Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

Jobs at BLM


chrisski

Recommended Posts

150 jobs open at the BLM across the country:

https://www.usajobs.gov/Search?Keyword=BLM&Location=&homeRadPublic=public&search=Search&AutoCompleteSelected=False&CanSeekStatusJobs=False

I think a good mix of miners in there would be great. A lot of these are in the Phoenix area, mostly temporary work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting...a lot of the rodents seem to be jumping ship. wonder if some

are concerned with their decisions to remain with BLM in the face

of the developing issues with land-grabbing across the country?

Not to Rant but here is the Truth. The U.S. Constitution clearly states the Federal Government can have Washing D.C., Ports and Forts.. They can NEGOTIATE other lands from the States as Required.

Here is the History. Bottom line is The President, Congress enacted Rules (VIA Executive Order ) and Law outside the U.S. Constitution and NO ONE challenged it. Sense then Identities like USFS, BLM, DNR have been set in place.

The Founders allow Very Little Property to be Owned by the National Government

With the power of private property firmly in mind the Founders clearly set forth necessary limitations in the Constitution so that the national government will not accumulate much property itself. The thought was to leave it to the people who will use, care for, develop, subdue, and gain dominion over it in a manner which will bless the lives of all the people and lead to greater and greater permanent prosperity.

There were, however, a few reasons to have the national government own property: for a seat of government, for military uses, and for needful buildings. This is the very limited power given to Congress in the Constitution:

  • "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, 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" (Art I, Sect. 8, Clause 17)

An earlier draft in the Convention merely read, "to exercise like authority over all places purchased for forts, etc." Madison noted that "Eldridge Gerry contended that this power might be made use of to enslave any particular State by buying up its territory and that the strongholds proposed would be a means of awing the State into an undue obedience to the General Government..."

Madison said Mr. King then moved to "to insert after the word 'purchased' the words 'by the consent of the Legislature of the State.' This would certainly make the power safe."

Even as limited as the Founders could make it, this clause allowing the National Government to own and control property within a state continued to bother some. They thought, in time, mischief would develop. Listen to what Joseph Story, Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote in his famous Commentaries in 1833 about this particular clause. It is as though he foresaw some of the incredible regulations which are strangling the efforts of the people to "subdue and gain dominion over" huge sections of land in our country:

"And yet this clause did not escape the common fate of most of the powers of the national government. It was represented, as peculiarly dangerous. It may, it was said, become a sort of public sanctuary, with exclusive privileges and immunities of every sort. It may be the very spot for the establishment of tyranny, mid of refuge of the oppressors of the people. The inhabitants will be answerable to no laws, except those of congress. A powerful army may be here kept on foot; and the most oppressive and sanguinary laws may be passed to govern the district. Nay, at the distance of fourteen years after the constitution had quietly gone into operation, and this power had been acted upon with a moderation, as commendable, as it ought to be satisfactory, a learned commentator expressed regret at the extent of the power, and intimated in no inexplicit terms his fears for the future. 'A system of laws,' says he, 'incompatible with the nature and principles of a representative democracy, though not likely to be introduced at once, may be matured by degrees, and diffuse its influence through the states, and finally lay the foundation of the most important changes in the nature of the federal government. Let foreigners be enabled to hold lands, and transmit them by inheritance, or devise; let the preference to males, and the rights or primogeniture he revived with the doctrine of entails; and aristocracy will neither want a ladder to climb by, nor a base for its support.'" (Quoted in The Founders' Constitution, vol. 3, p. 237)

Dr. Skousen Explains the Growth of Federal Power in Violation of the Constitution

It would also appear that this provision gives each state the right to assume title to all lands within its boundaries which the federal government is not using for the purposes specified in this section.

But what about new states coming into the Union where most of the territory consists of federal public lands? The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 declared that all new states would come into the Union on a basis of complete equality or equal footing with the original thirteen states. Therefore it was assumed that as soon as a new territory was granted statehood, the people of that state would acquire title to every acre of land other than a very small percentage granted to the federal government for the "erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings."

But Congress did not allow this to happen. When Ohio was admitted into the Union in 1903, the government retained title to all of the public lands but assured the people that Ohio would acquire jurisdiction as soon as these lands could be sold to help pay off the national debt. This, then, became the established policy for new states:

  1. The federal government would retain all ungranted public lands.
  2. The government 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.

As a result of this policy, all of the states east of the Mississippi, and those included in the Louisiana Purchase, eventually acquired all but a very small percentage of the land lying within their state boundaries.

However, when the territory of the western states was acquired from Mexico, Congress radically digressed from the Constitution by virtually eliminating the sale or disposal of federal lands. The general policy was to permanently retain major portions of each of the western states for purposes not listed in the Constitution. This policy resulted in the government becoming the permanent owner and manager of over 35 percent of the American landmass. At the present time, vast areas within the boundaries of these states are permanently designated as part of the federal domain for national forests, national parks, national monuments, coal and oil reserves, lands leased for profit to ranchers or farmers, and huge tracts of land with valuable resources completely locked up as "wilderness areas."

Here is the amount of land in each of the western states still held by the federal government: (these figures do not include Indian reservations)

Arizona 45% New Mexico 35% California 45% Oregon 52% Colorado 36% Utah 66% Idaho 64% Washington 30% Montana 30% Wyoming 50% Nevada 87%

The most flagrant example of all, however, is found in the conditions under which Alaska was admitted to the Union in 1959. The people were only allowed to occupy approximately 4 percent of their state.

Of course, the government should have exclusive jurisdiction over those lands acquired for the purposes listed in the Constitution. As Madison stated:

"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."

It is obvious that the federal government is currently occupying millions of acres within certain states without the concurrence of those states. (See The Making of America, p. 458-459)

Now there using Unconstitutional Law, Regs, and even the Police State to enforce Unconstitutional Law.

End Rant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point to posting these positons is to hopefully get someone to put in for one of these positions. I really do think a lot of people on these boards would do really well and be not necessarily a good fit but provide a good mix for the BLM.

If you've ever watched Parks and Rec, the libertarian's libertarian, Ron Swanson himself ended up working for the government and he was able to tame many things people tried to do.

I do have to reply to Homefire. In Arizona, the federal lands have much easier access then the State Lands. In Arizona, the state requires a permit, rather cheap, just to access their state trust land. To prospect on state trust land costs thousands of dollars. To prospect on state trust land without permits means confiscation of all equipment. Once a developable mineral source is located, it costs thousands more to mine it. In November of 2013 Arizona had Proposition 120, a referendum " to declare that the state has exclusive authority over all land within its borders," failed to pass.

In AZ you mentioned that the federal govt had 45%. I've read the actual percentage of government land federal, Indian, state, county, and town is more like 82%. What I am saying is access to the 45% you mentioned is much easier for what we like to do than the other 37%.

Doesn't mean that I don't believe the federal govt can allow better access, I am saying the federal govt has done a better job than the Indian land, state land, counties land, and town land for miners and outdoor activities. Be careful what you wish for,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...