- Great case where judge said BLM and Forest service men conspired against Hage and referred them to the US Attorney for prosecution.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Delphi TechniqueThe Delphi Technique — What Is It?The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face. In recent times, however, it has taken on an all new meaning and purpose. In Educating for the New World Order by B. Eakman, the reader finds reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion that there is "…lay, or community, participation (in the decision-making process), while lay citizens were, in fact, being squeezed out." The Delphi Technique is the method being used to squeeze citizens out of the process, effecting a left-wing take over of the schools.A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers, the "Alinsky Method" (ibid, p.123). The setting or group is, however, immaterial; the point is that people in groups tend to share a certain knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics (known as group dynamics). This allows for a special application of a basic technique.The change agent or facilitator goes through the motions of acting as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to elicit expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy in question. The facilitator listens attentively, forms "task forces," "urges everyone to make lists," and so on. While s/he is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. S/He identifies the "leaders," the "loud mouths," as well as those who frequently turn sides during the argument — the "weak or noncommittal".Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes "devil's advocate." S/He dons his professional agitator hat. Using the "divide and conquer" technique, s/he manipulates one group opinion against the other. This is accomplished by manipulating those who are out of step to appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." S/He wants certain members of the group to become angry, thereby forcing tensions to accelerate. The facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation. S/He is able to predict the reactions of each group member. Individuals in opposition to the policy or program will be shut out of the group.The method works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and any community group. The "targets" rarely, if ever, know that they are being manipulated. Or, if they suspect this is happening, do not know how to end the process.The desired result is for group polarization, and for the facilitator to become accepted as a member of the group and group process. S/He will then throw the desired idea on the table and ask for opinions during discussion. Very soon his/her associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and pressure the entire group to accept the proposition.This technique is a very unethical method of achieving consensus on a controversial topic in group settings. It requires well-trained professionals who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against the other, so as to make one viewpoint appear ridiculous so the other becomes "sensible" whether such is warranted or not.The Delphi Technique is based on the Hegelian Principle of achieving Oneness of Mind through a three step process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. In thesis and antithesis, all present their opinion or views on a given subject, establishing views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All participants are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their own views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, Oneness of Mind will supposedly occur.The theory of the Delphi and the reality of the Delphi are, obviously, quite different — the reality being that Oneness of Mind does not occur but only the illusion of Oneness of Mind with those who refuse to be Delphi'd being alienated from participating in the process.While proponents of education reform feel they are quite justified in this, the effect of this unethical manipulation of people is to create polarized camps. In an effort to maintain the process, advocates have marketed a plethora of publications (such as What's Left After the Right, No Right Turn and If You Don't, They Will) intended to label, castigate, and alienate anyone who does not go along with them. As a result, parents come to understand that their role in education reform is merely perfunctory; that the outcome is preset, that they are not but the rah-rah team so when opposition does arise, advocates of education reform can say, "we had community input."To make sure that the situation is controlled, only those parents who agree with the process are allowed on the restructuring teams. New participants are carefully screened to ensure that education reform goes forward unquestioned.If measurable opposition persists, advocates are told, get the local ministers on board. Take steps to neutralize, by whatever means necessary, the opposition. In some places, opponents have been harassed, both at home and on the job, personal property has been damaged and vandalized, people have lost their jobs. Anyone who does not go along with the restructuring of our society is susceptible to the totalitarian tactics of those promoting education reform – whether it be parents, teachers, principals, superintendents or board members. The need exists for advocates to maintain an iron grip on the process. They cannot, for instance, withstand open public debate of the issues. Therefore, they do not partake in public forums. They cannot withstand the criticism, so they close every avenue for parents to address the issues. They are rapidly creating, through their divisive tactics, a volatile situation. America is being torn apart.Parents, citizens, teachers, principals, superintendents who are opposed to the new purpose being given our American education system need tools to withstand the process being used to bring it in — against the Delphi Technique and consensus which, through their basis in the Hegelian Principle, have Marxist connections and purposes.First, no opportunity must be left untaken to expose this unethical, divisive process. Second, when this process is used, it can be disrupted. To do so, however, one must be able to recognize when the Delphi Technique is being used, and how to disrupt it.With thanks to Sandy Vanderberg, Peg Luksik and others.©March 1996; Lynn M Stuter
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- "The test for whether one is living in a police state isthat those who are charged with enforcing the laware allowed to break the laws with impunity."-- Jon Roland(1944-) founder of the Constitution Society
- Permalink Reply by on
- America has never followed the Constitution - Washington used Executive orders, Adams did the Alien Sedition act, Jefferson spent money without Congressional approval [Louisiana purchase] then came Lincoln usurping to cause 600,000 deaths of American. The Courts used a case without a Foundation in the Constitution, to create for themselves a power known as Judicial Review which is not in the Limits of Article III {Marbury V Madison]From this point on the courts let the Legislature and the President do whatever they passed. the courts after McCulloch V Maryland again created a new power called Implied Powers and invoked the Necessary and Proper clause outside the limits of Article I section 8 enumerated powers which is what the Necessary and proper clause refers to in the first place.There was a quiet period without many issues with the Constitution until Wilson and then FDR where the courts were put under the heel of the Executive and a malleable Legislature. The Supreme court blocked some of the progressive ideas so FDR threatened to increase the number of Justices to whatever number it took to pack the court to approve his ideas.The court Justices panicked and one vote switched which lead to the saying "The vote in time that saved nine."America is not operating under the Constitution as as the California Rep said in a town hall when asked about the Constitutional limits - he said there are no limits we can do whatever we can get passed and signed into law.So without a Article V State amendment action to Correct America is a pure Democracy.Article V provides both Congress and the States with the exact same authority: to ‘propose’ new amendments. This limited authority to propose amendments should not be confused with a ‘Constitutional Convention,’ of which no mention, process or mechanism exists within the U.S. Constitution. There are those who have unfounded fears and oppose the legitimate use of Article V authority by the States. But is Congress somehow more trustworthy for proposing amendments than our State legislatures? By limiting its scope, a runaway convention is very unlikely and avoidable. Additionally, the ratification process and our system of checks and balances protect the Constitution from abuse by the amendment process.The long historical use of an Article V type authority can be traced back as far as seventeenth-century England. Today's use of Article V authority by the States is endorsed by such Constitutional scholars as Professor Rob Natelson [http://constitution.i2i.org/about/](Independence Institute), Nick Dranias [http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/expert/109] (Goldwater Institute), Professor Randy Barnett [http://www.randybarnett.com/] (Georgetown University Law Center) and Russell L. Caplan (author of Constitutional Brinksmanship [http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Brinksmanship-Amending-Constit...].) Even our Founders encouraged Article V use by the States:James Madison, in Federalist No. 43, wrote about this important Article V authority, equally shared between Congress and the States, that should be used to correct ‘errors’ in our government and Constitution “It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other.”Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist No. 85, wrote about how State legislatures should be ‘trusted’ to hold back an out-of-control central government “We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.”John Dickinson, in the “Fabius” [http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show...] essays, warned the States about negative consequences if they ‘did not’ use their authority to restrain an overbearing federal government “It will be their own faults, if the several States suffer the federal sovereignty to interfere in the things of their respective jurisdictions.”Throughout our nation's history, the States have never exercised their Article V authority to meet in a convention for proposing and approving an amendment. Only Congress has proposed and forwarded amendments to the States for ratification. But other than the repeal of Prohibition, [http://www.albany.edu/~wm731882/21st_amendment_final.html] Congress has not submitted an amendment to curb its own expanding power and authority since 1789 when it sent the Bill of Rights to the States for ratification.Congress will not reform itself. It is up to the States and We the People to repair our out-of-control government and to restore our Constitutional Republic.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Minutes of the Board of Visitors
University of Virginia
(Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Members)
March 4, 1825
A resolution was moved and agreed to in the following words:
Whereas, it is the duty of this Board to the government under which it lives, and
especially to that of which this University is the immediate creation, to pay especial
attention to the principles of government which shall be inculcated therein, and to
provide that none shall be inculcated which are incompatible with those on which the
Constitutions of this State, and of the United States were genuinely based, in the
common opinion; and for this purpose it may be necessary to point out specially where
these principles are to be found legitimately developed:
Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Board that as to the general principles of
liberty and the rights of man, in nature and in society, the doctrines of Locke, in his
"Essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil government," and
of Sidney in his "Discourses on government," may be considered as those
generally approved by our fellow citizens of this, and the United States, and that on the
distinctive principles of the government of our State, and of that of the United States,
the best guides are to be found in,
1. The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental act of union of these
States.
2. The book known by the title of "The Federalist," being an authority to which
appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the
general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the
United States, on questions as to its genuine meaning.
3. The Resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia in 1799 on the subject of the
alien and sedition laws, which appeared to accord with the predominant sense of the
people of the United States.
4. The valedictory address of President Washington, as conveying political
lessons of peculiar value.
And that in the branch of the school of law, which is to treat on the subject of civil
polity, these shall be used as the text and documents of the school.
[emphasis added]
- Permalink Reply by on
- I strive to find quotes from many time periods so we can all see that Tyranny and oppression is always represented in any government or form. Like our LIMITED government under our Constitution has been usurped since day one the Central government seized more power than granted.Now with the Courts fully invested in Settled law that does not have a foundation in the actual Constitution without changing words meanings, adding clauses and twisting the original intent with papers found such as The Federalist papers. Well the authors of the Federalist papers wrote many conflicting opinions – which one do you use?What about the AntiFederalist papers [the Bill of Rights] and the notes and papers of the entire body of the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers. No, sir I would submit that the FF&R had no such intentions for anything other than the actual simple words of the Constitution to say what it means and means what it says.If courts and twisters find holes and unclear ERRORS in there minds the FF&R gave the government and the courts a method of CORRECTION – it is called a ARTICLE V AMENDMENT PROCESS. Any change, alteration, word meaning changes are usurpation and require a real amendment for them to be lawful.So most of what the Current Federal Government does is not Constitutional and is usurped powers so they are null void as if they never existed at all [per the FF&R].
- Permalink Reply by on
- I disagree. The Federalist Papers were written to explain the Constitution to the People. They are a guide to the Constitution written by 3 of the Framers. Chief Justice Marshall praised the Federalist Papers as a way to understand the Constitution. The Federalist Papers were supposed to be taught in schools as the way to understand the Constitution.“Minutes of the Board of Visitors
University of Virginia
(Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Members)
March 4, 18252. The book known by the title of “The Federalist,” being an authority to which
appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the
general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the
United States, on questions as to its genuine meaning.And that in the branch of the school of law, which is to treat on the subject of civil
polity, these shall be used as the text and documents of the school.”http://www.liberty1.org/UVA1825.pdfWe agree on most things, however, the two we disagree on are pretty big. The Federalist Papers ARE what the Founders said should be used to understand the Constitution. AND, amendments aren’t the solution to our problem of PEOPLE who DON’T OBEY THE CONSTITUTION.Our federal government is completely illegitimate and has been for over 100 years. The way to correct that is NOT to change the rules our elected officials refused to obey. The RIGHT solution is REPLACE the PEOPLE WHO VIOLATED those rules.Educating the public on the Constitutional powers of the federal government AND the role of our representatives.Don’t mess with the Constitution. NEW rules for people who refused to obey the old rules is not the right solution.
- Permalink Reply by on
- No where in the Constitution are the Federalist papers mentioned . . they were written to sell NY and a few other States to Ratify the Constitution not to change or modify the clear and simple meaning of the words used in the time of Writing.All can find writings of Hamilton that contradict the FP, same for Madison, Same for Jay – many times they changed positions over the years. What about the Anti Federalists papers – not important they gave us the Bill of Rights and one was Jefferson.Chief Justice Marshall is not a good source for he was the first Justice to Usurp the Limits of Article III with his Marbury V Madison case. Now you can argue with me but how about President Jefferson?(1807-1815) The Writings of Thomas Jefferson_Part 1 Beginning on Pg 53.“DEAR SIR, While Burr’s case is depending before the court, I will trouble you, from time to time, with what occurs to me. I observe that the case of Marbury v. Madison has been cited, and I think it material to stop at the threshold the citing that case as authority, and to have it denied to be law.”“I have long wished for a proper occasion to have the gratuitous opinion in Marbury v. Madison brought before the public, & denounced as not law; &: I think the present a fortunate one. because it occupies such a place in the public attention. I should be glad therefore. if, in noticing that case.you could take occasion to express the determination of the executive, that the doctrines of that case were given extra judicially & against law, and that their reverse will be the rule of action with the executive.”Seems that there are serious issues with going outside the actual Constitution for meanings. Our project is not to MESS with the Constitution it is to REPEAL OFFENSIVE AMENDMENT – those that changed the nature of our Dual Federalism concept of the uniting of Many Sovereign States to create a Federal Republic for limited purposes – mostly of Foreign relations like treaties and to provide for the Common defense. Not much more was ever intended see Article I section 8 enumerated powers and then Article I section 9 limits on States.The amendment to repeal are the 14th [which killed the powers of the 10th] – the 16th income tax – and the 17th which took the Sovereign State’s legislature Senate seats at the table of the Federal government.
- Permalink Reply by on
- America has never followed the Constitution – Washington used Executive orders, Adams did the Alien Sedition act, Jefferson spent money without Congressional approval [Louisiana purchase] then came Lincoln usurping to cause 600,000 deaths of American. The Courts used a case without a Foundation in the Constitution, to create for themselves a power known as Judicial Review which is not in the Limits of Article III {Marbury V Madison]From this point on the courts let the Legislature and the President do whatever they passed. the courts after McCulloch V Maryland again created a new power called Implied Powers and invoked the Necessary and Proper clause outside the limits of Article I section 8 enumerated powers which is what the Necessary and proper clause refers to in the first place.There was a quiet period without many issues with the Constitution until Wilson and then FDR where the courts were put under the heel of the Executive and a malleable Legislature. The Supreme court blocked some of the progressive ideas so FDR threatened to increase the number of Justices to whatever number it took to pack the court to approve his ideas.The court Justices panicked and one vote switched which lead to the saying “The vote in time that saved nine.”America is not operating under the Constitution as as the California Rep said in a town hall when asked about the Constitutional limits – he said there are no limits we can do whatever we can get passed and signed into law.So without a Article V State amendment action to Correct America is a pure Democracy.Article V provides both Congress and the States with the exact same authority: to ‘propose’ new amendments. This limited authority to propose amendments should not be confused with a ‘Constitutional Convention,’ of which no mention, process or mechanism exists within the U.S. Constitution. There are those who have unfounded fears and oppose the legitimate use of Article V authority by the States. But is Congress somehow more trustworthy for proposing amendments than our State legislatures? By limiting its scope, a runaway convention is very unlikely and avoidable. Additionally, the ratification process and our system of checks and balances protect the Constitution from abuse by the amendment process.The long historical use of an Article V type authority can be traced back as far as seventeenth-century England. Today’s use of Article V authority by the States is endorsed by such Constitutional scholars as Professor Rob Natelson [http://constitution.i2i.org/about/](Independence Institute), Nick Dranias [http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/expert/109] (Goldwater Institute), Professor Randy Barnett [http://www.randybarnett.com/] (Georgetown University Law Center) and Russell L. Caplan (author of Constitutional Brinksmanship [http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Brinksmanship-Amending-Constit...].) Even our Founders encouraged Article V use by the States:James Madison, in Federalist No. 43, wrote about this important Article V authority, equally shared between Congress and the States, that should be used to correct ‘errors’ in our government and Constitution “It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other.”Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist No. 85, wrote about how State legislatures should be ‘trusted’ to hold back an out-of-control central government “We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.”John Dickinson, in the “Fabius” [http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show...] essays, warned the States about negative consequences if they ‘did not’ use their authority to restrain an overbearing federal government “It will be their own faults, if the several States suffer the federal sovereignty to interfere in the things of their respective jurisdictions.”Throughout our nation’s history, the States have never exercised their Article V authority to meet in a convention for proposing and approving an amendment. Only Congress has proposed and forwarded amendments to the States for ratification. But other than the repeal of Prohibition, [http://www.albany.edu/~wm731882/21st_amendment_final.html] Congress has not submitted an amendment to curb its own expanding power and authority since 1789 when it sent the Bill of Rights to the States for ratification.Congress will not reform itself. It is up to the States and We the People to repair our out-of-control government and to restore our Constitutional Republic.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Utah law to get land back from Fed white paper from Chapmanfile:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/ssrn-id2200471.pdf
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Bureau of Land Management’s siege of the Bundy Ranch in Nevada compels me to re-publish this post. I ask readers to carefully research this issue and to decide for yourself whether or not the federal government has violated public trust and the Rule of Law.For a painfully long time now, our federal masters and their judicial enablers have ignored and, to my way of thinking, flagrantly violated the Constitution with impunity. All too often, Supreme Court rulings have served to override common sense, constitutionality and original intent.And so long as black-robed, unelected and unaccountable judicial oligarchs, aka judges–as well as the submissive states themselves–allow “judicial supremacy” to trump “constitutional supremacy” on a whole host of foundational constitutional issues, our economic growth will be hobbled, our liberties diminished, state sovereignty further degraded, constitutional order imperiled, common sense and Rule of Law abandoned.To wit, per Art 1.8.17 of the Constitution and provisions of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and despite a veritable cesspool of clubby, contrived and revisionist court rulings over the years through which I was barely able to wade, it appears glaringly obvious to me that our federal overseers are occupying millions of otherwise productive acres within the several states without the “concurrence” of those states and without constitutional justification.Article 1.8.17 (“Enclave Clause”) granted power to 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 [i.e. the District of Columbia], 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, dockyards, and other needful buildings.” Crystal-clear what the original meaning is here despite the shamelessly self-serving litany of subsequent spin on the part of our judicial overlords, lap dogs of the federal government.Clearly this clause meant that the people of the states empowered Congress to exercise complete jurisdiction and authority over all lands or facilities purchased within a state, provided it was with the consent of the legislature of that state, and that such lands would be used for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings.” Clearly implied in this clause is that the several states, the immediate fiduciary agents of the people, reserve the right to assume title to all lands within their borders which are not being used by the federal government for the specific purposes provided in the clause, that being “the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings.”It is also important to note that nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the enumerated power of complete jurisdiction and authority over state territory; thus, state retention and ownership of public lands stems from the 10th Amendment which reserves all rights to the states which are not specifically granted to Congress. The twisted and carefully crafted Delphic court rulings notwithstanding, the original meaning seems abundantly clear to me.Art 4.3.1 allowed a mechanism for the formation and admission of new states into the union, and Art 4.3.2 described the extent of congressional authority over federal territory within those states. Subsequently, the Supreme Court ruled that federal property applies only to the territory at the time of the Constitution’s adoption and is considered public land only until that territory is granted statehood and the national debt incurred by the Revolutionary War is paid. In other words, temporary federal control over those lands.In accordance with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which was re-enacted after the Constitution’s ratification, all new states were to be admitted to the union on the basis of full equality with the original thirteen states. It was generally understood that as territories were granted statehood, the people of those states would acquire title to all lands within their state boundaries—except, of course, those lands granted to the feds for those well-defined purposes cited in Art 1.8.17.To help pay down the national debt, Congress assured the states of full title to those lands not used for federally sanctioned purposes when that land was sold off. The following then became the established policy for new states:1. The feds would retain all ungranted public lands.2. The feds guaranteed that it would dispose of these lands as soon as possible.3. The new state would acquire jurisdiction over these lands as fast as they were sold to private individuals.4. States would be admitted on the basis of “equal footing” with the original 13 states (each of which retained complete ownership/control over their respective territories.As a result, all states east of the Mississippi and those comprising the Louisiana Purchase eventually acquired title to all but a very small portion of the land lying within their state boundaries.However, following our war with Mexico, Congress inexplicably digressed from this policy and virtually eliminated the sale or disposal of federal lands in the western states. This resulted in Congress’s retaining major portions of those state lands, this in seemingly direct contravention of the Constitution and of the Northwest Ordinance. Essentially, the federal government became the sole owner and manager of nearly 30%, or a whopping 650 million acres, of America’s landmass, for the constitutionally unspecified purposes of maintaining national forests, national parks, national monuments, Indian reservations, coal and oil reserves, lands leased to farmers and ranchers, and resources-rich so-called “wilderness areas”. And, of course, the cost to taxpayers for maintaining the sprawling federal bureaucracy in order to manage these federally controlled lands is in the billions of dollars.Federal defenders of this overreach breathlessly point to the so-called “property clause” (Art 4.3.2) which provides that “Congress shall have power to dispose of and make any needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States and any territory or property belonging to the United States.” Clearly, doesn't this create a convenient constitutional ambiguity by contradicting the original intent of Art 1.8.17? Does this not exact restrictions on the western states, which had never been imposed on earlier states? So much for states being admitted into the union on “equal footing” and “full equality” with earlier states. Is federal retention of 30% of America’s real estate really a “necessary and proper” exercise of federal powers? For me to believe that would require a willful suspension of common sense.To give you an idea of how much state land is now imperially held by the feds, check this out: NV 85%, AL 70%, UT, 60%, OR 53%, AZ 47%, CA 45%, WY 42%, NM 42%, CO 37%, and poor Alaska 96%! Note: 65% of federal land holdings are located west of the Mississippi and a paltry 1% of all federally controlled land in the country is currently being utilized for those specific purposes cited in Art 1.8.17. One must wonder why these lands are still being held by the feds. Pay off the Revolutionary War debt? Gee, I don’t think so. Lofty, if not entirely contrived, constitutional justifications? Or, more likely, the relentless federal grasp for power and, today, a way to placate a host of environmental allies by denying the states and the country access to those climate-warming pollutants such as oil and gas.Regarding the Enclave Clause, James Madison stated that “the public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned in every such establishment.” But, have the courts sought the concurrence of the states? Nope.Clearly, the federal government is occupying millions of acres without the “concurrence” of those states, but maintains their grip with the twisted and self-serving judicial sanction of federal Courts intent upon expanding and strengthening federal power.So, what is the recourse of the several states? My opinion, which is shared by many other originalists, is that in keeping with the doctrine of state sovereignty, original intent and the 10th Amendment, states should simply legislatively assume title of all lands not being utilized by the federal government as specified in the Enclave Clause. Of course, to placate the courts and public opinion, states should first sue the federal government to acquire title. And since the states will not prevail in such a lopsided judicial struggle, they should then rightfully and unhesitatingly assert their 10th Amendment rights by immediately assuming direct ownership and control of what I have dubbed the “royal federal reserves” lying within their state boundaries.But, do the chastened, weak-kneed, and heavily bribed states have the backbone to hazard the restoration of their constitutional sovereignty and honor? Ah, yes, that’s the burning question.The constitutional issue aside for a moment, in truth the achievement of energy independence alone should provide ample motivation for the states and their people to step up and take back their land, which is illegally held by the feds. And should the states fail to assert their rights under the original constitution, they should quietly accept their bondage and compliantly move on with their drab, submissive lives.“An injustice unchallenged is justice denied. “Author Unknown“Nothing should ever be implied as law which leads to absurd or unjust consequences. “Abraham Lincoln (1861)
