Bill Gates, in case you had not yet figured out the character in question, is pushing not just for mandatory vaccination for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19), but also for “digital certificates” that prove vaccination status.
This is the only way people will be allowed to return to work, assuming Gates gets his way.
But have people forgotten that Gates has spent billions of dollars over the years vaccinating children for other things, all the while inflicting them with permanent injury and even death?
A single vaccine campaign that Gates launched in India for polio ended up causing “non-polio” acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP), or permanent paralyzation, in nearly half a million children between the years of 2000 and 2017.
After the Indian government demanded that Gates and his cronies leave India following this epidemic of permanent injury, rates of NPAFP dropped precipitously.
But this has not stopped Gates from inflicting similar damage elsewhere, with injury and death tolls that more than likely are in the tens of millions, at this point.
The world has been turned upside down with draconian government orders to “flatten the curve” with what is called Social Distancing. Schools have been closed for months, businesses have been involuntarily shut down and travel restrictions have idled 90 percent of the airlines. The net result is over 36 million American’s are unemployed and the number is rising.
Now we learn the whole social distancing lockdown that has paralyzed the nation comes from a very surprising source. A May 2nd article in the Albuquerque Journal reveals social distancing hysteria is NOT based on scientific evidence or clinical medical trials for that matter. (Emphasis added)
How would you feel if you learned your normal way of life had been completely upended based on a computer model created by a 15 year old Albuquerque New Mexico High School student named Laura Glass?
Glass, along with her Dad Robert (a government scientist then working at Sandia National
Laboratories) cooked up a home brew computer model for a science and engineering fair in May, 2006. Robert Glass had been working on computer models for the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center at Sandia and often worked from home.
Part of his work entailed computer models showing how people come into contact with each other during everyday life. Laura Glass used that data to project how high school students could possibly transmit infectious diseases. Her “model” suggested high school students could easily infect huge swaths of a population so putting a stop to those contacts would hypothetically “save lives.”
Miss Glass appeared to have no understanding of the benefits of herd immunity. She didn’t seem to know that most healthy people with strong immune systems naturally fight off viruses and build up antibodies against future infections. According to a variety of medical experts herd immunity should be the primary tool to fight off viral infections and only the sick and elderly should be quarantined. But I digress . . .
A call from Homeland Security
Her efforts earned her third place in the Medicine and Health category of the science fair.
That would probably have been the end of it but for Robert Glass’s government connections. While High School sophomore Laura Glass was creating her contagion computer model the George Bush administration was feverishly working on bio-terrorism countermeasures.
Somehow news of Laura Glass’s high school science project wound up in the hands of US Department of Homeland Security. You know those skilled airport security professionals highly trained in the art of patting down wheelchair bound grandmas and creepily fondling their victims’ genitals.
Glass received a call from Homeland Security requesting a brief for Secretary Michael Chertoff. The Bush White House was holding a cabinet level counter bio-terrorism briefing and no idea was too loony to consider. Glass’ briefing suggested that whole segments of society should be shut down based on his daughter’s computer model.
The idea of locking down huge swaths of the nation in the event of a virus outbreak met with considerable push back. But ultimately the Centers for Disease Control made social distancing official policy in February 2007. They call it Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPI) and this is the first time it’s been implemented but will definitely not be the last.
So shutting down the entire nation based on flawed computer models is now official government policy. Robert Glass is now retired and enjoying a generous government pension. He was interviewed for the article by phone while relaxing in his second home in northern Idaho.
Mr. Glass waxed philosophical about the carnage wrought by his and his daughter’s lock down computer model. “Anything new is difficult,” he said. “You have to train people to do this well, without freaking out and calling each other names. . .”
That’s easy to say when you’re pulling down a fat government pension every month. Enjoy a comprehensive health care package, all paid for by the little people freaking out and calling each other names as they struggle to feed their families. Odds are this lockdown is just the beginning of many more power grabs by our increasingly totalitarian overlords – IF we let them.
Contact tracing which is nothing more than constant real time monitoring of citizens every move by government stooges is being implemented right now. Untested, unproven, possibly deadly vaccines are being “warp-speeded” into production. President Trump has assured the nation that he will authorize the military to distribute the vaccine across the land quickly once it becomes available.
Constitutional Lawyer and Jeffrey Epstein guest (who assures us he kept his underwear on during massages on Lolita Island,) Alan Dershowitz, says that the state has full authority to vaccinate any person it deems necessary. This comes from a video interview by Jason Goodman released May 16th on Youtube.
Our inalienable rights of freedom and liberty are under assault by a totalitarian state like never before. The words of Thomas Jefferson come to mind.
When Government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
Mr. Jefferson also said:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
The political class has a choice to make. Either honor the oath they all took to uphold the Constitutional rights of the people or face the consequences. I pray they make the right choice for all our sakes.
* * *
Social Distancing born in ABQ teen’s science project, Albuquerque Journal May 2nd, 2020
Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza, Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense strategy, Practice and Science. Vol. 4, Number 4 2006
The 2006 Origins Of The “Lockdown” Idea, Jeffrey Tucker via The American Institute for Economic Research May, 18, 2020
As the global health emergency of the coronavirus pandemic begins to wane, the fallout from the lockdowns continues to mount. Each day we see more reports of record unemployment, businesses struggling to survive and critical food supply chain infrastructure shutting down.
At the same time, we see business owners and anyone else who violates the lockdown orders being threatened with jail while actual criminals convicted of serious and violent crimes are released back into the communities.
We are beginning to see that the ‘cure’ is not only worse than the disease, it will have longstanding repercussions as the severity of the crisis appears to have been greatly exaggerated.
In this report, Spiro is joined by multiple Sheriffs from across the country who clearly state their position. Public safety and people’s constitutional rights are their number one priority.
These Sheriffs are true patriots who not only serve the people in their communities by upholding their sworn oaths, they serve as a great reminder of how this country and the rule of law is meant to be upheld, as many state Governors blatantly disregard the Constitution and impose broad and wide-ranging authoritarian lockdowns which many would argue are causing far more damage than the virus itself.
As a condition for accepting the Constitution, the American people demanded the enactment of the Bill of Rights immediately after ratification of the Constitution. They had been assured that the Constitution was calling into existence a national government whose powers were limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. But that did not satisfy them. They wanted a Bill of Rights to make it clear that the federal government was prohibited from doing the things that are listed in the Bill of Rights. There are several important things to notice about the Bill of Rights:
First, the Bill of Rights, does not give people rights. Our ancestors understood that rights come from nature and God, not from government. People’s rights preexist government. (Emphasis added)
Second, the Bill of Rights consists of prohibitions and restrictions on the federal government. (Emphasis added) Why is that important? Because our ancestors knew that the federal power would inevitably attract people to public office who would do the types of things that were being restricted. They would criminalize speech, especially speech that was critical of federal officials. They would ban protests against government. They would force people to subscribe to a certain religion. They would seize people’s guns. They would punish any malefactor by simply having civil or military agents take people into custody, incarcerate them, torture them, or execute them, all without trial by jury and due process of law. The Bill of Rights was to serve as a reminder that federal officials had no legitimate power to do any of these things.
Third, the Bill of Rights contains no emergency or crisis exception. (Emphasis added) That’s because our ancestors knew that historically crises and emergencies were the time-honored way by which people lost their liberties at the hands of their own government. During such times, people become afraid and their natural tendency is to look to the government to keep them safe and secure. They forget that the biggest threat to their liberty is their very own government, as reflected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Thus, they eagerly trade away their liberty for “security.” Later, when the crisis or emergency has passed, they discover that the government is unwilling to give up the power it has acquired over them.
Greg Anderson, a Special Forces veteran and Port of Seattle Police Officer has been placed on paid administrative leave after refusing to delete a viral video reminding police officers that they don’t have unlimited powers, despite any unconstitutional orders from those higher in the chain of command. He warned other officers about violating citizens’ Constitutional rights because it undermines public trust. He said that police derive their power from the people. He implored officers to stand up for what is right, even if it costs them their jobs. He said that if we all stand together, it will be a non-issue because the people and law enforcement will be united.While this officer fights for his career, Washington State Governor Jay Inlslee is releasing violent felons who have gone on to commit new crimes
A Port of Seattle Police Officer has been placed on administrative leave after refusing to delete a viral video reminding police officers that they don’t have unlimited powers.
“I have seen officers around the country enforcing tyrannical orders; I was hoping it was a minority of officers, anymore, I am not so sure,” said Officer Greg Anderson, a Special Forces veteran.
Anderson took to Instagram on Tuesday to explain that he will likely be fired for refusing to remove the video, as it is considered insubordination.
And so it begins with the first Congressional effort to codify what may be the first of many unconstitutional legislative attempts to create a totalitarian One World Government under the guise of attacking the coronavirus COVID 19.
Some weeks ago the UN’s World Health Organization recommended house to house searches for family members infected with COVID 19 and the removal of those infected into a mandatory quarantine. The American reaction was mostly ‘it could never happen here’ but that has not stopped House Democrats from introducing HR 6666 also known as the TRACE (Testing, Reaching and Contacting Everyone) Act .
Introduced by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill) on May 1, the TRACE Act would establish a nation wide contact and quarantine program, has been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee for a yet to be scheduled hearing before the Health Subcommittee.
HR 6666 grants $100 billion to the CDC (Center for Disease Control) to establish a local mobile health unit in each community to conduct a diagnostic door to door COVID 19 testing program. With the ACLU nowhere in sight, there is no doubt of HR 6666’s unconstitutionality as the Act states that such testing will take place “at individuals’ residences.”
The bill goes on to establish the effort to ‘trace and monitor the contacts of infected individuals and to support the quarantine of such individuals.’
In other words, TRACE not only allows a massive dragnet type effort to seek and find those infected in what may amount to enforced home invasions but to force compliance by requiring the names of all individuals an infected person has had contact with – all of which raises the constitutionality of the entire CV effort with the ultimate goal being mandatory worldwide vaccinations.
HR 6666 is unconstitutional as it violates the Fourth Amendment which guarantees every American citizen the right to be secure in their own home.
Dr. Rashid Buttar has said that Ventura, California will be the first test location to initiate the TRACE program.
In addition, Microsoft was recently granted Patent #060606 for a “crypto currency system using human body activity data.” In other words, Gates, a maniacal control freak, now owns the patent to conduct global surveillance via a quantum tatoo inserted as a chip into the human body. Gates has been advocating for digital surveillance system for some time.
Reminiscing about how British children were evacuated to the countryside during the WW II bombing of London, The Queen says it all:
”…evacuated from their homes and sent away for their own safety. Today, once again, many will feel a painful separation from their loved ones but now, as then, we know, deep down, it is the right thing to do.”
Presumably the royal family will line up for public inspection to allow its children to be tested and quarantined, ‘away from home’ if necessary. Belated kudos to Harry and Meghan for making their break to freedom – they got out just in time.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and President of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member in the US House of Representatives in Washington, DC. Renee is also a student of the Quantum Field. She may be reached at email@example.com.
Featured image is from rouzer.house.gov
The original source of this article is Global Research
Two local sheriffs say they won’t enforce the Pennsylvania governor’s COVID-19 mitigation measures. Sheriff John Zechman of Snyder County and Ernie Ritter of Union County say they won’t help the governor turn business owners into criminals.
Cumberland County Sheriff Ronny Anderson made a popular Facebook post that assured citizens that the Sheriff office would not enforce any order that violates the Constitution.
Sheriff Anderson said in part:
Our office will stand with the citizens in defense of all our Constitutional Rights! I have no intentions of turning local business owners into criminals.
As far as I can tell, this is not a top-down single-leader movement. It’s a state by state proposition. That would be a good thing. Groups in each state should run their own operations.
Here is a quote from American Revolution 2.0:
“Governor Executive Orders violate the United States Constitution and negate the responsibility of individual citizens for their ‘Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness’. The precedent set by removing these Constitutional Rights is staggering and to date unheard of.”
Of course, agencies like the CDC and the World Health Organization appoint themselves the “new global governance.” Their job is painting as bleak a picture as possible, making it seem that, without their top-down control, the population of Earth would be decimated.
This is always the way of tyrants. How else can they justify their criminal actions?
The endless invention of enemies is a strategy as old as the hills.
Peace and prosperity are stakes through the hearts of vampires.
For the CDC and WHO and Bill Gates, the idea that someone somewhere might be living free and healthy on his own accord…THAT to them is the virus which must be conquered.
To accomplish this victory, they enlist the help of public and private meddlers and gossipers and snitches and censors, whose only thrill in life is finding “rule-breakers.” Therefore, the more rules the better.
The culture of society is becoming more infantile every day—wash your hands, wash them again, don’t touch your face, stay indoors, wear a mask, wear gloves, stand six feet apart, wait in line, don’t breathe on your neighbor, be polite, watch TV for marching orders—but those people who still understand what freedom means are under no obligation to cater to that “culture.”
Lowest common denominator is not a principle contained in the Constitution. In fact, wherever the principle is found, it’s a cover for dictatorship. For example, the ubiquitous “we’re all in this together” is a massage for the brainless.
Translation: “You’re all one giant cheese glob, and we, the World Health Organization, with Bill Gates money, are pressing the two pieces of toast together and making the sandwich.”
State by state, the protests against unconstitutional insanity are scheduled for May 1.
OPEN THE STATES. GO BACK TO WORK. TURN ON THE ECONOMY.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” — Amendment 1, United States Constitution
Raleigh, NC — The state of North Carolina is one of the least affected states in the country with regard to the current COVID-19 outbreak. With just over 5,000 confirmed cases and only 108 deaths related to the virus, many citizens are growing wary of the state’s lockdown order and are demanding things go back to normal.
On Tuesday, more than 100 protesters took the the city streets of Raleigh, North Carolina to voice their desire to reopen the the state’s economy. They were quickly met with police action but the well-organized protesters stood their ground through multiple threats.
According to the News and Observer, the protest was organized by ReopenNC, a private Facebook group organized last week that wants people to make their own stay-at-home decisions to avoid exposure to COVID-19 as the worldwide pandemic continues. The group surpassed 28,000 members on Tuesday afternoon.
When the protest began, the Raleigh police department put out a tweet that is sure to go down in history books as they declared the Constitutional right to peaceably assemble, otherwise known as the First Amendment — “non-essential.”
During the protest, the police department filmed their officers ordering the crowd to disperse as their commands fell on deaf ears.
“You are in violation of the executive order,” said a police captain. “You are posing a risk to public health. If you do not disperse, you will be taken and processed at Wake County jail.”
Every 15 minutes during the protest, roughly 50 cars honked their horns in unison.
“You should be ashamed of yourself,” said one protester.
“Are you goons of Cooper or servants of the people?” said another, in reference to governor Roy Cooper’s executive order.
“We are in violation of Comrade Cooper’s order,” said Leonard Harrison of Mebane. “If I get locked up today, I’m OK with that. As North Carolinians, we need to get back to work.”
After multiple threats of arrest and police force, most of the protesters finally began to disperse — only under duress.
One person did get locked up, however, and that was Monica Faith Ussery, 51, of Holly Springs. She was charged with violating the executive order to stay at home.
“I have a right to peacefully assemble,” she said as officers led her away, her hands bound with a zip tie. “God bless America.”
After the protest on Tuesday, the Raleigh police posted video of it online.
They were met with massive backlash. Nevertheless, Raleigh police and the governor’s office doubled down on their decision.
“Some people want to completely obliterate these restrictions,” Governor Cooper said . “It would be a catastrophe. The numbers are very clear that the interventions that we’ve entered into — social gatherings, limitations on bars and restaurants, the stay at home order — those kinds of things are working.”
As the Observer reports, in a statement Tuesday night, the Raleigh Police Department stood by its tweet as well as officers’ obligation to enforce the stay-at-home order during “these unprecedented times and unusual circumstances.” They said there’s no exemption spelled out in state and Wake County stay-at-home orders for protesting like there is for other “essential” activities.”
“But more important is the health and wellness of all who live in our community, including the officers who must engage in circumstances such as these,” the statement said. “We simply want everyone to be safe during this very serious public health crisis.”
The protest was not in vain. According to reports, it sparked a conversation among officials on how to proceed with possible future protests as well as reopening the economy.
In an email to The News & Observer, Raleigh police said they are “having ongoing conversations with Wake County officials and the Wake County District Attorney’s Office on the scope and enforcement” of both the local stay-at-home order and the statewide order.
The Raleigh Police Department added in its statement:
The Wake County District Attorney is the individual who decides charging language for failure to adhere to the Governor’s Orders and the Wake County Proclamation, when charging is appropriate, and what charges individuals may face for violating either one of these orders.
As more people grow tired of watching their life savings diminish and their local economies turn to dust, rest assured that more protests like this one are inevitable. Instead of brute force and fear, it may be time to rethink the solution to COVID-19.
No one here is discounting the severity of the coronavirus. However, multiple experts have stated that social distancing and lockdowns may be a temporary fix and may only be serving to suppress the virus.
“I think they did an amazing job of knocking the virus down,” said Michael T. Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, in regard to China’s lockdown. “But I don’t know if it’s sustainable. What have the Chinese really accomplished? Have they really contained the virus? Or have they just suppressed it?”
Doom is a mathematical certainty of this prolonged economic scenario in which we currently find ourselves. There is fight and there is flight when it comes to all situations, especially COVID-19. Running from it in flight mode is sending us back to food lines and doing possible irreversible damage to America’s economy. I don’t know what the fight mode looks like yet, but it’s high time we start discussing it.
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Minds.
In this ongoing story surrounding cattle rancher Cliven Bundy, there are a series of questions mainstream media has ignored. For instance, in the 20 years Bundy hasn’t been paying his fees, why hasn’t he been taken to court? Why this year spend nearly $1,000,000 of taxpayer money to round up 400 cattle that ultimately have to be returned? Why didn’t the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) just place a lien on the cattle rather than attempting to take them by force and then auction them off?
The Bureau of Land Management has suffered a huge black eye this week because of their response to the Bundy situation. Perhaps though, there is a reason the BLM chose force over the courts.
In an exclusive interview with Benswann.com, Montana cattle rancher Todd Devlin says the BLM is now considering new ways of dealing with the Cliven Bundy situation. Devlin is not just a Montana cattle rancher but is also a County Commissioner in Prairie County, Montana and he has worked with the Department of Interior, having taught workshops for the agency in the past. On Monday, Devlin reached out to his contacts in the Department of the Interior to find out why the Bureau of Land Management has refused to work with Bundy rather than simply attempting to run over him.
Among the questions Devlin asked of the BLM: “Is it possible that this guy (Cliven Bundy) has prescriptive rights?”
The response from top officials at the BLM: “We are worried that he might and he might use that defense.”
So what exactly are prescriptive rights?
Prescriptive right to property is an easement that gives someone the right to use land owned by someone else for a particular purpose. An example is using a path through Party A’s land to get to your land; in this case a prescriptive easement is allowed which gives the user the right to get to his land through A’s property.
In most states, if a trespass or use of land occurs regularly for at least 5 years without the “owner” of the land taking legal action, prescriptive rights come into play. Because Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees to the BLM in 1993 but continued to use the land for over 20 years, it is possible he now has prescriptive rights to the land. That might explain why the BLM has not taken this issue to court and never bothered to file a lien against the cattle.
Granted, there have been court actions over the years. In 1998 a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against Bundy, ordering him to remove his cattle from the federal lands. He lost an appeal to the San Francisco 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Yet, the “trespass cattle” remained on the BLM land. In fact, it took until August of 2013 for a court order to be issued saying Bundy had 45 days to remove his cattle from federal land. 15 years went by from the time of the last court case over the cattle, until the BLM attempted to remove the livestock.
Of course, Bundy has not made the claim that he will not pay the fees, he simply says he will not pay those fees to the BLM because he doesn’t recognize federal authority over the land. Bundy has said that in the past, that he would pay fees to Clarke County, Nevada, though Clarke County has refused to accept them. The BLM has insisted that Bundy owes $1.1 million dollars in grazing fees for his trespass cattle. “The actual number is probably around $200,000. The $1.1 million claimed by the BLM is probably mostly interest and penalties for trespass cattle.” says Devlin, who goes on to say that it is unlikely that Clarke County would be able to collect those penalties.
When Devlin reached out to the BLM, he suggested that the federal agency just allow Bundy to pay the fees to the county rather than continuing with these aggressive tactics to confiscate his cattle. “I got a call back from the liaison saying ‘Yes, pursue it’, says Devlin. Devlin reached out to contacts in Nevada to get that process moving forward. If that were to happen, Clarke County could collect the grazing fees and if it desired to do so could hand those fees over to the BLM.
Finally, Devlin says instead of allowing the situation with Bundy’s cattle to grow completely out of control, the BLM could have simply placed a lien on the cattle in the first place. Of course, that lien might have been rejected in court if Bundy were able to demonstrate those prescriptive rights. Then again, the courts so far have sided with the government, therefore it is even more baffling why the lien wasn’t placed on the livestock.
Days after the BLM has claimed they will stand down, they are now reportedly considering a lien on the cattle. “I asked why they didn’t put a lien against the cattle… They hadn’t thought about that but they are considering it now”.
Who Actually “Owns” America’s Land?
Here we see a modern representation of Americans awakening to the insidious growth of our Federal Creature. Over the weekend, the fierce stand-off between Bundy Ranch militiamen and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) came to a dramatic end – for now – with the protesters chasing government representatives off the disputed land.
But this situation raises the important question…. Does the Constitution make provision for the federal government to own and control “public land”? This is the only question we need to consider. Currently, the federal government “owns” approximately 30% of the United States territory. The majority of this federally owned land is in the West. For example, the feds control more than 80% of Nevada and more than 55% of Utah. The question has been long debated. At the debate’s soul is Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which is know as the “Property Clause”. Proponents of federal expansion on both sides of the political aisle argue that this clause provides warrant for the federal government to control land throughout the United States.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States….
Those who say this clause delegates the feds control over whatever land they arbitrarily decide to lay claim to are grossly misinterpreting even the most basic structure of the Constitution.
It is said the Constitution is “written in plain English”. This is true. However, plain English does not allow one to remove context. Article IV does not grant Congress the power to exercise sovereignty over land. Article IV deals exclusively with state-to-state relations such as protection from invasion, slavery, full faith and credit, creation of new states and so on.
Historically, the Property Clause delegated federal control over territorial lands up until the point when that land would be formed as a state. This was necessary during the time of the ratification of the Constitution due to the lack of westward development. The clause was drafted to constitutionalize the Northwest Ordinance, which the Articles of Confederation did not have the power to support. This ordinance gave the newly formed Congress the power to create new states instead of allowing the states themselves to expand their own land claims.
The Property Clause and Northwest Ordinance are both limited in power and scope. Once a state is formed and accepted in the union, the federal government no longer has control over land within the state’s borders. From this moment, such land is considered property of the sovereign state. The continental United States is now formed of fifty independent, sovereign states. No “unclaimed” lands are technically in existence. Therefore, the Property Clause no longer applies within the realm of federal control over these states.
The powers of Congress are found only in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. With the exception of the less than two dozen powers delegated to Congress found within Article I, Section 8, Congress may make no laws, cannot form political agencies and cannot take any actions that seek to regulate outside of these enumerated powers.
Article I, Section 8 does lay forth the possibility of federal control over some land. What land? Clause 17 defines these few exceptions.
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over suchDistrict (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– (Emphasis added).
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is known as the Enclave Clause. The clause gives federal control over the “Seat of Government” (Washington D.C.) and land that has been purchased by the federal government with consent of the state legislatures to build military posts and other needful buildings (post offices and other structures pursuant to Article I, Section 8). Nothing more.
State permission being a requirement, state authority was explicitly emphasized while drafting this clause. The founders and respective states insisted (with loud cries) that the states must consent before the federal government could purchase land from the states. Nowhere in this clause will you find the power for Congress to exercise legislative authority through regulation over 80% of Nevada, 55% of Utah, 45% of California, 70% of Alaska, or any other state. Unless, of course, the state has given the federal government the formal authority to do so, which they have not.
If a state legislature decides sell land to the federal government then at that point the Enclave Clause becomes applicable and the federal government may seize legislative and regulatory control in pursuance to the powers delegated by Article 1, Section 8.
In America’s infancy, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Founding Fathers’ understanding of federal control over land. Justice Stephen J. Field wrote for the majority opinion in Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1855) that federal authority over territorial land was “necessarily paramount.” However, once the territory was organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal ground, the state government assumes sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government retains only the rights of an “individual proprietor”. This means that the federal government can only exercise general sovereignty over state property if the state legislatures formally grant the federal government the power to do so under the Enclave Clause with the exception of federal buildings (post offices) and military installations. This understanding was reaffirmed in Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan (1845), Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the city of New Orleans (1845) and Strader v. Graham (1850).
However, it did not take long for the Supreme Court to begin redefining the Constitution and legislating from the bench under the guise of interpretation. Case by case, the Court slowly redefined the Property Clause, which had always been understood to regard exclusively the transferring of federal to state sovereignty through statehood, to the conservation of unconstitutional federal supremacy.
Federal supremacists sitting on the Supreme Court understood that by insidiously redefining this clause then federal power would be expanded and conserved.
Through the centuries, by the hand of corrupt federal judges, we arrive and the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. The Founding Fathers never imagined the citizens of a state would be subject to such treatment at the hands of the federal government. Furthermore, they certainly never imagined the state legislatures themselves would allow such treatment to go unchecked. The latest updates appear to show that Bundy has won his battle against the feds– for now. However, it remains a damn shame that the state of Nevada would allow for such a situation to arise in the first place.
All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty;Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. [Emphasis added]
In Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution, eminent domain is clarified. The state Constitution requires that the state prove public need, provide compensation and documentation before acquiring private property. In order to grant land to the federal government, the state must first control this land.
Bundy’s family has controlled the land for more than 140 years.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is an agency created by Congress, claimed that Bundy was “violating the law of the land”. Perhaps the agency has forgotten that the law of the land is the Constitution, and the only constitutional violation here is the very modern existence of the agency’s presence in Nevada.