Trail Blazers Blog
Texas allowed in on Red River land grab lawsuit
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s motion to join the lawsuit was approved Monday. (File 2015/The Associated Press)
Last year, a group of landowners sued the Bureau of Land Management in a land dispute along the border. The seven families behind the lawsuit were suing for thousands of acres of land that the Bureau of Land Management claims belongs to the government. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott — and several other Texas politicians — praised the landowners for suing. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton even filed a motion to join the suit, which the court approved Monday.
“Washington, D.C., needs to hear, loud and clear, that Texas will not stand for the federal government’s infringement upon Texas land and the property rights of the people who live here,” Paxton said in a statement.
Land disputes in the area date back to the earlier parts of the 20th century, but they began anew when representatives from the Bureau of Land Management visited North Texas to discuss how the land would be used in the next 20 years.
The agency says the land is public, citing a 1923 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that assigned land in between the state boundary to the federal government. The families say they have deeds for the land and have paid taxes on it for many years now.
Previously, the agency has refused to comment on the lawsuit.
Editor Picks
The Weekend Around The World
Sponsored By
Texans
want to do a Cliven Bundy to the precious citizen owned land. Graze
for free, ruin the environment, then sell it off for mining, etc. Good
Luck Earth.
@StellaTucker The families say they have deeds for the land and have paid taxes on it for many years now.
Many
years ago scammers sold the Brooklyn bridge to multiple people ... they
all had deeds too. That doesn't mean the sales were legal.
@DoyleBodenhamer @StellaTucker
Sounds like the State of Texas was ripping them off then and owes them
some refunds. Texas can't sell land that doesn't belong to them.
So present the deeds. Seems simple enough. Or is this going to be Cliven Bundy Texas Chapter?
@DoyleBodenhamer @StellaTucker Deeds or no deeds, Texas cannot sell land that's not theirs. Hopefully these homeowners get their money back from Texas.
The
feds claims ownership. Guess who owns the feds? It's like 2 pit bulls
locked unto each others tales. If these owners can prove there were
deeds on this land before any state could give them away. Someone needs
to pay them.
Most
of the land in the West owned by the federal government was ceded to
the government by the states themselves. The information is in both
state and federal records.
you
mean the big bad western states are going to grow a pair and demand the
land that the constitution says is theirs,,i'm amazed!
Can anyone explain to me how the federal government can "OWN" anything?
Have you folks never taken a civics class? Have you ever heard of the U.S. Constitution? The Bill of Rights?
There's a DARN GOOD reason the framers specifically "ENUMERATED the Fed's authority. The STATES will have jurisdiction over everything but those enumerated rolls.
GOD Bless Texas!
Have you folks never taken a civics class? Have you ever heard of the U.S. Constitution? The Bill of Rights?
There's a DARN GOOD reason the framers specifically "ENUMERATED the Fed's authority. The STATES will have jurisdiction over everything but those enumerated rolls.
GOD Bless Texas!
@JamesNQ8 The Federal government is allowed to own property Article Four, section 3, clause 2 of the United States Constitution.
@commonsenseamerica @JamesNQ8
bull, they are not allowed to own part of any state unless the state
allows for it..before it becomes a state? mabye but not afterward..
@JamesNQ8 ARTICLE 4, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2: This clause, commonly known as the Property or Territorial
Clause, grants Congress the constitutional authority for the management
and control of all territories or other property owned by United
States. Additionally, the clause also proclaims that nothing contained
within the Constitution may be interpreted to harm (prejudice) any claim
of the United States, or of any particular State. The exact scope of
this clause has long been a matter of debate.
The federal government owns or controls about thirty percent of the land in the United States. These holdings include national parks, national forests, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, vast tracts of range and public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, reservations held in trust for Native American tribes, military bases, and ordinary federal buildings and installations. Although federal property can be found in every state, the largest concentrations are in the west, where, for example, the federal government owns over eighty percent of the land within Nevada.[11]
Pursuant to a parallel clause in Article One, Section Eight, the Supreme Court has held that states may not tax such federal property.[citation needed] In another case, Kleppe v. New Mexico, the Court ruled that the Federal Wild Horse and Burro Act was a constitutional exercise of congressional power under the Property Clause – at least insofar as it was applied to a finding of trespass. The case prohibited the entering upon the public lands of the United States and removing wild burros under the New Mexico Estray Law.[12]
The federal government owns or controls about thirty percent of the land in the United States. These holdings include national parks, national forests, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, vast tracts of range and public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, reservations held in trust for Native American tribes, military bases, and ordinary federal buildings and installations. Although federal property can be found in every state, the largest concentrations are in the west, where, for example, the federal government owns over eighty percent of the land within Nevada.[11]
Pursuant to a parallel clause in Article One, Section Eight, the Supreme Court has held that states may not tax such federal property.[citation needed] In another case, Kleppe v. New Mexico, the Court ruled that the Federal Wild Horse and Burro Act was a constitutional exercise of congressional power under the Property Clause – at least insofar as it was applied to a finding of trespass. The case prohibited the entering upon the public lands of the United States and removing wild burros under the New Mexico Estray Law.[12]
@GregAbbott_TX GO TEAR EM UP ABBOTT! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!
@GregAbbott_TX federal government led land grabs are sketchy everyone should read up on UN led Agenda 21 and ICLEI sustainable development
@GregAbbott_TX The BLM wastes more taxpayer dollars over total BS than most anyone knows about.
@GregAbbott_TX *face palm* trusting the feds to decide how the feds use Texas land.
@GregAbbott_TX Good, I have dealt with the BLM in 3 states. Shut them down and kick them out of our state. They're UNCONSTITUTIONAL !!!
@GregAbbott_TX @teaparty321 This is good news. Federal land grabs take control of state (or in this case private) property for crony friends
@GregAbbott_TX its the United States of America not the Fed Govt of America when do We make this true. States allowed or not hog wash
@GregAbbott_TX
Thank you God...now help them through the suing process.
@GregAbbott_TX @hughhewitt You da man Greg! I knew there was a reason I sweated my ass off walking prcts for ya in McAllen/Harlingen.
@GregAbbott_TX Again thank you for all you do to help Texans (and Okies)! We are blessed having you as our Governor!
@GregAbbott_TX Great news! Teach them #DontMessWithTexas, @KenPaxtonTX. We earned that slogan for a reason.
@GregAbbott_TX #JadeHelm gonna get us!\U0001f602\U0001f602
Maybe
the Federal government forgot that the border was settled when George
W. Bush was president. It gave Oklahoma the entire river until you
reached the green area on the Texas bank. In addition, many of those
(like my family) have deeds that were issued by the Republic of Texas, a
free and independent nation and those are given the same weight as the
old Spanish land grants from Spain. When the U.S. government tries to
step into Texas, it's not the same as just another state. We in Texas
won our land from a Mexican government trying to do the same thing the
U.S. government tries today. Just leave Texas alone. By the way
Oklahoma was suppose to be Indian territory for all the Indian nations
located in it. How did they loose it?
" The agency says the land is public, citing a 1923 ruling from the
U.S. Supreme Court that assigned land in between the state boundary to
the federal government. The families say they have deeds for the land
and have paid taxes on it for many years now. "
Let me see if I understand this right. The families have deeds for the land and paid taxes on the land for 83 years and the BLM is claiming it belongs to the government. Why does then government own the land now? Why didn't the government own the land in 1923? Why let the families have deeds and pay taxes on the land if the government owns the land? The BLM seems to be at fore front of aggression toward land owners. If the BLM wants the land then the owners better watch out ...... the BLM will take it.
Let me see if I understand this right. The families have deeds for the land and paid taxes on the land for 83 years and the BLM is claiming it belongs to the government. Why does then government own the land now? Why didn't the government own the land in 1923? Why let the families have deeds and pay taxes on the land if the government owns the land? The BLM seems to be at fore front of aggression toward land owners. If the BLM wants the land then the owners better watch out ...... the BLM will take it.
@BudWilstead
I think you mis-understood what the article says. The Supreme Court
said in 1923 that the land belonged to the federal government (public
land). Chances are the deeds are confusing.
I do think however that there is too much public lands. Some of it should be sold off. They own about 60 billion acres. If they ever do plan to sell it however, they should make sure they profit from the sale and the proceeds used for something to benefit the public at large. Here's an idea: If the government sells 20 million acres (about .03 percent of the total) at $1 million an acre, they would receive $20 trillion. That's enough to pay off the national debt. By setting the price so high, it's like their "don't really want to sell it" price. if people or companies or states want to pay the price they can get some of the federal land and if they don't want to pay the price, the land stays as federal land. It's a win-win.
I do think however that there is too much public lands. Some of it should be sold off. They own about 60 billion acres. If they ever do plan to sell it however, they should make sure they profit from the sale and the proceeds used for something to benefit the public at large. Here's an idea: If the government sells 20 million acres (about .03 percent of the total) at $1 million an acre, they would receive $20 trillion. That's enough to pay off the national debt. By setting the price so high, it's like their "don't really want to sell it" price. if people or companies or states want to pay the price they can get some of the federal land and if they don't want to pay the price, the land stays as federal land. It's a win-win.
@DavidLong @BudWilstead
David, you must be smoking something. Nothing the Government owns
would bring $1 million per acre, in fact most probably isn't worth more
than a few thousand per acre, so that brings in 60 billion. Given that
the cost of all the studies and the sale itself would likely cost half
that, not much profit for the effort. Here's a better idea from this
long time Federal Employee: Require that all Federal agencies in any
one town relocate to a central location over a 10 or 20 year period.
Then sell all the remaining property/buildings. This could reduce
maintenance and security costs, centralize access for the public, and
make communications and meetings between agencies more efficient. In my
small town in eastern Washington State, there are at least 10 agencies
that could be consolidated in one location
@AlbertSutlick @DavidLong @BudWilstead
And the problem with my idea is???? The federal government wants to
hang onto all it's land. The western states and local governments want
to acquire it for drilling and development. If the states consider the
land valuable they should be made to pay for it. If they don't want to
pay for it, to bad, so sad.
"The seven families behind the lawsuit " ... in other words they will
make it 'their' land and not the public's ... this isn't about taking
land back from the government it's about taking it away from the
American people and locking them out ... permanently. A significant part
of this 'take the land back' legislation is being written and
introduced verbatim by ALEC and if you think their motivation is the
welfare of the American people then I have beachfront property to sell
you in Kansas.
@KevinBiegler That's
not quite accurate, but given the way most things get misreported by
the media, I can understand where you would get that idea. The truth is
that most of those families have owned the land LONG before the 1923
legislation, and in fact, some of the local BLM folks have encouraged
these landowners to fight this land grab in court. And should they
lose, do you honestly think the Feds will refund all the property taxes,
etc that these people have paid? Or reimburse them for all the
improvements made on the land--like homes, etc? Not likely! There is
also a law called "right of adverse possession." In other words, EVEN
IF the land turned out to be mis-surveyed (it happens quite a bit more
than one would imagine!) these landowners have IN GOOD FAITH (that's an
important criteria) managed the land, improved it, and paid taxes on it,
thereby giving them a legal claim to it. Such things are generally
over a matter of a few feet, but I can see that being used as a valid
precedent.
A
friend of mine just got back from Norway. He was there a couple of
weeks and was constantly asked questions about US politics. During some
of the discussions people would say things like He's acting texan. When
my friend asked about it he was told this is new street slang for crazy
behavior or attitudes. Fits pretty well, huh?
Comments