But That's None Of My Business

"The Congress shall have power...

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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"

Correct! They do not have consent from the state and this isn't about a needful building. It is about control of mineral rights and it is damaging to the cattle industry in Oregon. This was attempted in 2014 on the Bundy ranch. I don't know if the ranchers took the right approach or it was the only option they had. I would like to see the feds follow the Constitution and I know they haven't done that.

Now wait. I could care less who has power to do what. The Indians turned the land to the gov. Why would some guys have a right to the land that's federally owned now.

The federal government is not allowed to own land other than that which is outlined in the referenced article. The Indian situation happened when the land was still just a territory. States have rights. The Federal government has limited authority for good reason.

So these people can just walk in and claim your land. Did they ever hold title? I don't get it.

Are you referring to the Feds or the Ranchers? If you mean the ranchers, they are not trying to possess the land, they are trying to prevent a federal government take over of the land. A take over that would ruin a thriving Oregon industry. An industry that Oregon had made an agreement with to allow them to use the land since that agreement brings tax revenue to Oregon. The federal government has no authority to take control of that land since it does not have Oregon's permission as required by the constitution.

This is not what I've been lead to believe. I read somewhere that they wanted the wildlife refuge titled to them
And they were refusing to pay grazing fees.

That is not my understanding but even in that event, that is a state issue; not a federal issue.

I dont know. I'll look into it more.

http://m.elkharttruth.com/news/national/2016/01/09/Things-to-know-The-armed-standoff-in-Oregon.html try this. The feds manage it. They are made about management and want the land to go to locals.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/ This some of what I found too.

It is hard to find much current news.... I remember a lot of lesser stories being a 24/7 event.

I do have issue with the federal government, essentially, annexing the majority of the land in a state. Especially, when the purpose is to terms and fees to local business. That is something the state can handle.

Seems like a decent article. I think the issues are a bit more complex but it really boils down to the federal government trying to overstep their authority.

Well I'm not really sure. But if the law and reporters walked away. There wouldn't be anything else for the protesters do. But leave from boredom

Please cut it short and tell us what it says. And how they can't go to court over it instead