Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “Using this, it would be easy to make the case that the Bureau of Land Manglement actually is an unconstitutional use of a congressional power to make rules and regulations over territories. The only thing they could do would be to carry out a specific rule or regulation that Congress itself had made. In other words, the BLM can’t come in and write its own rules. The Department of the Interior can’t write its own rules. Of course, this was all overturned by another Supreme Court case, as I said, around 1911 or 1912 or so.” Check out today’s transcript for the rest…
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: So what did Mr. Hayward write about? Well, what he did was he researched: Okay, how did this happen? That’s kind of what I just walked you through, although it took him 470 pages to get to it. Here’s just a smidgen, a snippet of what Mr. Hayward wrote in How the West Was Lost. He’s talking about these clauses that were written into these forest acts and grazing acts in the 1870s and 1880s.
…these Disclaimer Clauses amounted to what most of us today would consider to be an exclusive sales contract of land belonging to another. The only difference was that in this specific case, the proceeds went to the seller and not to the owner of the land, even after payment in full of an implied or de facto mortgage. However this may be, this, in and of itself, is not authority to retain federal ownership in perpetuity and to arbitrarily decide for the owner [the state] when and how or even if the owner should dispose of his land. There simply is no constitutional authority to do so. Further, I cannot make the case for the existence of the Disclaimer Clause without ignoring the findings in both Pollard v. Hagan and Coyle v. Smith, which declared that the Disclaimer Clauses were unconstitutional.
Members Only Access The Founders Pass
You are missing out on crucial commentary video, audio and exclusive downloads!
See What You Are Missing Take The Tour!
OR Join Now
Mike: In other words, they made it up, they invented it. You can find the enumerated power over Washington, DC, where young Eric is currently seated today, and then you can also find that power, as I have said. Is what is in Nevada or any of these other places a needful building, fort, magazine, arsenal or dockyard?
The answer to the question is no. Okay, well, then why are they owning territory inside of all these states? Good question. The author here has endeavored to answer this, William C. Hayward, in How the West Was Lost.
The expansion of Admiralty law into a state after statehood is a violation of the intent and letter of the constitution.
Mike: Folks, this is exactly what I told you, precisely what I told you and have been telling you since last Thursday. Why do we have the Territory Clause, Article IV, Section 3 in the Constitution? They knew there was a vast continent out west, so they put the clause in there so the union could expand, that’s why. Not to become land barons, not to manage stupid spotted owls, snakes, and snaildarters, not to manage watersheds or any of the other preposterous things that are now being suggested that Congress and Congress alone can do. That’s not why the clause was in there.
End Mike Church Show Transcript