy's cattle, but ranchers and cowboys massed on the grazing land in support of Bundy's grazing rights and the BLM returned the cattle to Bundy ten days ago. ~~~~~ Texas Governor Rick Perry joined his attorney general on Wednesday in blasting the federal Bureau of Land Management over concerns that it may be looking at laying claim to thousands of acres of property in northern Texas. “The federal government already owns too much land,” Perry told Fox News. “It’s not a dare, it’s a promise that we’re going to stand up for private property rights in the state of Texas,” Perry said, calling the federal government “out of control.” The federal government is currently in a preliminary review phase, and any action on the land would be years away. The BLM argues that any land in question was long ago determined to be public property anyway. “The BLM is categorically not expanding Federal holdings along the Red River,” a BLM spokeswoman said in a written statement earlier this week. The spokeswoman referred to a 140-acre plot “determined to be public land in 1986” – an apparent reference to a 1986 federal court case. Texas landowner Tommy Henderson lost 140 acres to BLM in that case, and he claims the agency is now using that decision as precedent to pursue more property. Perry claimed private property would be affected here, and questioned the BLM’s position : “Is the federal government going to come back in and say, ‘you know what, Mexico used to own the state of Texas so let’s have a conversation of where the rightful ownership of this is’?” ~~~~~ Dear readers, never under-estimate the constitutional battle between American states and the federal government. US states are ever mindful that they hold all the constitutional powers not expressly delegated to the federal government. Often, those powers are traded in a shortsighted exchange for federal money. But, in Texas, states rights lives every day. And so, don't presume that the federal BLM will win in its Texas land grab. As every American youngster knows, "the Texas Rangers always get their man." In this case, Texas will undoubtedly keep its land. And, the Lone Star State will once again prove that it is America's best and most vigilant defense against the unwanted tentacles of Washington.

10 comments:

  1. Firstly,I am absolutely ignorant as to why the federal government owns ANY land in any state that it has not paid the state for in one form or another!

    Secondly, Why does Texas always seem to be right in the question of Constitutional granted States Rights vs. the hair brain interpretation of what the Feds want to call "grey area" or simply their power play?

    And thirdly, Why does the Federal Government need to own any states property except in a joint venture with the state like Hoover Dam or State/federal parks like Yellowstone. If they want to build a military installation the feds should buy the land, long lease the land, or put the installation where it is welcomed and appreciated for the revenue gained.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Concerened CitizenApril 24, 2014 at 8:57 AM

      Your questions are quiet appropriate. But isn’t that the ever ongoing debate about State’s Rights vs Federal Rights under the frame work of the Constitution? Isn’t ALL the land within the borders of a given state owned by that state to be taxed, sold, given away, leased, or allowed to stand dormant as the state so deems by the wishes of its citizens?

      Why does the federal government need to own some 29% of all the lands within the borders of the United States?

      Delete
  2. In the discussion of States Rights you must come to the table with a firm grip on whether the United States is a massive Federal government (with all the rights) or a collection of 50 states that allocate certain duties and rights to the federal government?

    My take is that we are a collection of states bound together by common interest, freedoms, and defensive needs. What is good for one state is not necessarily good for another. And except in the area of national defense, human rights (Civil War issue), and foreign affairs, I think our federal government has grown much too large and out of control.

    As Thomas Jefferson once said … “Most bad government has grown out of too much government.”

    This United States started as a collection of individual states (established mostly on religious philosophies) bound together against the King of England and his repressive laws and taxes. The settlers wanted religious freedom and the latitude to live their lives and the rewards of their labor as THEY saw fit, not as the King saw fit.

    James Madison in his renderings in Federalist papers #39 (January 1788) said …” Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.”

    Each state is not a “federal district” under the daily control of a Federal government – at least wasn’t so intended by the Founding Fathers. The individual 50 states make up a federation which established the Federal Government (ie: the common level of government for the entire federation of states).

    I believe that the state government of Texas (as authorized by being elected officials) is right on its stance about States’ Rights and their land contained within the state of Texas boundaries.

    To paraphrase ( with NO intended religious disrespect) … Give to Texas that which is Texas and that which is another states give to them theirs.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It remains highly unlikely that the largess of the federal government will return to the role that was originally intended. Ayn Rand once noted that it took over 100 years for the federal government to get as large as it has, and reversing the trend would also take as long a time. However, conservatives must argue the necessity of reducing the size and scope of the federal government and restoring power back to the states. Obviously, the first goal of conservatives is to continue to elect candidates that have the power to stop the trend of an ever-increasing federal government. The 2010 election cycle was a start, but many more strong state-rights advocates are needed to effect real change. Additionally, there is a new movement that would give states the ability to over-ride federal laws if a certain majority signed on. Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming) offered a constitutional amendment that would do just that. This would also provide a fair check-and-balance with a federal government that often claims authority where it constitutionally should have none.

    And some of the acquisition by the Federal Government of powers is due simply to the lack of response by state governments to their citizens.

    This obviously is not the case in Texas. the Texas state government performs a real service to it's citizens ... no matter what other states or the federal Government thinks. Cheers to Texas for getting it right most of the time

    ReplyDelete
  4. Texas Gov. Rick Perry says his state's Attorney General Greg Abbott wasn't making a dare against the federal government over a land rights dispute; it was a promise.

    "He is on the right side of this issue, not just for the people of the State of Texas, he's on the right side of this issue from the private property rights standpoint," Perry said Wednesday on Fox News Channel's

    Abbott wrote a letter to Bureau of Land Management Director Neil Kornze about his concerns that the agency is trying to take 90,000 acres of land along the Red River from private citizens who have owned it for years. "At a minimum they are overreaching, trying to grab land that belongs to Texans. Or worse, they are violating due process rights by just claiming that this land suddenly belongs to the federal government," Abbott said Wednesday on Fox News Channel's

    "I have a problem with the federal government putting citizens in the position of having to feel like they have to use force to deal with their own government," Perry responded. "That's the bigger issue."

    This situation in Texas is just another example of the Obama administration acting as through there is NO Constitution and they (administration) is free to do just what they want. Someone desperately needs to firmly remind the Obama Administration that they have sworn to UPHOLD the Constitution and not ignore or shred it as they see fit. This could become a very big issue in this mid-term election and the presidential election of 2016.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ever wonder why the federal government so obsessed with grabbing more land? After all, the federal government already owns more than 40 percent of the land in 9 different U.S. states. Why are federal bureaucrats so determined to grab even more? Well, the truth is that this all becomes much clearer once you understand that there is a very twisted philosophy behind what they are doing. It is commonly known as “Agenda 21″, although many names and labels are used for this particular philosophy. Basically, those that hold to this form of radical environmentalism believe that humanity is utterly destroying the planet, and therefore the goal should be to create a world where literally everything that we do is tightly monitored and controlled by control freak bureaucrats in the name of “sustainable development”. In their vision of the future, the human population will be greatly reduced and human activity will be limited to strictly regulated urban areas and travel corridors. The rest of the planet will be left to nature. To achieve this goal, a massive transfer of land from private landowners to the federal government will be necessary.

    So the conflict between Nevada & Texas and the BLM is really just the tip of the iceberg. The reality is that the BLM has their eyes on much bigger prizes.

    For your information as I mentioned above, the feds already own more than 40 percent of the land in these 9 U.S. states…

    Nevada: 84.5 percent
    Alaska: 69.1 percent
    Utah: 57.4 percent
    Oregon: 53.1 percent
    Idaho: 50.2 percent
    Arizona: 48.1 percent
    California: 45.3 percent
    Wyoming: 42.4 percent
    New Mexico: 41.8 percent

    ReplyDelete
  6. Replies
    1. Texas is but 1/50th of the problem here – and the problem is not land or the BLM or maybe not even the creeping of domestic Socialism that the Obama Administration has as its only real agenda.

      The problem lies with the mainstream American who is slow sinking into a life acceptance of the way things are now and not the way things should be. We have more people on some sort of governmental assistance (excluding Social Security) than are working for private enterprises. The American working class is disappearing and the entitlement class is on the horizon. We are not even my generation of Americans, let alone my Grandparents that survived the Great Depression and came out the other end stronger for it. Blocks of voters get more interested in the Internet than they do tax reform or Homeland security, or what is being taught in schools, etc.

      We are in real trouble folks.

      Delete
  7. "hard to see the future is. Always in motion, it is." - Yoda

    ReplyDelete
  8. The existence of local liberties is one of the most significant differences between America and France, according to de Tocqueville in his masterpiece “Democracy in America”. Tocqueville attributes the failure of the French Revolution mainly to the overwhelming administrative centralization which took away the citizens' ability to exercise their freedom, making them lose a taste for it and forget how to exercise it.

    That is exactly what is happening in America today. It is not solely about entitlement payments. It is about exercising our individual rights along with those who share the same rights and desires.

    The BLM most recent threats of massive land grabs and the Obama’s administration complete disregard for the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the Constitution are only 2 of the validations of the “local liberties” that are being victimized by Obama’s Administrative State centralization.

    Take care of the LITTLE PROBLEMS and the big problems will vanish.

    ReplyDelete