Waco and Ruby ridge all over again

true, but isn't it also true that they were in fact leasing the land & didn't own it? If that's the case, then *their* land wasn't taken from them, the term of use were changed by the owner.

So the feds made changes. whether we like the changes or not or the forces behind it seems to me to be irrelevant. The legal owner of the land made changes.

At that time they had a choice to make. Keep leasing it & paying the lease, or stop leasing & make other arrangements.
 
Originally Posted By: rockinbbarQuote:1) They paid their lease fees until they decided not to in 1993.


Just a small correction here:

1) They paid their lease fees until they decided not to the enviro-nazis and the BLM took 3/4 of the ranch, for the desert tortoise in 1993 and mismanaged the land at which time the Bundys tried to pay the fees to Clark County (THE PEOPLE WHO SHOULD HAVE THE FINAL SAY SINCE THE LAND ACTUALITY BELONGS TO THEM). Clark County refused payment.


I added to it.
 
The legal owner of the land made changes."

This is where you are confused. The land belongs to Clark County and it's people. The feds just claimed it a theirs.
 
Originally Posted By: crapshootThe legal owner of the land made changes."

This is where you are confused. The land belongs to Clark County and it's people. The feds just claimed it a theirs.


The courts said you are wrong.
 
Originally Posted By: crapshootThe legal owner of the land made changes."

This is where you are confused. The land belongs to Clark County and it's people. The feds just claimed it a theirs.


Didn't you mean to say Harry Reid??
 
Originally Posted By: dogcatcherOriginally Posted By: crapshootThe legal owner of the land made changes."

This is where you are confused. The land belongs to Clark County and it's people. The feds just claimed it a theirs.


The courts said you are wrong.

Not all the courts have.

http://americanlandscouncil.org/the-promises-are-the-same/


Quote:For nearly 200 years, Congress recognized its duty to disposed of the public lands. It wasn’t until 1976 that Congress passed the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) unilaterally declaring that it was their new “policy to retain these lands in federal ownership.”

However, in 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously declared that Congress doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally change “the uniquely sovereign character” of a state’s admission into the Union, particularly “where virtually all of a state’s public lands are a stake.” Hawaii v. OHA.


In other words: Congress can't force states to cede all public lands to federal government control as a condition of statehood to be accepted into the union.
 
All of the land was acquired by the Federal government with the signing of the Guadalupe Hildago Treaty of 1848, that was 18 years before Nevada became a state. It was a US Territory after Mexico gave the land to the US at the signing of the treaty.

When did Nevada get the ownership that some of you claim? There is no recoded treaty or deed of the Federal government giving it to Nevada.
 
I guess it's a states rights issue. There are lots of legal precedence that show that the public lands within the boundaries of that state belong TO that state.

That the federal government can't legally own properties within that state unless expressly outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

Article I Section 8 defines the limits of a federal government.
 
How can it even be a states issue, the land was ceded to the Federal government by Mexico? The Federal government has owned it since Mexico ceded it.
 
Originally Posted By: dogcatcherHow can it even be a states issue, the land was ceded to the Federal government by Mexico? The Federal government has owned it since Mexico ceded it.



It gets pretty complicated without people smarter than me here to explain.

But, if what I said before about the Constitution and the limited powers defined in it, as well as the real property defined as allowable to be owned by the federal government, is adhered to, then the following is applicable.

First, if you look at the western states, HUGE portions of it are public lands. Within those states boundaries lie the public lands.

Here is a map so that everyone can have a "visual".



OK, now looking at the public lands in red, one can see the vast amount of lands under federal control right now. Pretty big isn't it?

In the Western U.S. those public lands make up huge percentages of the states where the lands lie. Nobody can argue that fact. In fact, if you add up all the public lands for the U.S. that number would come out to be about 40% of ALL land in the United States. That is a fact. The remaining 60% of the land is private land.

Now, let's get back to what the U.S. Constitution allows the federal government to own and defines it's powers in Art.I Sec.8.

That red area in the map isn't what is defined in the Constitution. In fact, it says that what is not allowed by the Constitution is otherwise reserved for the STATES.
Follow me so far?

Now if the federal government claims ownership and jurisdiction over ALL that red area, it means that the federal government essentially OWNS those states where the majority, or even a large percentage of public lands within it's state boundaries. And that means that in reality, there would be only TWO states in the United States. The state that the Government owns, and the state that the private citizens own. This is in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and the public lands held in trust are in effect owned by the sovereign states of which public lands are held within it's boundaries.

For the federal government to own so much of so many states it would create a very strong Central Government.

If Congress could unilaterally alter or diminish the very terms of statehood, states would cease to be states and would become mere administrative subdivisions of an all-powerful national government.

NOBODY wants the federal government to be that big, or have that much power... Well. Maybe Obama and his liberal minions do.
mad.gif


5 Western states have passed legislation to reclaim the public lands within their boundaries, and several more are working on such legislation now. And not just out West. All over the U.S.

More reading here: http://landandlivestock.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/public-lands-held-in-trust/
 
and if the land is in the BLM program, the the owners -the county- have signed onto the terms of that program, no?

If the county doesn't want it to be in BLM, are they stuck forever or can they remove it from the program?
 
Stu, the County and State level governments WANT the lands under their control.

I was involved in that at the grass roots in Otero County.

At the local level, proper forest management can occur, jobs are created, public safety is brought back into consideration because of the fire hazards being reduced because logging is allowed again...the list goes on and on.

Figures also prove that on the local government level, ONLY the public lands under state control operate in the black. Those under federal control operate at huge losses.

 
I have not heard who asked for the military looking people to be involved or who approved and sent the military looking people. State and local law I understand, but those guys look to be from out of town. Who would have the authority to OK such an action. Why was the Guard not used if they wanted to protect the public as stated. Military looking people with no patches on their uniform don't seem an above board public service.
 

It in on a pdf, you will have to copy and paste to pull up the pdf.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDMQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.umaryland.edu%2Fmarshall%2Fcrsreports%2Fcrsdocuments%2FRL34267_12032007.pdf&ei=RI1MU56FH-am2AX2kYCYDQ&usg=AFQjCNGiICeHAkg667dPP9hS-Lo5-bX0Lg


Quote:
Constitutional Basis for Federal Land Ownership:

The Property Clause

The U.S. Constitution addresses the relationship of the federal government to

lands. The Property Clause, Article IV, § 3, Clause 2, gives Congress authority over

the lands, territories, or other property of the United States. It reads:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and

Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United

States.

This provision provides broad authority for Congress to govern the lands

acquired by the federal government as it sees fit, and to exercise exclusive authority

to decide on whether or not to dispose of those lands. The U.S. Supreme Court has

described this power as “without limitation,” stating that:

while Congress can acquire exclusive or partial jurisdiction over lands within a

State by the State’s consent or cession, the presence or absence of such

jurisdiction has nothing to do with Congress’ powers under the Property Clause.

Absent consent or cession a State undoubtedly retains jurisdiction over federal

lands within its territory, but Congress equally surely retains the power to enact

legislation respecting those lands pursuant to the Property Clause.... And when

Congress so acts, the federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state

laws under the Supremacy Clause.4
 
Originally Posted By: tnshootistI have not heard who asked for the military looking people to be involved or who approved and sent the military looking people. State and local law I understand, but those guys look to be from out of town. Who would have the authority to OK such an action. Why was the Guard not used if they wanted to protect the public as stated. Military looking people with no patches on their uniform don't seem an above board public service.

If I was guessing I would guess they are employees of the BLM and other government agencies. Quite a few former military service members go to work for various government agencies when they get out of the military. Therefore they look like the military in both dress and demeanor.
 
Government declaring they have unlimited powers. Imagine that...

THAT, my friend is what all this Bundy fiasco is all about.
wink.gif


People have had enough of it.


State's rights vs Federal Rights.

HeII, even civil wars have been started and fought over such trivial matters.

North and South will now be East and West.
 
Last edited:
Watching Hannity right now. Turn it on if you are close to your TV.
On the Kelly file, she had a videographer that was recording the final standoff. He commended FOX News, because they had the only News truck at the confrontation. Any surprise there?
 

US Constitution Article iv Section 3 Clause 2

http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pages....CookieSupport=1

Quote:

Section 3 - The Text
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section 3 - The Meaning
Congress can admit new states into the Union, but a single state cannot create a new state within its boundaries. For example, the state of New York cannot make New York City a separate state. In addition, two states, or parts of states (i.e. Oregon and Idaho or Wilmington, Delaware, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) cannot become states without the consent of the various state legislatures and Congress. Although an original version of the Constitution included a requirement that each new state join the Union on equal footing with the other states, the language was removed before the document was approved. Nevertheless, Congress has always granted new states rights equal to those of existing states.

Not all of the lands that are owned or controlled by the United States are states. Some lands are territories, and Congress has the power to sell off or regulate the territories. This includes allowing U.S. territories to become independent nations, as was done with the Philippines, or regulating the affairs of current U.S. territories like the District of Columbia, Guam, or Puerto Rico. In addition, this provision gives Congress the power to set rules for lands owned by the United States, such as the national parks and national forests. The last sentence of this clause makes sure that nothing in the Constitution would harm the rights of either the federal government or the states in disputes over property.
 
Originally Posted By: dogcatcher
US Constitution Article iv Section 3 Clause 2

http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pages....CookieSupport=1

Quote:

Section 3 - The Text
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section 3 - The Meaning
Congress can admit new states into the Union, but a single state cannot create a new state within its boundaries. For example, the state of New York cannot make New York City a separate state. In addition, two states, or parts of states (i.e. Oregon and Idaho or Wilmington, Delaware, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) cannot become states without the consent of the various state legislatures and Congress. Although an original version of the Constitution included a requirement that each new state join the Union on equal footing with the other states, the language was removed before the document was approved. Nevertheless, Congress has always granted new states rights equal to those of existing states.

Not all of the lands that are owned or controlled by the United States are states. Some lands are territories, and Congress has the power to sell off or regulate the territories. This includes allowing U.S. territories to become independent nations, as was done with the Philippines, or regulating the affairs of current U.S. territories like the District of Columbia, Guam, or Puerto Rico. In addition, this provision gives Congress the power to set rules for lands owned by the United States, such as the national parks and national forests. The last sentence of this clause makes sure that nothing in the Constitution would harm the rights of either the federal government or the states in disputes over property.


Do you have a point to all this?
confused.gif


I thought the SCOTUS ruling in 2009 about States vs Federal was the latest ruling of any sort on the matter.

Quote:For nearly 200 years, Congress recognized its duty to disposed of the public lands. It wasn’t until 1976 that Congress passed the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) unilaterally declaring that it was their new “policy to retain these lands in federal ownership.”

However, in 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously declared that Congress doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally change “the uniquely sovereign character” of a state’s admission into the Union, particularly “where virtually all of a state’s public lands are a stake.” Hawaii v. OHA.
 
Back
Top