Takings Clause Of The 5th Amendment: Land Preservation & Property Rights,. What Does The Bible Say? [ Inheritances For Sons & Daughters ]

" From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and men of violence take it by force. Matthew 11:12

[ The Bible in truth & action is a book about "Takings," to violently seize by force or power; aka, men of faith take from the wicked ]

For example, Abraham Lincoln did not want our ancestors; aka, our fellow African-American free, these mothers & fathers took their freedom by violent faith; only the violent overcometh the wicked in deception and deceit. Abe Lincoln, wasn’t so honest as people think, if you read Abe Lincoln's own words:.... ]

“ If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.” Saving the Union versus Freedom for African-Americans…

• Lincoln's own words validates that Lincoln was a lukewarm man-a man of a bi-polar complex. If you didn’t know, now you do, Abe Lincoln was Mulato; aka, we call it today; bi-racial; or tri-racial. Abe Lincoln, could be a fake African-American at church and be Anglo-Saxon in the courtroom; oh, I’m sorry you don’t know your history. ] 

Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Takings Clause  “ Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”. The Gov’t Shall Not Take, the gov’t is to give, preserve and protect land!

• Be strong and of good courage; for you shall cause this people to inherit the land which I swore to their fathers to give them. Joshua 1:6-7

Caleb Blesses His Daughter In Marriage With Land, Property, Water & Property Rights…

• And Caleb said, “Whoever smites Kir′iath-se′pher, and takes it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter as wife.”  And Oth′ni-el the son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took it; and he gave him Achsah his daughter as wife. When she came to him, she urged him to ask her father for a field; and she alighted from her ass, and Caleb said to her, “What do you wish?” She said to him, “Give me a present; since you have set me in the land of the Negeb, give me also springs of water.” And Caleb gave her the upper springs and the lower springs. Joshua 15:16-19

• From a biblical perspective, the LORD of Host does not intend for any land to be moving from tribe to tribe; it was to stay in the family ( i.e., lineage/family name ) within the tribe. God’s biblical insurance policy and governmental precedent was established in the daughters of Zelophehad petitions and prayers to Moses by way of God’s judgment and justice. All daughters who wanted to inherit land) must marry within the clan of their father’s tribe.

THE DAUGHTERS OF MOSES DID AS THE LORD COMMANDED…

• The daughters of Zelophehad did as the Lord had commanded Moses. 11 Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, married sons of their father’s brothers. 12 They were married into the clans of the descendants of Manasseh son of Joseph, and their inheritance remained in the tribe of their father’s clan. Numbers 36:10-12

Remember, God Promises Land To His People, As A Generational Covenant, God says; “ I Swore To Their Fathers To Give Them:... [ i.e., land as a inheritance, from family to family-tribe to tribe ]

 THE PROMISE LAND PROMISE BY GOD

“ Now Zelophehad son of Hepher son of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh had no sons, but only daughters; and these are the names of his daughters: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. They came before the priest Eleazar and Joshua son of Nun and the leaders, and said,

• ‘The Lord commanded Moses to give us an inheritance along with our male kin.’ So according to the commandment of the Lord he gave them an inheritance among the kinsmen of their father.

“Thus there fell to Manasseh ten portions, besides the land of Gilead and Bashan, which is on the other side of the Jordan,  because the daughters of Manasseh received an inheritance along with his sons. The land of Gilead was allotted to the rest of the Manassites. Joshua 17:3-6

For example,  would you give your keys to a stranger, would you give your private funds to a guy named Bernie Madoff, his name says who he is ‘MADE OFF’ with your money. Would God give Satan keys to the Kingdom of God, of course not-then why do we? 

FACT: Bernie Madoff ponzi schemes really devastated German Jews; aka, the fake Jewish community lost over 20 billions dollars; but the bible says; “You reap what you sow, you sow deception, you reap deception, someone more deceitful than you-will deceive you. “ Also before Bernie died, he revealed how German Jews manipulate Wall Street and federal banking institutions in regards to Real Estate and private properties.”  It’s funny how people come to the light in prison; but don’t really change and become like an Apostle Paul.

“Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you. Matthew 7:6

Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Takings Clause  “ Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”.

Q: One of the bible’s most fundamental principles on “ Property Rights was “Answered” by God to Moses daughters

Q: Why was this law approved by God; and its significance for daughters; especially for the daughters of Zelophehad?

A; The answer by God to Moses daughters provided a precedent law for sons and daughters; but daughters usually didn’t inherit the land as men did. So, the story of the five daughters of Zelophehad provides legitimation of  “Land and Property Rights,” are secured to daughters as long as the marry within the 12 tribes of the fathers. Marriage restrictions was a prerequisite for land and property rights-the children had to maintain the parents beliefs and convictions; specifically the right of Hebrew Israelite women to inherit land was based upon who the daughter married. A woman, Hebrew Israelite, could not marry a non-Israelite, a stranger; or foreigner of the covenant of God. 

We are childre of God, sons and daughters; likewise, earthly fathers have sons & daughters who are to inherit our land & property rights too.

“ Then drew near the daughters of Zelo′phehad the son of Hepher, son of Gilead, son of Machir, son of Manas′seh, from the families of Manas′seh the son of Joseph. The names of his daughters were: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. 

Question to God by way of Moses and the priest Elezar.

“ Why should the name of our father be taken away from his family, because he had no son? Give to us a possession among our father’s brethren.” Numbers 27:1-4

BIBLICAL FACT: This bible story is about the preservation of the Hebrew culture among the 12 tribes, and the fathers-mothers covenant to God. The preservation of the fathers name was the preservation of the lineage; including the preservation and safe-keeping of land from generation to generation

THE TAKINGS CLAUSE OF THE 5TH AMENDMENT: The Most Important Topic Americans Should Be Discussing Is “The Bureau of Land Management-BLM; ‘ Takings Clause of the 5th Amend”not the fake Black Lives Matter-BLM movement. 

LAND OR PROMISE LAND FACT: The federal government owns roughly 635 million acres, heavily concentrated in 12

states. Four agencies—the National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), in the Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Forest

Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture—administer about 95% of those lands.

Question: Which of these four federal agencies have broad authority to acquire and dispose of land-by force or use of force by law enforcement officials. Answer: the Bureau of Land Management-BLM has surprisingly a lot of authority for both acquisitions and disposals of land; and land assets under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. 

• This federal agency also has other powers/authorities to

dispose of land, including a law that allows transfers to governmental units and other private entities; which from a constitutional statute for public purposes is unconstitutional.

• Mr. Clayborn cited the BLM federal agency first. Because of this agency’s broad federal authority & powers; in fact,   in recent years.This agency has used lethal, deadly and the use of force tactics to remove farmers and citizens from their lands and homes passed down by their ancestors; in short, these lands and homes were legally deeded to the families for generational purposes. The government can tax these citizens and/or farmers; but the government by statue should not take the lands; the government can place a tax lien [i.e., taxes owed to Gov’t for lawful & legal purposes ]; on properties and lands; and restrict further land development; but the “Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment,”  restrict ‘Takings,” of private property for public purposes-without just compensation. 

Question: What is the acceptable just compensation?

On the other hand, the National Park Service-NPS by congressional mandate has no general authority; or powers to acquire land to create new park units or to dispose of park lands. 

The Fish and WIldlife Service-FWS does have authority to acquire lands; but its powers are limited to lands within or contiguous to the boundaries of a national forest. The agency has limited power/authority to dispose of land, but they are constrained and watched heavily by outside private and non-profit WIldlife activists. 

• The Fish and WIldlife Service-FWS has used its authority and powers in the past to acquire lands, but the agency has authority to dispose of its lands. It’s powers should be directed or related to ‘Fish and Wildlife’  citizenship matters; but the FWS authority under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1929, has retained the land by way of the funding through the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund; a type of trust fund. 

LAND AND WATER FACTS: The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is the primary source of funding for land acquisition. The FWS also has the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, an account with mandatory spending authorities supported by revenue from these funding sources. The BLM has authority allowing the proceeds from certain land sales to be used for acquisition and other purposes, although a more

general authority of this nature has expired. Congress has considered legislation to increase LWCF funding and make it permanent, as well as to decrease federal land holdings to direct funding from land acquisition to facility maintenance.

LAND AND LAND ACQUISITION FACTS”

• The National Park Service-NPS  has no general

authority to acquire land to create new park units or to dispose of park lands. 

• In accordance with acquisition and disposal powers and authorities for the Fish and WIldlife-FWS are not broad as the Bureau of Land Management-BLM

• The National Park Service-NPS powers and authority are very restrictive. 

The FWIS authority and powers are authorized to acquire lands; or limited to lands within or contiguous to the boundaries of a national forest. 

For example, the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and WIldlife and the National Park Service, would not be able to take land in Cook County and/or the city of Chicago. Why? Chicago is urban, and is a very large and populated city with millions of people; Chicago doesn't have a national park or a populated ‘Wildlife,’ like the state of Florida does. Now, Florida and its citizens will have to use the “Takings Clause,” to protect their lands. Because wildlife, fishlife is a way of life in that state. Again, in a state like Florida and some parts of California where wildlife is the largest and expansive the BLM, FWS and NPS does have power and authority to dispose of land [ i.e., not to take ], but these federal agencies can be pressured by media, nonprofits and by political appointees with their prospective states.

Websites & Works Cited 

COVID-19 response: Constitutional protections for private property. (n.d.). Retrieved October 23, 2022, from https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fXyaukOoVR4J:https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10434&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Retroactive legislation: A primer for Congress. (n.d.). Retrieved October 23, 2022, from https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ik100rg6PE4J:https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF11293.pdf&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Takings decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court: A chronology. (n.d.). Retrieved October 23, 2022, from https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2blYfmcuic8J:https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/97-122.pdf&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us