Defend Rural America
TM
Discovering The Truth About Our World
© 2014 Kirk F. MacKenzie. All rights reserved.
Jurisdiction Is The Solution
by Kirk F. MacKenzie
Founder of Defend Rural AmericaTM
FOR FURTHER STUDY habitat, animals including endangered species, biodiversity, energy
• Defend Rural America website sources, recreational access and use, families, communities, jobs,
economies, rights, and perhaps soon our very lives.
• The DRA Jurisdiction page If continued, these policies will end our Republic, devastate
• The Eisenhower Report man’s quest for Equality and Liberty, and bring about a global new
• White papers by Sheriff Gil Gilbertson, Doyel Shamley, Dark Age of centralized, totalitarian control the likes of which the
former attorney Norm Sauer, and myself world has never known.
Thus, the Bundy, Hage, and other families have done our country
• Judge Napolitano on jurisdiction (YouTube) a great service by standing up to the federal government, and being
• Jurisdiction Can Save Rural America (YouTube) a catalyst to unite various arms of our liberty movement―
• The Unconstitutional United States (YouTube) objectives DRA has advocated for a long time.
• Dr. Corey Goodman on scientific fraud (YouTube)
THE CHOICES WE MAKE ARE CRUCIAL
OUR NATION UNDER ATTACK The choices we make now are fundamental to whether or not the
The recent Bundy family situation brought widespread attention founding principles, constitution, federation, and republican form
to the neo-environmentalist assault on Rural America that is of government survive. Accordingly, the decisions made must
destroying our environment, our communities, and ultimately our include the greatest possible participation of the People, not solely
national security and sovereignty. legislators meeting in closed door sessions. Toward that end, I
Contrary to what the general public has been told, our offer my thoughts for consideration.
environmental movement has been hijacked by a political agenda
that has been destructive on all fronts. JURISDICTION
The quickest and surest way to restore proper land management
is to get the States and counties to exercise the Jurisdiction they
already have, but are not using. The relief is immediate; there is no
need to wait for federal blessing.
SUPPORTED BY THE CONSTITUTION
For support, we start with the U.S. Constitution.
Politically-driven federal land “management” has been
devastating to our forests, rivers, reservoirs, air and water quality,
Page 1 of 5 www.DefendRuralAmerica.com
I.8.17 THE LAND CLAUSE
foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
“The Congress shall have power to ... exercise exclusive
Department or Officer thereof.”―Article I, Section 8, Clause
legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not
18
exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of
particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become The Necessary And Proper Clause adds no legislative powers. It
the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to applies only to Laws “which shall be necessary and proper for
exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers ...”
Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same
shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, IV.3.2 THE PROPERTY CLAUSE
dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”―Article I,
Section 8, Clause 17 “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all
needful rules and regulations respecting the Territory or other
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution―which I call property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this
the Land Clause―is perhaps the most important, most abused, and Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of
least known clause of the Constitution. It allows the federal the United States, or of any particular State.”―Article IV,
government to own and exercise exclusive legislative authority Section 3, Clause 2
over Washington D.C., and lands purchased from states for
enumerated defense purposes, called federal enclaves. The Property Clause likewise adds no legislative powers over
That’s it! No other clause in the Constitution gives the federal State lands. It applies only to lands lying outside State boundaries.
government rights to own any other lands, or to exercise The qualifying phrase is ”the Territory or other property belonging
legislative authority over State lands. If it’s not enumerated, it is to the United States”..
outside federal authority. The Constitution uses the strongest form The powers bestowed by this clause end with statehood. When
of constraint. Rather than define what government cannot do, an territories became States, they did so on an equal footing, and
impossibly long list, it lists/enumerates those limited things which jurisdiction was ceded to them.
it can do, and declares everything else as belonging to the States or VI.2 THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
to the People.
Therefore, federal legislation within State borders applies only to “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
the federal enclaves, and no where else. The federal constraints are shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or
affirmed by several Supreme Court decisions, including these: which shall be made, under the authority of the United States,
shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every
The Court established a principle that federal jurisdiction state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or
extends only over the areas wherein it possesses the power of laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”―Article IV,
exclusive legislation, and this is a principle incorporated into Section 3 of the United States Constitution
all subsequent decisions regarding the extent of federal
jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would destroy the purpose,
intent and meaning of the entire U.S. Constitution.―United
States v. Bevans 16 U.S. (3Wheat.) 366 (1818)
“Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession
of jurisdiction from the States over places where the federal
government shall establish forts or other military works. And it
is only in these places, or in the territories of the United States,
where it can exercise a general jurisdiction.”― New Orleans v.
United States, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 662, 737 (1836)
“We think a proper examination of this subject will show that
the United States never held any municipal sovereignty,
jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory, of which
Alabama or any of the new States were formed ... because the
United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise
municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within
the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which The Supremacy Clause likewise does not create additional
it is expressly granted.”―Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) federal authority over State lands. The qualifying phrase is: “the
212 (1845) Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance
I.8.18 THE NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE thereof...”. In other words, the clause only applies to Laws made in
accordance with the aforementioned enumerated powers.
“The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which Indeed, no clause may be construed to defeat another. Were this
shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the not the case, an unconstrained reading of the Supremacy Clause
would override all of the carefully laid out constraints, make a
Page 2 of 5 www.DefendRuralAmerica.com
mockery of the Constitution, and negate the very purpose of were put in Category IV, Proprietorial Interest Only. They fall
constitutional government. within the exclusive legislative authority of the States!
Congress, the Executive branch, nor the Judicial branch can The report supports the Constitution. The federal government
reinterpret the Constitution so as to change its original meaning. simply has no legislative authority over the vast majority of lands
What it meant then, it means now. Such reinterpretations amount within our State borders, including the Western States! The maps
to unconstitutional and unratified amendments. and media heads that say otherwise are wrong and misleading.
“The courts cannot rightly prefer, of the possible meanings of 3.2 “With respect to the large bulk of federally owned or
the words of the constitution, that which will defeat rather that operated real property in the several States and outside of the
effectuate the constitutional purpose.”―United States v. District of Columbia it is desirable that the Federal
Classic, 313 U.S. 299 Government not receive, or retain, any measure whatever of
legislative jurisdiction, but that it hold the installations and
“Where the meaning of the Constitution is clear and areas in a proprietorial interest status only, with legislative
unambiguous, there can be no resort to construction to attribute jurisdiction remaining in the several States.”―The Eisenhower
to the founders a purpose or intent not manifest in its Report
letter.”―Norris v. Baltimore, 172 MD. 667; 192 A 531.01
FEDERAL PURCHASES
“If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional The Eisenhower Report did create two categories of shared
provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a jurisdiction over State lands that are not enclaves. Three quick
right.”―Amos v. Mosley, 74 Fla, 555, 77 Seo. 691 points.
First, less than 5% of land is affected.
Second, shared jurisdiction is unconstitutional, despite being in
SUPPORTED BY THE EISENHOWER REPORT the Report. State officials, as agents of the People, may not transfer
their legislative authority to the federal government.
“Where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States,
therefore, the departure from the constitutional plan cannot be
ratified by the ‘consent’ of state officials. … The constitutional
authority of Congress cannot be expanded by the ‘consent’ of
the governmental unit whose domain is thereby narrowed,
whether that unit is the Executive Branch or the States.”―New
York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there
can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate
them.”―Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Finally, even if federal land purchases unauthorized by the Land
Clause are somehow legal, the federal government acquires no
legislative authority over them. The federal government merely
resembles a private property owner.
[With regard to 95 percent of the public lands] “the National
Government resembles a private property owner in that is
bears some right or title to the property but no measure of the
State’s jurisdictional authority.”―State and Local Taxation of
Privately Owned Property Located on Federal Areas, by the
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, first
issued June 1961 and reissued August 1965.
The Jurisdiction approach is even supported by the federal
government itself, indeed a President of the United States, in the
form of the Eisenhower Report, a copy of which can be viewed on
the DRA Jurisdiction page.
During Eisenhower’s administration, all lands were listed to
which the federal government claimed an interest, then categorized
by the nature of that interest. 95% of the so-called “federal lands”
Page 3 of 5 www.DefendRuralAmerica.com
SUPPORTED BYJUDGE NAPOLITANO MONEY USED TO BYPASS OUR CONSTITUTION
Judge Napolitano supports Jurisdiction.
“The Constitution simply does not authorize the federal
government to own any of this land. All of it is being held
unconstitutionally.”―Judge Napolitano, April 23, 2014. His
statement appears at time mark 9:55 in this Sean Hannity
interview.
SUPPORTED BY CLIVEN BUNDY The problem is the flow of money to our state and local
representatives from outside sources, principally but not
Cliven Bundy also agrees. His argument is one of jurisdiction. exclusively the federal government. For reasons that are not their
He believes States and counties have jurisdiction over State lands, fault, state and county governments now rely on 30%, 40%, or
not the federal government. It is for this principle that he and his even more than half of their budgets from federal PILT and other
family risk their lives. payments.
IN SUMMARY CREATES FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS
There is strong, clear, authoritative, and constitutional This state of affairs poses real, fundamental, and systemic
justification for States to assume control over land management problems that threaten representative democracy.
within their boundaries without waiting for federal approval. Our 1. It is a huge conflict of interest. Many, indeed most,
state legislators and county supervisors/commissioners have the government representatives and employees become more
authority and the duty to do so. concerned about the continued flow of federal dollars than they
are about their constituents. It is common for county supervisors/
WHAT HOLDS US BACK? commissioners and/or staff to consult with federal agents before
taking any action. They simply refuse to challenge federal
OUR EFFORTS ARE BEING BLOCKED supremacy, even those that are clearly outside the federal
government's constitutional authority.
Our efforts to take our country back are in many cases being 2. It affects policy making. Outside dollars come with
obstructed, and from the very people that should be representing conditions. They are non-discretionary funds to be used solely to
our interests. These obstructionists, no matter how patriotic or implement the objectives of the federal government, and none
constitutional they might believe themselves to be, threaten our other. In effect, 30%, 40%, or even more than half of our public
Republic. Righting this wrong is something every single group employees become federal agents in all but name, implementing
within our Restoration Movement no matter its focus―common and enforcing federal policies that are contrary to the interests of
core education, stack-and-pack housing, high-speed rail, regional their constituents. It is no different than Intel employees taking
government, agriculture, mining, forestry, property rights, access money from Google and using their Intel jobs to benefit Google.
to public lands, environment, etc.―can unite and should unite 3. It blocks our efforts to solve our problems, especially the
upon: the restoration of truly constitutional county and state most fundamental ones. The closer our actions come to the
governments. We either restore local constitutional government, fundamental issues that affect us, the less support we get.
or suffer global governance. Representatives as a whole―and I'm not saying all
Representatives, so don't misread me on that―too often won't
challenge federal supremacy or offend federal agents.
Accordingly, our Republic continues to decline. The reality is, all
of those federal policies―common core education, stack-and-
Page 4 of 5 www.DefendRuralAmerica.com
pack housing, high-speed rail, regional government, agriculture,
mining, forestry, property rights, access to public lands,
environment, etc.―are being implemented and enforced because
of the consent of our Representatives.
4. It is unconstitutional. Both the state and federal
representatives are acting under color of authority, outside of
their constitutional authority. State and federal agents become
willing co-conspirators, whether they conscientiously understand
it or not, in extending federal powers beyond those enumerated
in the Constitution, and thereby denying us a constitutional form
of government. We pay our taxes, but no one listens to us, and
we have no representation.
MUST WE BE FORCED TO RESORT TO THE SUPREME COURT,
ONCE AGAIN?
Sheriff Richard Mack made us all well aware of the Printz vs.
United States Supreme Court Decision, No. 95-1478, decided
June 27, 1997. In that case, the Court added a second link to the
chain that binds federal overreach. The relevant clause reads:
"We held in New York [New York v. United States, 505 U.S.
144, 146] that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or
enforce a federal regulatory program [the first link]. Today we
hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by
conscripting the State's officers directly [the second link]. The
Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the
States to address particular problems, nor command the States'
officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer
or enforce a federal regulatory program. ... such commands are
fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of
dual sovereignty."―Printz vs. United States
We are forced to now consider a third link: Can the federal
government bribe State officers to use their offices to administer
or enforce federal programs? The answer should be obvious to
all.
CLOSING REMARKS
We are at a critical juncture. Our forces are gathering, and our
direction is being determined. We either stand up or kneel down.
Kneeling down will lead to centuries of universal prostration.
I Pray we make the right decisions, and firmly believe this can
only be accomplished with open dialog and the fullest
participation of the People.
I encourage every arm of our Restoration Movement to unify in
a joint effort to restore local constitutional government ASAP.
We Either Restore Constitutional Local Government
or Suffer Global Governance.
― Kirk MacKenzie, www.DefendRuralAmerica.com
***
Page 5 of 5 www.DefendRuralAmerica.com
