I think it's desperation for sales/clicks in a world where they're becoming ever more irrelevant...
Unfortunately so true.
I think it's desperation for sales/clicks in a world where they're becoming ever more irrelevant...
The Last Homesteader. The Homestead Act was repealed in 1974 in the lower 48, but given a ten-year extension in Alaska. Vietnam veteran Ken Deardorff was the last person to avail himself of the program.I noticed that one of the "militants" had named himself "Captain Moroni," after the revealing angel. I apologize for getting snappish last night. It was late and I got put out and, frankly, I was too tired to explain the Homestead Act of 1862, which I learned about in high school in American History. There seem to be some misconceptions. At the beginning of the act, the minimum number of acres was 640, at $1 per acre. That didn't really solve the problem, so the amount of land was finally reduced to a quarter - 160 acres. $640 in 1862 is in excess of $15K in today's dollars, and that's without the investment required to buy implements, farm animals, etc. You had to establish residency, live on the land at least six months per year and have no other residence. A certain percentage had to be devoted to agriculture. Although there was a lot of corruption, on the main, the act accomplished what its objective was. Between 1862 and 1976, upon repeal, between 250 and 300 million acres passed into private hands. (No one knows the exact acreage.) Here's the problem - those conditions no longer exist. The land left can't be farmed. In fact, most of it is inaccessible. The grazing which is happening in this case requires, in some parts of the west, it requires 100 acres to graze just one cow. If the public lands they lease - and in this case want to be given them, because it's "theirs" - were sold to them at the same 1862 rates today, a viable ranch for, say, a modest herd of 300 cows or so, would cost upwards of 3/4 million dollars today. Very few ranchers could afford it, which is the reason they're saying it's theirs and want it given to them. In short, the "land rush" will never happen again because of economic and environmental factors. It had petered out by the time it was repealed. For myself, I oppose a big land giveaway. We the people legally own it, as Tidewater has pointed out, and I don't want it given away to some guy whose grandfather happened to homestead next to it. If it were put to a national plebiscite, I have no doubt it would be voted down overwhelmingly. One last point - most of the grazers are infamous land abusers. Why should they take care of the land? After all, they just rent it, so it wouldn't make economic sense. As I said, I was just too tired to outline this last night...
I thought it was '76, but I'm not Selma. It had essentially died, owing to the factors I set out. I knew about the AK extension, but I didn't think it was material, since we were discussing the mountain West. I didn't know about Deardorff. I may have read it at the time, since his name sounds familiar. BTW, the linked article on Mormonism is very interesting...The Last Homesteader. The Homestead Act was repealed in 1974 in the lower 48, but given a ten-year extension in Alaska. Vietnam veteran Ken Deardorff was the last person to avail himself of the program.
I am not a lawyer but I have never heard of a jury made of exclusively of Government employeesYes it is.
There must be an interesting theory behind this. Care to explain?Yes it is.
maybe someone can send them a couple of cases of jack link's and red bulllooks like they didn't plan this too well
http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...-out-plea-for-snacks-and-supplies--ZJglh9sRjx
...and Obama's push for gun confiscation (control). They need to go home.A perfectly timed distraction as the stock market goes into a funk, and debts are being called by the central banks.
Sleep, sheep, sleep.
I love the response to send them some Gay Doritos and some Tabulah and Mujadrahmaybe someone can send them a couple of cases of jack link's and red bull
I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder if the legal theory of agency could be applied: private citizens on a jury acting as instruments or agents of the government.There must be an interesting theory behind this. Care to explain?
Not really. Anything but. I, like Tidewater, agree that the invention of the jury is the crowning achievement of English jurisprudence - taking the crown and his judges out of it. Also, juries in the US have more freedom to disagree with the government than in any other country. Juries bedevil and frustrate prosecutors every bit as much as they do defending attorneys. Grand juries are under the thumb of the DA, but petit juries are completely independent. They will frequently employ what we call "jury equity" and completely ignore the instructions of the judge. The losing side will frequently employ what's called different names in different jurisdictions, but it's basically "judgement notwithstanding the verdict." Judges are loathe to go against the jury, though...I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder if the legal theory of agency could be applied: private citizens on a jury acting as instruments or agents of the government.
I wonder what extent that is a result of the Norman Conquest and its Saxon antecedents.Not really. Anything but. I, like Tidewater, agree that the invention of the jury is the crowning achievement of English jurisprudence - taking the crown and his judges out of it.
I think the jury system really evolved in the post-feudal period...I wonder what extent that is a result of the Norman Conquest and its Saxon antecedents.
The Saxons had had a very egalitarian social system and I can see post-Hastings Saxon subjects of the Normans wanting to be tried before a jury of Saxons peers, and I can definitely see Normans not wanting to have their trials being held before a jury of Saxons.
So in the majority of cases the jury makes its decision without heeding the judge's instructions?Not really. Anything but. I, like Tidewater, agree that the invention of the jury is the crowning achievement of English jurisprudence - taking the crown and his judges out of it. Also, juries in the US have more freedom to disagree with the government than in any other country. Juries bedevil and frustrate prosecutors every bit as much as they do defending attorneys. Grand juries are under the thumb of the DA, but petit juries are completely independent. They will frequently employ what we call "jury equity" and completely ignore the instructions of the judge. The losing side will frequently employ what's called different names in different jurisdictions, but it's basically "judgement notwithstanding the verdict." Judges are loathe to go against the jury, though...
Well, you hit it. Article 39 of the Magna Carta (which wasn't as broad as generally believed)...I wonder what extent that is a result of the Norman Conquest and its Saxon antecedents.
The Saxons had had a very egalitarian social system and I can see post-Hastings Saxon subjects of the Normans wanting to be tried before a jury of Saxons peers, and I can definitely see Normans not wanting to have their trials being held before a jury of Saxons.
I wonder what extent that is a result of the Norman Conquest and its Saxon antecedents.
The Saxons had had a very egalitarian social system and I can see post-Hastings Saxon subjects of the Normans wanting to be tried before a jury of Saxons peers, and I can definitely see Normans not wanting to have their trials being held before a jury of Saxons.