LOTFI: Who actually “owns” America’s land? A deeper look at the Bundy Ranch crisis

By: Michael Lotfi
487

NEVADA, April 12, 2014– Turtles and cows have absolutely no relevance to the situation in Nevada. Does the Constitution make  provision for the federal government to own and control “public land”? This is the only question we need to consider. Currently, the federal government “owns” approximately 30% of the United States territory. The majority of this federally owned land is in the West. For example, the feds control more than 80% of Nevada and more than 55% of Utah. The question has been long debated. At the debate’s soul is Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which is know as the “Property Clause”. Proponents of federal expansion on both sides of the political aisle argue that this clause provides warrant for the federal government to control land throughout the United States.


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….

Those who say this clause delegates the feds control over whatever land they arbitrarily decide to lay claim to are grossly misinterpreting even the most basic structure of the Constitution.

It is said the Constitution is “written in plain English”. This is true. However, plain English does not allow one to remove context. Article IV does not grant Congress the power to exercise sovereignty over land. Article IV deals exclusively with state-to-state relations such as protection from invasion, slavery, full faith and credit, creation of new states and so on.

Historically, the Property Clause delegated federal control over territorial lands up until the point when that land would be formed as a state. This was necessary during the time of the ratification of the Constitution due to the lack of westward development. The clause was drafted to constitutionalize the Northwest Ordinance, which the Articles of Confederation did not have the power to support. This ordinance gave the newly formed Congress the power to create new states instead of allowing the states themselves to expand their own land claims.

The Property Clause and Northwest Ordinance are both limited in power and scope. Once a state is formed and accepted in the union, the federal government no longer has control over land within the state’s borders. From this moment, such land is considered property of the sovereign state. The continental United States is now formed of fifty independent, sovereign states. No “unclaimed” lands are technically in existence. Therefore, the Property Clause no longer applies within the realm of federal control over these states.

The powers of Congress are found only in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. With the exception of the less than two dozen powers delegated to Congress found within Article I, Section 8, Congress may make no laws, cannot form political agencies and cannot take any actions that seek to regulate outside of these enumerated powers.

Article I, Section 8 does lay forth the possibility of federal control over some land. What land? Clause 17 defines these few exceptions.

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– (Emphasis added).

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is known as the Enclave Clause. The clause gives federal control over the “Seat of Government” (Washington D.C.) and land that has been purchased by the federal government with consent of the state legislatures to build military posts and other needful buildings (post offices and other structures pursuant to Article I, Section 8). Nothing more. 

State permission being a requirement, state authority was explicitly emphasized while drafting this clause. The founders and respective states insisted (with loud cries) that the states must consent before the federal government could purchase land from the states. Nowhere in this clause will you find the power for Congress to exercise legislative authority through regulation over 80% of Nevada, 55% of Utah, 45% of California, 70% of Alaska, or any other state. Unless, of course, the state has given the federal government the formal authority to do so, which they have not.

If a state legislature decides sell land to the federal government then at that point the Enclave Clause becomes applicable and the federal government may seize legislative and regulatory control in pursuance to the powers delegated by Article 1, Section 8.

In America’s infancy, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Founding Fathers’ understanding of federal control over land. Justice Stephen J. Field wrote for the majority opinion in Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1855) that federal authority over territorial land was “necessarily paramount.” However, once the territory was organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal ground, the state government assumes sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government retains only the rights of an “individual proprietor.” This means that the federal government can only exercise general sovereignty over state property if the state legislatures formally grant the federal government the power to do so under the Enclave Clause with the exception of federal buildings (post offices) and military installations. This understanding was reaffirmed in Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan (1845), Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the city of New Orleans (1845) and Strader v. Graham (1850).

However, it did not take long for the Supreme Court to begin redefining the Constitution and legislating from the bench under the guise of interpretation.  Case by case, the Court slowly redefined the Property Clause, which had always been understood to regard exclusively the transferring of federal to state sovereignty through statehood, to the conservation of unconstitutional federal supremacy.

Federal supremacists sitting on the Supreme Court understood that by insidiously redefining this clause then federal power would be expanded and conserved.

With Camfield v. United States (1897), Light v. United States (1911),  Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) and multiple other cases regarding commerce, federal supremacists have effectively erased the constitutional guarantee of state control over property.

Through the centuries, by the hand of corrupt federal judges, we arrive and the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. The Founding Fathers never imagined the citizens of a state would be subject to such treatment at the hands of the federal government. Furthermore, they certainly never imagined the state legislatures themselves would allow such treatment to go unchecked. The latest updates appear to show that Bundy has won his battle against the feds– for now. However, it remains a damn shame that the state of Nevada would allow for such a situation to arise in the first place.

What does Nevada’s Constitution say about property? Section 1, titled “Inalienable Rights,” reads: All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness (Emphasis added).

In Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution, eminent domain is clarified. The state Constitution requires that the state prove public need, provide compensation and documentation before acquiring private property. In order to grant land to the federal government, the state must first control this land.

Bundy’s family has controlled the land for more than 140 years.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is an agency created by Congress, claimed that Bundy was “violating the law of the land.” Perhaps the agency has forgotten that the law of the land is the Constitution, and the only constitutional violation here is the very modern existence of the agency’s presence in Nevada.

Follow Michael Lotfi on Facebook and on Twitter.

The following two tabs change content below.
Michael Lotfi is a political analyst and strategist living in Nashville, Tennessee where he works as the executive director for the Tenth Amendment Center (TN). Lotfi also writes a column at The Washington Times called "American Millennial". Lotfi graduated in the top 5% of his class with honors from Belmont University, an award winning, private university located in Nashville, Tennessee.

  • Patriot

    Well said Michael.

  • Seola

    Except when the state makes it’s own deals which grant the federal authorities powers and possessions over those lands (which usually also includes the feds giving annual or lump payouts for that land use). The case is clear for what happens before a state becomes a state but gives no thought or credence to the state making a deal giving that land to the feds. Much like the deals we make in other countries to put military bases there, it’s the US’ land and the US controls it and what happens on it. We don’t claim to have control over the country, but have been granted that land by the owner of the property.

    • Reason and Justice

      The land belongs to the citizens of the states. The “state” is not an entity unto itself, it is by, of and for the people. The “state”, as it were, has no authority to “give” the feds any land without the expressed permission of the people, except for as stipulated in the constitutional provision noted by Mr. Lotfi.
      Stop trying to rationalize the irrational and stop trying to defend the indefensible.

      • Jesse Anderson

        You realize, of course, that the people elect representatives right? Those representatives speak for the people who elected them…which kinda nullifies your argument, but nice try.

        • Reason and Justice

          Only a birdbrain would try to make that argument.

          Elected public servants have to follow the letter of the law regardless of the fact that they are elected by the people.

          The fact that these public servants are elected by the people doesn’t not give them license to violate the constitution and their oath of office.

          I’m sure you won’t understand that. My guess is that you are constitutionally incapable of rational thinking.

          • Jesse Anderson

            Lol epic fail on your part. This is the law dummy. It may not be constitutional, but it’s still the law until the people elect someone else or until it’s struck down by the supreme court. Once again, your argument is moot. But nice try.

          • Reason and Justice

            No, what you are talking about is elected public servants who think they’re above the law and violate it whenever they want.

            I didn’t think you would be capable of understanding this simple concept.

            Don’t bother responding, it’s obviously over your head.

            People like you were born to be slaves and that’s all you’ll ever be.

          • Jesse Anderson

            Yeah, you just don’t want me to respond because every time I do, I destroy your little fantasy. Sorry buddy, but I have no patience for ignorance like yours. Therefore, I will continue to obliterate it wherever I find it. Now, the reality is, the law exists, the fact that you and I don’t like it doesn’t change a thing. Your argument is still moot. Try again.

          • Reason and Justice

            You are mentally ill.

          • Jesse Anderson

            Now that is the pot calling the kettle black! Seriously though, classy and well thought out comeback. You wouldn’t happen to be a liberal would you? You lack critical thinking and resort to defamation when proven wrong just like they do.

          • David Jones

            I kinda see both sides in this argument but I agree in the default in the existence of the law until SCOTUS says otherwise. However, I believe a person should be able to get an injunction against such law until SCOTUS rules.

          • Heartland Patriot

            If the legislature of some state passes a law that every third person is to be executed to reduce state population for “sustainability”, then that’s quite okay for it to happen, since its “the law”? And yes, I’m being extreme and absurd to prove a point: not every law is Constitutional.

          • Jesse Anderson

            You are missing the point. If it’s law, the citizens either need to elect new officials, or take it to court.

          • Pete

            Wrong…If an act violates the Constitution it is not nor ever was law.

          • Jesse Anderson

            Wrong, it’s law until the supreme court says it isn’t.

          • Michael Blake

            no that is a epic fail on you.

  • Dale Wellman

    Clause 18 in section I might be problematic. “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

    • Michael Lotfi

      There is nothing “problematic” about this clause. Liberals like to interpret this clause as a flood gate. The Necessary and Proper clause applies only to laws made in pursuance to the enumerate powers.

      • Tiffany Rambo

        It does seem like a floodgate? I am new to all of this and this is a fascinating article sbd comments. Forgive my naivety… what/where exactly does it specify? Thanks for a great article about a complex and important issue. Will be passing it on. Every citizen should read this.

  • Eric Bowman

    You neglected the constitution of the state of Nevada which gives all land not occupied or claimed to the federal government. Yhis has proven to be a mixed blessing. It alows anyone access to the land within reason, but depending on the administrator has made use of the land dificult. Case on point would be the road to Jarbridge. The issue with the Bundy ranch is not uncommon, only the method and the following reaction are unusual. It annoys me when folks speak with authority, yet know nothing of the history or politics of Nevada.

    • Reason and Justice

      “You neglected the constitution of the state of Nevada which gives all land not occupied or claimed to the federal government”
      Back up your claim. You saying that doesn’t mean anything to me, you need to back it up with something.

      • Eric Bowman

        Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.
        http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst.html

        • Michael Lotfi

          You do realize you’re completely misinterpreting this correct?

          • Eric Bowman

            Explain

          • Michael Lotfi

            This clause defines territorial lands (as in western territory and not the newly formed state of Nevada), which have not yet been appropriated. Note it defines this land as public and not private. This has nothing to do with private land, which if you actually read the entire state Constitution you will understand the whole picture.

            What does Nevada’s Constitution say about property? Well you need to read the entire Constitution to understand- not just one Section out of context.
            Section 1, titled “Inalienable Rights,” reads: All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

            In Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution, eminent domain is clarified. The state Constitution requires that the state prove public need, provide compensation and documentation before acquiring private property. In order to grant private land to the federal government, the state must first control this land.

          • Morenzo

            I stand corrected. Boy am I the skeptic! In reading the ‘stuff’ on the web, can you clarify for me whether or not the area of land proposed for the Reid solar project is the same as that being used by the Bundy ranch? I haven’t been able to find a clear connection seeing that the solar proposed land was in the area of Laughlin. Just wondering if these two events are really connected or not like many sites seem to claim.

          • Michael Lotfi

            Unfortunately I cannot clarify that for you. All I have seen is the headline connected to a few sketchy sources. I have not looked into it.

          • Betsy Ansel

            Why don’t you read the Nevada Constitution under the section of “ORDINANCE” and then you won’t have to make excuses for being lazy. The Nevada Constitution states:
            “That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to”

          • Betsy Ansel

            Oh, and if you actually believe it’s been amended (not just proposed, but actually implemented) please show us where the Nevada Constitution states the new clause?

          • Betsy Ansel

            The Nevada State Legislature shows this as their current Constitution: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst.html

          • Michael Lotfi

            Uh let’s see- right underneath the clause you cited you will find the amendment. And the Ordinance in the NV Const. IS the very NW ORDINANCE this article cites as being struck down. Seriously – before you call someone crazy you might want to read beyond whatever words justify your misinterpretation to ensure you have the context correct. You jut look silly otherwise.

          • Mike

            So to try and understand the issue here: The Bundy family has been grazing cattle on land since Nevada was a territory. At that time, the land was unclaimed. When nevada became a state, the federal government laid claim to it since it was unclaimed. For a time anyone could graze on this (at least in name” federal land, but recently the feds decided to start charging for right rights to graze there (for whatever reason).
            I am just a little confused on the sequence of who controlled the land when….

          • Michael Lotfi

            Incorrect. Feds controlled the land through the NW Ordinance. Once statehood was achieved then state has all sovereign control. The NW ordinance has since been struck down.

          • Mike

            I see now… thanks for the article. I’ve been looking for this information since this all started.

          • bob

            Incorrect. bundy only claims toi the 1870′s. 1864 is when nevada became a state

          • Eric Bowman

            It was supposed to be about oil and fracking, no wait protecting the desert tortoise, no wait I know, it’s about using public land without paying for it.
            Can you tell me how many head of cattle per acre you can raise in that part of Nevada? What kind of vegitation is available? How about sources of water amd water rights?

          • Morenzo

            Hehe, I just got to be ready with the facts when I am confronted on Monday morning with how the blind sheik is involved…

          • Eric Bowman

            After reading again I find this little gem which is proved wrong with my other post, “unless the state has given the federal government the authority to do so, which they have not.”
            As far as Mr. Bundy is concerned, he refused to pay for his grazing rights on BLM land. If he wants to claim rights to it then I reckon he should get it line, as I’m sure there are a few tribes that have first dibs. The government is not doing anything in regards to his 160 acres he owns.

          • Ethan

            The area for the solar plant is actually due west of the golden butte allotment. Infowars didn’t quite find what they thought they found though it’s an interesting story none the less.

          • Baladas
          • Eric Bowman

            Say what? I live in nevada, born and raised. The state constitution was the longest document to ever be sent by telegraph.
            Nevada was a territory before it became a state. All land not privately held was deeded to the US government with the acceptance of the state constitution. There are no other references with reguard to who owns that land. If you had a deed on record, including patented mining claims that land was yours. At one point in time the US government owned 97% of Nevada.
            Unless you can site case law your argument is baseless and confusing.

          • Eric Bowman

            When I say case law I am refering to this clause in the state constitution. As such your argument is built on the false premise that US cannot aquire land unless sold to them. Nevada having been a territory had no government. So who did the land belong to?

          • Michael Lotfi

            I think you mean “cite” and I already did. Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1855)- Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the city of New Orleans (1845)- Strader v. Graham (1850). These cases struck down the Northwest Ordinance explicitly detailing that once statehood was achieved then the federal government could no longer lay claim to legislative control.

          • Michael Lotfi

            The only thing that allowed the federal government “control” over western lands was the NW Ordinance and it has been repeatedly struck down as it was passed by the Continental Confederation and not pursuant to the Constitution. Once a state becomes part of the union under the United States Constitution then it must be on equal footing with all other states. At this moment, the federal government no longer possesses any control or authority over the entire state unless the state legislature and respective people approve of the sell pursuant to Article I, Section 8. There is nothing more to debate here.

          • Michael Lotfi

            Oh, and furthermore you are citing something that has since been amended. That’s literally like me saying I’m allowed to have salves today because the Constitution said I could before slavery was abolished through the civil rights amendments.

          • Betsy Ansel

            What part of the amendment changes ownership?
            “That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the Congress of the United States.”

            It still says the United States owns the land.

          • Betsy Ansel

            “The only thing that allowed the federal government “control” over western lands was the NW Ordinance and it has been repeatedly struck down.”

            How about the fact that the federal government paid for that land? That land is a part of the Mexican Cession which occurred in 1848, the United States paid 15 million dollars for that land (about $300 million in today’s dollars).

          • Michael Lotfi

            Betsy, you can continue to use illogical fallacies all you want. It’s pretty clear you don’t even understand the basic structure of an amendmended state constitution, or the actual historical context surrounding western statehood. Now, if you want to argue using sane rhetoric and actually research the historical context surrounding the situation I’d be happy to discuss any dissenting opinions provided by the multiple SCOTUS cases in the 1800. Until then, you’re telling me I don’t know what the Bible says while you’re holding a Quran.

          • Morenzo

            So says Mr. Lofti, who conveniently characterizes Supreme Court justices as “Federal Supremacists” to diminish their decision making process because he doesn’t like the results. Lofti, you call into question your own objectivity when you resort to name calling. According to you, ‘everyone’ is misinterpreting things when they don’t agree with your point-of-view. Bowman, he won’t explain.

          • Michael Lotfi

            No, actually they characterize

        • Morenzo

          Mr. Bowman, you been fooled. Do you actually think ‘Reason and Justice’ will change his point of view when you confront him with facts?

          • Reason and Justice

            You are a kook.

            You idiots think you can get on these threads and make any kind of asinine statements you want and no one will be the wiser.

            Too bad we can’t just flush you down a toilet somewhere.

            How’s that for reason and justice? It’s exactly what you deserve.

  • MacTX

    Well, in theory, all Federally held lands “owned” and managed by them are ultimately the citizens’ but in actuality and practice, has been twisted that they belong to the Federal Government entity and/or special interest groups paying off said entity. We the people no longer have ownership in anything, not even our homes. We have the perception of ownership though. Yes, the system really is corrupt and it’s been this way for a long time. There’s no way to fix it except for a complete and total reset which I can see happening in my lifetime if things continue as they are.

    • BambiB

      There are many lands that are legitimately “owned” by the Federal Government. But they are generally small parcels (for buildings) or large parcels (for forts/bases).

      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;

      • MacTX

        And in theory, who ultimately owns the Government; Federal, State, and Local? If you say anything other than the people, you’ve already rejected the US Constitution and those founders. Our Government was supposed to be nothing more than the collective consent and effort of we the people. What it is today is far from that.

  • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

    FANTASTIC report! Answers MANY questions that’ve been pecking my head over the past few days.

    But one thing:
    “If a state legislature decides to donate or sell acreage to the federal government then at that point the Enclave Clause becomes applicable and the federal government may seize legislative and regulatory control.”

    That doesn’t sound quite right. The Enclave Clause cites SPECIFIC REASONS for federal “purchase” that MUST be met, right?

    • Michael Lotfi

      I’m not sure exactly what you are asking. You may want to read what I wrote again because it clarifies everything quite well. Enclave Clause must be used only in pursuance to the delegated powers. Purchase must also be in pursuance to delegated powers. -to reiterate

      • ChristCrusader

        He’s saying if the purpose of the purchase/transfer from a state is not “…for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”, then can the feds even make a land purchase/accept a transfer from a state?

        Also, what about this clause from Nevada’s history:
        “Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.”
        http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst.html#Art1Sec11

        • Melissa Kellison

          Voted to be removed from the Ordinance in 1996.
          http://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Unappropriated_Public_Land_Disclaimer,_Question_4_(1996)

          There are notations in the document that post date that vote. Why is it still there? Did something else need to happen to have it removed? or is there a notation in the document itself that declares it is removed?

          • ChristCrusader

            The amendment as passed by the state to remove the disclaimer re: public lands was not to go into effect until Congress agreed to it, or not until a court determined that Congress dd not need to approve it.

            Perhaps it has not taken effect?

          • Melissa Kellison

            It was removed. I read it again. Right after the part you cited they put the amendment. It’s replaced with rules for taxing of land for people who don’t live in the state, and for land owned or hereafter purchased by the United States. I expect that means any lands moved to public use after this do not automatically belong to the US.

          • ChristCrusader

            So the amended ordinance has not taken effect yet because it’s not been upheld in court yet nor approved by Congress.
            Sounds nutty.
            Looks like Alabama got cleared by the courts. i wonder why NV hasn’t taken care of this yet?

            Not to mention that the fed gov’t has no business outside the confines of DC.

        • Melissa Kellison

          Oh here, the three parts are re-written just under the part you cited. Part three is worded very differently. Historical notations follow. It reads as thus:
          Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the Congress of the United States.

  • SeekingTheTruth

    Connect the dots. Important American History lessons not found in school books. http://commonlawgrandjury.com/who-is-working.htm

  • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

    Imagine how much prosperity would be found for individuals if those “federal” lands were allowed to be homesteaded with a color blind lottery and mineral rights. Legalize industrial hemp and watch the economy boom. A high percentage of those Western lands are habitable.

  • J.B.

    Damn good analysis. Too bad the federal courts are not going to side against the federal government in this matter, and the State of Nevada is too afraid of Harry Reid and his Chinese solar farm buddies to stand up and say “NO!” :(

    • dave7777

      I hope the councilman, or whatever his, that advised his constituents to make their own funeral arrangements if they dared to physically go down to support Bundy, gets voted out or better yet, gets recalled.

  • John Busciglio

    I have heard it argued that the so called Federal lands were never part of the States in the first place. Of course that argument didn’t carry any facts so I remained unconvinced. However, assuming even that were true, in regards to land ownership and this map, I have to wonder if the FEDS and their proponents actually believe the state of Nevada exists. If this were the case, those states out west look absolutely NOTHING like we were taught when growing up.

  • Betsy Ansel

    How does the amended Nevada Constitution under the section of ORDINANCE change ownership of the land? It doesn’t. It still states that the land is owned by the United States: “That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the Congress of the United States.”

    • Michael Lotfi

      Wow… You’re really struggling with this. The ORDINANCE in the state Constitution is the NW Ordinance, which all states were required to add. The Court (once again) struck down this ordinance with regards to federal conservation.

      • Carla

        Ok, Michael, I have been following this thread because this is what I was wanting answers to for days now. So… with the amendments in hand why has the State not already taken over the land? And why is this not the main story? There is so much bull being circulated as noise whereas this seems to be the main sticking point.

        • dave7777

          I would also like to see an answer.

  • Hook Landry

    The question is, Is which state is Nevada a state of, the United States or a state of the United States of America only all four of the Organic Laws will tell the real story. What is the United States of America but a confederacy and What is the United States but territory owned by and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America.

    Look to the United States code for some answers…Title I section 2 defines county and Title 4 defines State section 110(d). if you choose to look these up then you will find your answers to what cause the confusion in written law because it is clear the State of Nevada is a Federal State under United States code and so are the counties, it is all territorial law, unfortunately because the United States code is territorial law.
    Where is the elusive United States of America, the confederacy in all of this? The United States of America was created by the Articles of Confederation dated 15 November 1777 and not with the Constitution of the United States.
    Do you know that there is a President of the United States of America that signs no oath to the Constitution and an employee President of the United States that gets a salary who only takes an oral oath. Do you know the significance of an oral oath?

    • Heartland Patriot

      What you’ve written seems a bit trollish. However, I’ll ask a specific question. Which is correct: THESE United States, or THIS United States? And its not merely a question of semantics, the difference is all truly all important.

      • jcubed

        It went from “these” to “this” as a part of the landmark case, Lee v Grant, 1865.

      • Hook Landry

        Heartland I am not a troll for sure. I am just stating “United States” code specifically for specifically “county” and “State” now unless one goes back and fully understands the Four Organic laws nothing will make sense unless you do. Who can respond to what the four Organic Laws of the United States of America are?

        • http://Itsnothardtofindme.com Qari

          Articles of confederation, Constitution, Deceleration of Independence and the Northwest ordinance. I’m interested too.

    • TruthSeeker

      Thank You :)

  • Heartland Patriot

    The trick is that each state is sovereign (though I hate the connotation of the word because how a few nuts have hijacked its meaning). The states are separate political entities, NOT mere political subdivisions of a single political entity. They have borders, which are more than mere lines on a map for convenience of the Federal government. The word Federal has a specific connotation, that of the joint aggregation of the several states for the good of all of them. Look at it like this: states have counties (or parishes in the case of LA) for convenience of that particular state, but the states are not merely super-counties of the United States. The states are separate and stand apart on matters involving their particular territory and citizens where said matters do not conflict with the Constitution.

    • Hook Landry

      You realize the lawful and legal statute confusion to the United States code, right. We are talking law here not opinion. Do you realize we have two unions in this country…the union and this union go to the Constitution and you will find both unions described, this is plain fact.

  • Ward Damon Hubbard

    The truly disgusting part of all of this, is the conduct of Nevada’s Senator Harry Reid, HIS actions and conduct toward the people he is suppose to serve, when, as a result of GREED, and his own self worth, he has damaged Nevada’s citizens, their lives, their families, their futures, their are 52 other ranchers who, as a result of Nevada’s Senator Harry Reid, as well as, his son Rory, lost their ranches, cattle, and their livelihood, those actions, can’t go unchecked, and need to be answered, the driving force behind, the government’s actions, is Senator Harry Reid and that Greed for gain, every single rancher, who, as a result of this attempted land grab, should have their ranches returned, or compensated for the unjust actions of greed, by the elected senator of Nevada, and Harry Reid should pay for it all, the clarification of constitutional laws is one thing, and the behavior and collateral damages caused by the greed of a senator of the United States of America, is a whole different thing, this was done to the Bundy family, like “Business As Usual”, and 52 other ranchers, suffered from the greed of a representative of the US government, those 52, deserve justice, and the American public need to see that process take place, to restore it’s faith, in a system that they have lost faith in, Foe those protester in Nevada that day, they believe that The Bundy Ranch, is just the tip of the iceberg, and that the actions of Senator Harry Reid, although unjust, really isn’t all that uncommon, and this government is not only out of touch, but untouchable, as it act to it’s own self interest, and not the will of the people that it serves, therefore Senator Harry Reid, needs to held accountable.

  • P Chanterelle

    There is also the open range law. Cattle have to be fenced out. And adverts position law. 140 years of usage gives him legal usage ownership. Also if the state or BLM do not want his cattle on there range they will have to build a maintain a fence to keep them out. They will also have to pay him for the lost range land that his cattle have a right to use.

    • Trytobeobjective

      As a matter of law, 140 years of ownership actually doesn’t give him legal usage ownership at all. I’m assuming in your second sentence that you are referring to the doctrine of adverse possession. Unfortunately for Mr. Bundy, you cannot adversely possess government-owned land. This is basic property law, which you have obviously never studied.

      • http://Itsnothardtofindme.com Qari

        Interesting. Just consider this proposition: what is in law might not be a reasonable or moral set of standards. Property ownership by fiat is a scary system of ownership. A more reasonable (and well founded) system is property ownership by land usage.

        • Trytobeobjective

          I agree that the law is not always morally correct.

          • http://Itsnothardtofindme.com Qari

            So, if that is true, maybe one can say what is right in this case is not what is the legal situation here, and on those grounds any decent person who considers it should choose what is right.

          • Trytobeobjective

            There is nothing wrong with requiring a person to pay a fee when they use public land, and even if there were, the way to change law is to protest peacefully and get the attention of the legislature, not to recruit an armed militia and threaten “range war” against federal law enforcement. So behavior promotes anarchy and is completely repugnant to the rule of law that helps govern society.

          • http://Itsnothardtofindme.com Qari

            It is a problem when the use of the land predates any fee requirements. While we have legal precedents of that happening (new property taxes, for instance) that does not make it right. It only makes it legal.

            Some people might like to protest peacefully but non-compliance is a proven method in our American tradition. When they bring the guns, we can bring ours too. After all, wasn’t that how the American Revolution started? There was an unjust law, but it was a law, and when force was brought to enforce it, it was met with force.

          • Trytobeobjective

            So anytime I think a law is unjust, I can bring guns, threaten federal agents, and prevent them from enforcing a valid court order? Do you really want to live in a world where that’s how laws apply to people?

          • http://Itsnothardtofindme.com Qari

            Yes and no. This problem was described by Milton Friedman about a society with too many laws, such as England at the time of the Revolution. Mercantilism created so many laws that the North East wasn’t the only place with people who imported and exported contraband but Britain itself had the same issue.This created a class of people who were criminals. The cure over there was to do away with those laws in favor of free trade. Having unjust laws has consequences. That is why government ought to be limited, if it should exist at all.

            On the other hand, people tend to choose the path of least resistance. When alcohol was illegal here almost 60% of the cases related to alcohol were nullified by the jury. In that case that was an option. In this case the government brought guns first. When they act like an aggressor they should be met with force. Do you want to live under a system of injustice simply because peace is preferable?

          • Trytobeobjective

            I’m not seeing any injustice here. Mr. Bundy was given due process to make his argument in the courts, and he lost. Four times. The court issued a valid order and the BLM had authority to enforce it. Bundy and his militia neighbors then responded with threats of violence.

            This man is using land that is not his for his own personal financial gain and preventing enforcement of laws with guns, and he’s cheating American taxpayers out of 1 million dollars That is not democracy or liberty. It’s anarchy.

            The most successful protest in this country’s history was done with non-violent civil disobedience. Bundy should follow suit if he views the law as unjust.

          • http://Itsnothardtofindme.com Qari

            In fact the most successful protest was the American Revolution, not the civil rights movement. Even in that movement people only credit MLK but the black panthers used intimidation and violence to meet intimidation and violence. Of course, they were no heroes in every instance, but at times they were on the right side of justice. It’s easy now to whitewash the civil rights movement as peaceful, but it was not.

            The man is using land that his family has used for nearly 2 centuries. There was no claim by the government that he cannot use it on the outset. It is only very recently that they claimed the power to charge him for it’s use. He was the original appropriator of the land for grazing rights and they are the latecomer.

            You are a man principled in law. One sound principle is that the court be impartial when ruling on a case. However, the court ruling on the case was actually a government court ruling on it’s own case. Now, in this country anyway, the courts are run by the government and we have all accepted the idea that this principle can be ignored. But why? The court is run by the Executive branch which also runs the BLM.

          • Trytobeobjective

            The American Revolution was not a protest “in this country’s history” because the country had not yet been formed. And I’m not sure why you say that the courts are run by the executive branch. How so?

            Your primary contention seems to be that because someone once used public land for free, he should always be allowed to use it for free. That’s absurd. Laws change all the time. Are you really arguing that nobody in this country should have to pay taxes because our great-grandfathers didn’t? That any change in the law in presumptively invalid?

          • http://Itsnothardtofindme.com Qari

            If there should be taxes, they ought to be on sales of goods. Taxes do change, but the right to property predates the state. His right to have his herd graze there predates the claim for compensation for the use of the land. You are arguing that because a government says they own a particular land, they actually do own it, in the same way you own your house. Consider how absurd this becomes if some government were to say they own the whole of the earth. All that can happen is war to settle such an issue. However, in our European tradition (and elsewhere as well) land was acquired by working or using it. The law has formed seperate of that tradition. The law is, in this case, unjust. What right does any body, whether government or individual, have to claim land they are not using? If the state derives it’s power from the people it must actually be a power you and I have. However, neither of us can declare any geographic area our own and make it so.

            As far as the courts, they are payed by the treasury, which is the executive branch. There seems to be an inherent conflict of interest if the executive branch pays for a court which rules on a case involving the executive branch.

          • Trytobeobjective

            You don’t acquire property rights to public land simply because you use it for free for a while. That’s basic property law. The government owned this land in 1848, well before any of Bundy’s family members settled in Nevada. They didn’t acquire it simply by saying they owned it, rather, they were ceded it in the Treaty of Guadalupe and have held it in federal title ever since.

            To your second point, Congress determines the salary of federal judges, not the executive, and Congress is prohibited from reducing the salary of an Article III judge pursuant to Section 1 of Article III of the Constitution. If their salary cannot be lowered, why would you think there is a conflict of interest?

          • http://Itsnothardtofindme.com Qari

            Their salary is payed for by the executive, not the congress. Even if congress sets the amount, the executive is the final arbiter of the amount because it can simply fail to pay them that amount. That is a practical reality of having a separate body enforce laws and in this case salaries. Even if they never exercise that power it is still safe to say that a conflict of interest is clearly evident when a court, as part of the government, rules on disputes with the government. Simply because there are three branches does not mean they do not constitute the whole, which is the US government.

            I see you cited the law again. I agreed with you that this is the way our law has developed since it has been under the control of government. However, law was not always a thing of government and the body of common law that we have preserved today is partially the product of private courts which respect the older understanding of property ownership.

            The treaty of Guadalupe ceded lands that were acquired by fiat claims. Simply purchasing such land does not transfer a title of ownership since the original owner did not have such a title, again because they simply declared the land is their own. As a man informed in law you know very well that even if stolen goods are sold, they go back to the person from which they were stolen. In this case it was not theft (well partially) but the land was acquired through fiat claim.

            First use does grant a title to the use of the land. I mean that’s not how the law understands it, but the law is wrong on this point. For one, if first use does not grant a right to a land, then what does? Second, or subsequent use? Fiat claims of ownership?

          • Trytobeobjective

            “I mean that’s not how the law understands it, but the law is wrong on this point.”

            This sums up pretty much every argument you have. The law itself is one way in reality and a different way in your fantasy.

          • http://Itsnothardtofindme.com Qari

            What do you mean? I understand what is happening here is legal. I also am pointing out absurdities in that reality, namely fiat claims to land and the absurdity of having a body ruling on it’s own cases.

          • Trytobeobjective

            Just tell me this: If you could write the laws, who would have valid legal claim over this land and why?

          • http://Itsnothardtofindme.com Qari

            Over the land? As in ownership? As far as I can tell no one has the exclusive right to the land like you have to the property your house is situated on. However Mr Bundy has a right to graze his animals there. If someone wanted to build a house there they could, but he would retain the right to graze his animals on that land. It’s not exactly a crazy legal norm, it’s actually what people do in the absence of government. The gold miners in the 1849 gold rush used a similar system to split use of areas of water where they could sift for gold. Anyone who “jumped” someone else’s property was run out of town. No one had exclusive right to that piece (for instance, I could come and have a drink there) but they had the right to sift for gold there exclusively. In this case, the land was being grazed and he should retain that right to graze his animals there.

          • Trytobeobjective

            Well that’s certainly an interesting conception of property rights, but as long as you acknowledge that Bundy is in violation of the actual law, you’re entitled to wish it were different.

          • http://Itsnothardtofindme.com Qari

            That is why I asked you whether you recognized that a law could be unjust. If the current system is unjust then I expect people to come with arms to defend him against an aggressor. We had a revolution over a 3% tax after all.

          • Trytobeobjective

            And I expect people to protest peacefully with a respect for our democratic system. That is a fundamental disagreement with your position and I see no point in further debate.

          • http://Itsnothardtofindme.com Qari

            There isn’t a fundamental disagreement really unless you think the law is just. However you haven’t really made that case, you only argued that it is legal, which I conceded to you.

          • Trytobeobjective

            I think a law requiring a man to pay fees for using property that does not belong to him is perfectly just.

          • http://Itsnothardtofindme.com Qari

            So, let me ask a further question. If you are saying the federal government owns the land then it is safe to say they have the right to own the land. Since you acknowledged that it was bought in the treaty of Guadalupe, you must acknowledge the mexican government’s right to own it. They owned it by virtue of claiming they own the land (a fiat decree.) You must therefore believe that claiming you own something is a legitimate and just means of owning something. Is this true, or am I wrong in my reasoning?

          • Trytobeobjective

            HUH? The government acquired the land through a legally valid Treaty in which title was transferred from one sovereign to another. How is that owning through fiat? When you bought or rented your house, you presumably singed a contract giving you property rights. Would you say that you now own the house through fiat? Of course not. You own it through a legally binding and valid contract.

          • http://Itsnothardtofindme.com Qari

            No, not at all. But when I buy a house I can plainly see someone has mixed his labor with the land and so there is a good claim to the land.

            I was not saying the US government owns it by fiat. I’m saying that the Mexican government owned it that way. They transferred the title on a claim of land that they “owned” by a simple declaration. Now you know, in law, you can’t transfer a title you don’t actually have (stolen goods for instance.) Do you see the difference I’m making? The Mexican government simply declared the land was theirs after overthrowing the Spanish and then transferred that claim to the US. However, if you believe that is valid, you must believe that declaring land as your own is a valid means of acquiring land.

          • BambiB

            WRONG! The purchase is only valid if it meets the Article 1 Section 8 purposes test:

            “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;

          • Trytobeobjective

            Please read the following, in this order:
            1. The Property Clause in Article IV
            2. Kleppe v. New Mexico
            3. U.S. v Gardner

          • http://Itsnothardtofindme.com Qari

            I think you understand what I mean. All that land was simply declared owned by the Mexican government (after overthrowing the Spanish.) Then they gave their “right” to the land to us. I think you also understand that means their original claim must be valid so they can give us the right to the land. I think, and I just think it, that you don’t actually believe fiat claims are reasonable or can’t see why they are, but too much of our history, especially out in the Western Hemisphere has left such a notion unchallenged.

          • BambiB

            Try to get the picture straight.

            Imagine you are running cattle on someone else’s lands. It’s not my land, but I show up and tell you to pay me for the use of the land. Do you pay me?

            Do you live in a house? What if I show up and demand you pay me for living in the house? It’s not my house, but under your logic, you must pay me.

            The Federal Government has no more legitimate authority to charge Bundy for the use of the land than I have to charge you for the use of the house you live in.

            Does that mean Bundy should be paying someone else? Maybe.
            But the one entity to whom he owes NOTHING for the use of the land is the Federal Government.

          • BambiB

            It’s not even a question of justice.

            It’s a question of Constitutional construction.

            The Feds have no legitimate authority in this matter.

            Period.

          • BambiB

            I don’t know whether Bundy is in violation of the law. I only know that NO LEGITIMATE FEDERAL AUTHORITY EXISTS WITH REGARD TO THIS LAND.

            Perhaps he’s in violation of some state or local law. But the FEDERAL “law” is invalid on its face.

          • BambiB

            Probably the State of Nevada. But regardless of who has a legitimate claim, we know that the one entity that does NOT have a legitimate claim is the Federal Government. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal Government given the authority to control huge tracts of land… and if they are not given the authority in the Constitution, then it’s NOT a legitimate power of the Federal Government.

          • Trytobeobjective

            As a matter of law, you’re simply incorrect. The Property Clause in Article IV provides the federal government the power to own land for any purpose.

          • BambiB

            If you don’t see injustice, then you’re blind or have your eyes closed. Read Article 1 Section 8. Now answer the question: For what purposes may the Federal Government purchase land?

            Now answer this question: Of the CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES of Federal ownership of land (To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District ( for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings), which one does the Nevada range land fall under?

            Answer the questions and we’ll find out if you’re blind, stupid or just not fully informed.

          • Trytobeobjective

            The Enclave Clause in Article I is about exclusive legislative jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with the ability of the federal government to own land, a power expressly provided to them in the Property Clause in Article IV. Your argument has been specifically rejected both by the 9th Circuit in U.S. v. Gardner and in the Supreme Court Case Kleppe v. New Mexico. Simply put, you’re using the wrong provisions of the Constitution. And given that I’m actually a lawyer, I’d say I’m a bit more qualified to speak on the issue than you are.

          • Baladas

            unjust? That is an understatement. Here is your wakeup call.

            There
            have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not
            pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering
            why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they
            paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not
            realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following:
            “You are authorized to make grazing use
            of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management
            and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms
            and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when
            due.” The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment,
            the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins
            and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per
            month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements
            such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum
            allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include
            a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher
            must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS
            before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a
            frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this
            desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and
            desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a
            family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non
            ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In
            1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of
            Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their
            livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of
            these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND
            CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this
            contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted
            line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so
            Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He
            refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his
            American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all
            ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits
            allow – - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that
            grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the
            rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the
            waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These
            water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot
            show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of
            livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water
            right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary
            to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the
            AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are
            “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of
            “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even
            though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested
            thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way
            to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the
            government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is
            the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against.
            Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.

            -Kena Lytle Gloeckner

            https://www.facebook.com/ModernRevolution/photos/a.161999220525087.35806.160918303966512/687233034668367/?type=1&theater

          • Trytobeobjective

            So his permits conditions changed, and accordingly his financial situation may have been affected. Welcome to the law. When the govt. started requiring income tax, it hurts people’s pocketbooks as well. That’s not an excuse to refuse to follow the law. The BLM exercised valid authority to restrict grazing permits for the protection of an endangered species. They are within their legal right to do so. Sorry you don’t like that.

          • Baladas

            for the protection of an endangered species? Let me introduce you to my friend, the Tooth Fairy.

            Obviously the only endangered species were the cattle ranchers. And they were put into danger because Big government couldn’t squeeze as much money out of them to justify their insane spending, and they had to collateralize that juicy land to offset congressional bankruptcy. Hello!

          • BambiB

            The CONSTITUTION didn’t change and it says (aside from DC) the Feds can only own land “…for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”

            THAT’S THE LAW!

          • http://Itsnothardtofindme.com Qari

            That was really informative. Thank you for clearing up some of the issue here.

          • Baladas

            You are welcome. Notice there wasn’t a Peep from the government shills after I posted that little nugget?

          • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94rcOVJBMYQ Winston Blake

            The militarization of agriculture for Monsanto…

          • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94rcOVJBMYQ Winston Blake

            It is the militarization of agriculture for Monsanto…

          • BambiB

            Actually, in this case the law IS correct. But the Federal government is not following the law (Constitution).

          • Trytobeobjective

            How are they violating the Constitution?

        • NotQuiteAsRetardedAsYou

          which would require a bank who has taken possession of a home, business or land parcel to use it or at the very least fully fence off and secure it from others using it. Otherwise they could lose property claim to squatters.

          The same would hold true for landowners that let a lease lapse or perhaps were not aware of someone using a property without permission, encroaching on property lines by neighboring parcels etc.

          That is not US property law and the reason we have title and deeds as law, not usage. The rancher has no title or deed, only years of encroachment that he feels entitled to.

          Landlords in the US would have zero problem sending the sheriff to evict those in a squatter role but apparently it’s shocking when it’s a mooching rancher doing the squatting. 20 years of notice. 900 + head, no permits, grazing fees, title or deed.

          • http://Itsnothardtofindme.com Qari

            I am not disagreeing with you on the legal norm we have for property ownership in the US. I am saying it does not align with justice or reason. We have a long tradition that dates at least as far back as Thomas Aquinas and was certainly evidently in the English tradition since St. Thomas More and said very explicitly by John Locke about how property ownership works.

            Consider this: Why can’t 4 people have their cows drink from the same watering hole without anyone owning the watering hole? Can someone then come at a later date and say they own the watering hole that they used in common and deny them the use of that watering hole? Can any one of the 4 people deny the others use of that watering hole? In such a situation usage, not ownership, is key. There doesn’t have to be an owner for someone to have a right to the usage of the property.

          • NotQuiteAsRetardedAsYou

            There is no unassigned property in the United States. Every inch has been surveyed and claimed. In fact, to take your analogy even a step further, consider that even that water, particularly in the West, has assigned ownership. Trespassing and taking what you don’ t own is theft, no matter which way you turn it. There is no common anything in the land of capitalism. You own it, you rent it or you’re stealing it.

          • http://Itsnothardtofindme.com Qari

            It is “owned” because a government declared it owned it. As far as I can tell no human being can simply declare land as his own. He must mix his labor with the land. If government derives it’s power from the consent of the people. How can people grant something to government which they themselves cannot do?

          • NotQuiteAsRetardedAsYou

            labor has less than zero to do with land ownership, not just in the US, but anywhere. Elsewise slaves would claim ownership of everything from Egypt to the Deep South, migrant workers would own every field in America, Chinese and Irish workers would own every railroad right of way and every factory anywhere would be owned by the people who work there.

            In each of those cases above, the recognized owner never provided, nor would even be capable of matching the effort of the people that did the actual labor on the land,

            Lands are claimed by force or transaction, as has been true from the earliest “civilizations”. People working together under the banner of a country, delegating a government to represent them, have decided what the conditions are of an accepted transaction and when an acceptable transaction can’t be reached, then force applied.

            In need of an example?

            That very land belonged to natives, Mexico and the Territory of Deseret all prior to Nevada’s statehood or even white settlers. Each of those changes of hands were brought about by the two methods above. Labor never entered the picture even once.

  • Betsy Ansel

    I don’t know why you keep deleting my posts, or perhaps this website is poorly defsigned, but, my posts are all missing from the page I am currently reading. You seem to want to dismiss public land as being state and not government owned, but, the federal government doesn’t really care what you think. The federal government defines public lands as federally owned and your contortion of taking parts of the Nevada Constitution and playing them up to your purpose does nothing to effect any change in that reality.

    You can read more on the federal ownership of land here: http://www.blm.gov/flpma/FLPMA.pdf

    You can also read the Kleppe v. New Mexico case law which defined public lands as federally owned here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=426&invol=529

    None of these developments aid you in your goal of claiming that Nevada public lands belong to the state. The state ceded ownership to the federal government and the Ordinance clause in the Constitution is there because it is currently in force. The inclusion of the Ordinance section in the Constitution is not historical in nature.

    I am finished with this place now. Your arguments don’t make sense, your twisting of the Nevada Constitution doesn’t change a single thing and nothing currently existing shows any precedent to make any changes to the ownership of public lands and remove them from federal ownership.

    Have a nice day.

    • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

      Those cases are unconstitutional cases. They are void of law. The Federal government is not to own land except for post offices, courts, mints, etc. That land belongs to the State of Nevada.

      • Trytobeobjective

        Right, so the Supreme Court is wrong, and you are right. Okay. Good luck arguing that in a property dispute.

        • DerShpongle

          Do you see the disconnect here though? You are essentially saying that “just because SCOTUS says its ok, its ok even though the obvious intention of the constitution was to do the opposite”. These guys are right, the Feds shouldn’t own state land. period. But they can, and they do, because they say so.

          That right there is government out-of-control. Remember the constitution was made to limit the scope and power of the federal government, not to increase its reach to ruin the lives of ranchers like they are.

          • Trytobeobjective

            Well yes, except that the obvious intention of the Constitution was not to do the opposite. It specifically provides for federal regulation of land that they own. Now, we can argue that maybe they shouldn’t own so much land, but the Constitution quite clearly provides them the power to do so in Article IV.

    • Michael Lotfi

      Betsy, you seriously posted a link to the federal government to cite your source for whether or not the federal government owns land? The feds say they own it? Shocking. Bravo.

    • http://Itsnothardtofindme.com Qari

      It’s no reason to leave the site. Lotfi is a smart guy with bad ideas, but he’s not the only author here. Plus the Ben Swann segments really are the best part of the thing.

    • Michael Lotfi

      Oh, and PS- I can’t delete your posts. I’m a writer, not a web editor. This comment plugin does seem to have problems from time to time.

  • Trytobeobjective

    “However, once the territory was organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal ground, the state government assumes sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government retains only the rights of an “individual proprietor.” This means that the federal government could only exercise general sovereignty over state property if the state legislature formally granted the federal government the power to do so under the Enclave Clause with the exception of federal buildings (post offices) and military installations. This understanding was reaffirmed in Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan (1845), Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the city of New Orleans (1845) and Strader v. Graham (1850).”

    This is one of the most legally erroneous paragraphs I have ever read. Hagan, the case outlining the equal footing doctrine, held that in order for a state to enter the Union on equal footing, it had to retain sovereignty over navigable waters and submerged lands below them. It is no way “reaffirmed” any understanding that the Enclave Clause limits the federal acquisition and ownership of land, because that understanding has never existed. No court in this country has ever supported that principle. The Enclave Clause is about a presumption of exclusive federal legislative authority over land purchased for certain purposes with state consent. It is a GRANT of federal power and has absolutely nothing to do with the authority of the federal government to acquire and regulate land under the Property Clause. THIS understanding actually HAS been reaffirmed many times in federal court decisions over the last 200 years.

    This kind of armchair lawyering is a disservice to the public and promotes ignorance of constitutional law. Before you write articles on the law, you should attend law school and practice for a few decades, like I have. Until that point, you are just promoting legal illiteracy among your readers.

    • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

      Your interpretation of the constitution is not supported by the map above.

      • Trytobeobjective

        How so?

        • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

          Where in the constitution is the federal government granted the right to own the land in the states except for post office, mints, forts, etc? Illinois became a State in 1818. If your interpretation was correct then Illinois would be mostly red as well.

          • Trytobeobjective

            Property Clause, Article IV.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            Article IV establishes States.

          • Trytobeobjective

            *sigh*

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            States are the 4th Branch of Government

            Article I is Legislative Branch
            Article II is Executive Branch
            Article III is Judicial Branch
            Article IV is State Branch

          • Trytobeobjective

            If by “state branch” you mean that Article IV deals primarily with the relationship between the federal government and the states, you’re correct. How that’s supposed to be an argument for limiting the scope of the Property Clause I have no idea.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            If the original intent of the founding document was unlimited federal ownership of land then the entire united States map above would be mostly red. It is obvious from the map above that the founders intended widespread individual ownership of land. That is the prosperity part of liberty, peace, and prosperity. Land is valuable.

          • Trytobeobjective

            Maybe that was their intention. Who knows. What matters is that as far as the law is concerned, there is nothing unconstitutional about the federal govt. owning lots of land.

    • Michael Lotfi

      Lawyers are taught that the Supreme Court is God, and whatever the Supreme Court says goes. You know, blacks are property and not humans. No thanks. I prefer to get my legal and Constitutional knowledge from historians instead of lawyers. Sometimes they get it right, but not often.

      • Trytobeobjective

        So you prefer to get your legal knowledge from “historians” (which is odd, considering you don’t cite the work of a single historian in this article) instead of the law itself. Okay.

        • Michael Lotfi

          As I said, sometimes the Court gets it right- Most times they do not. I use SCOTUS opinion to try and make people like you happy though. You know, people like you who think the SOCTUS is right no matter what. Because 5 men dressed in robes can say a black man is property and is not a human it must be true! Pat yourself on the back for your fancy law degree. I like to call that “JD impairment”. It comes cheaper by the dozen.

          • Trytobeobjective

            As a matter of law, SCOTUS is right no matter what. What they hold is the law. If they make particular decisions that are objectionable, there are checks in the other branches to mitigate those. This is precisely what happened in the passing of the 13th and 14th amendments following Dred Scott. Your entire view of the law is essentially “I don’t like what the courts say the law means, so I’m going to claim it means something else.” You’re free to do that, but it certainly doesn’t present much educational value to your readers.

          • Michael Lotfi

            Simply put- A JD is pretty worthless. Most lawyers will even admit to this. The legal profession is nothing more than memorizing a 5:9 majority OPINION and taking it as gospel- 95% of lawyers retain absolutely no critical thinking whatsoever. The plurality tells you Scott isn’t a human because he is black and you take it as God’s word. The plurality tells you Filburn can’t grow food for himself on his own farm and you take it as God’s word. Flash your piece of paper to someone less intelligent who may be fooled into thinking it’s worth something. Anyone with relative intelligence can read case law and memorize it in order to blindly follow what 5 people tell you. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist. And actually- The founders themselves gave guidance for a moment in time when the SCOTUS no longer upheld the law. So no, the SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of law. Of course, I know they didn’t teach you that when you got your JD.

          • Trytobeobjective

            “The legal profession is nothing more than memorizing a 5:9 majority OPINION and taking it as gospel- 95% of lawyers retain absolutely no critical thinking whatsoever.”

            -It’s pretty clear you have never actually worked in the legal profession if you believe this statement.

            “the SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of law”

            -Until a law is changed, they actually are.

          • Michael Lotfi

            Nah. They unconstitutionally gave themselves that power. In MvM. We both know this. Feel free to read Madison’s Report of 1800 and the Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions to understand just who the final arbiter of law is.

          • Michael Lotfi

            You and I will never agree on things, so there is really no point in arguing further. I would simply add that it would behoove you and those in your profession to actually look into history. I understand that things are the way they are. Trust me, I’m a pragmatist. This does not change original context though.

          • Trytobeobjective

            Well once again, you can ignore the conferring of judicial power in Section 1 and 2 of Article III if you wish, but it’s right there in black and white. This is getting boring. Good day.

          • Pax Humana

            “This is getting boring,” said every woman that was ever met by you in your life. You are a New World Order shill through and through and you need a dose of Slapabitch.

          • Trytobeobjective

            Lol at the internet tough guy.

          • Pax Humana

            You are damn right that my ass is tough, and especially outside of the internet, so if you had even ONE brain cell in that hollow space that is currently between your ears, then you would realize that messing with me is a VERY BAD IDEA IMMEDIATELY, so, as a result of this observation, you would do something that would be a bit safer in your life, like, say, kicking a sleeping grizzly bear when it is trying to sleep or yanking on the tail of a boomslang.

          • Trytobeobjective

            Ooooo I’m really scared. Loser.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            No, the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of law. They were not given the power of judicial review in Article III nor any subsequent amendment. They determine cases and rule on the case based on the constitutionality of the law, yet their decisions are not binding on the populace as a whole. Their decision is only binding on the case they judged.

          • Trytobeobjective

            U.S. Supreme Court decisions are mandatory authority for all federal and state courts on questions of federal law, and the Supreme Court has had judicial review for over 200 years.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            No, the S.C. decisions are not mandatory authority for all federal and state courts. They do not have the power of judicial review and their decisions are only binding on the parties to the case. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land not Supreme Court Judges.

            “I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.” – Abraham Lincoln

            Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137: This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn’t exist in law.”

            I do not have to obey laws made by the Supreme Court. They are bound by constitution to judge law but not make law.

          • Trytobeobjective

            The quoted passage from Marbury merely reflects the truism that laws that are in conflict with the Constitution are not valid laws. Nobody disputes that. The question is who gets to decide when a law is in conflict with the Constitution, and the answer is federal courts.

            You claim that despite 200 years of federal court jurisprudence to the contrary, the Supreme Court does not have judicial review. This is, as a matter of law, is completely factually incorrect. You will not find a single legal authority backing your position.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            “You will not find a single legal authority backing your position.” – Tyrobeobjective

            I don’t care. I am a sovereign individual backed by U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, which I can read for myself.

            Any law made in conflict with the “Bill of Rights” is null and void of law and I do not have to obey it.

          • Trytobeobjective

            Go ahead. Break laws you think are unconstitutional and let me know how it goes.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            I do not deny that they have bigger guns, even nuclear weapons, thugs, tasers, and prisons. That is mob rule not constitutional rule of law.

        • Michael Lotfi

          Simply put- A JD is pretty worthless. Most lawyers will even admit to this. The legal profession is nothing more than memorizing a 5:9 majority OPINION and taking it as gospel- 95% of lawyers retain absolutely no critical thinking whatsoever. The plurality tells you Scott isn’t a human because he is black and you take it as God’s word. The plurality tells you Filburn can’t grow food for himself on his own farm and you take it as God’s word. Flash your piece of paper to someone less intelligent who may be fooled into thinking it’s worth something. Anyone with relative intelligence can read case law and memorize it in order to blindly follow what 5 people tell you. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist.

    • Baladas

      tell that to the Nevada State legislature.

      According to the State of Nevada, as of 2013, they own Bundy’s allotment.

      2013 Nevada Revised Statutes
      Chapter 321 – Administration, Control and Transfer of State Lands
      NRS 321.596 – Legislative findings.
      Universal Citation: NV Rev Stat § 321.596 (2013)

      The Legislature finds that:

      1. The State of Nevada has a strong moral claim upon the public land
      retained by the Federal Government within Nevada s borders because:..

      …(f) Federal administration of the retained public lands has not been
      consistent with the public interest of the people of Nevada because the
      Federal Government has used those lands for armament and nuclear testing
      thereby rendering many parts of the land unusable and unsuited for
      other uses and endangering the public health and welfare.

      4. The intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States
      was to guarantee to each of the states sovereignty over all matters
      within its boundaries except for those powers specifically granted to
      the United States as agent of the states.

      5. The attempted imposition upon the State of Nevada by the Congress of
      the United States of a requirement in the enabling act that Nevada
      disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying
      within said territory, as a condition precedent to acceptance of Nevada
      into the Union, was an act beyond the power of the Congress of the
      United States and is thus void.

      6. The purported right of ownership and control of the public lands
      within the State of Nevada by the United States is without foundation
      and violates the clear intent of the Constitution of the United States.

      Full statute language at link. http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2013/chapter-321/statute-321.596

      • Trytobeobjective

        Notice how it says “moral claim.” They aren’t contending they legally own the land, and even if they were, they would be wrong as a matter of Constitutional law.

        • Baladas

          The law scholars advising the Nevada legislature disagree with you.

          5. The attempted imposition upon the State of Nevada by the Congress of the United States of a requirement in the enabling act that Nevada
          disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying
          within said territory, as a condition precedent to acceptance of Nevada
          into the Union, was an act beyond the power of the Congress of the
          United States and is thus void.

          6. The purported right of ownership and control of the public lands
          within the State of Nevada by the United States is without foundation
          and violates the clear intent of the Constitution of the United States.

          • Trytobeobjective

            LOL and which law scholars are you referring to? This legal question has already been settled in the 9th circuit. See U.S. v. Gardner. The people writing this did it for political reasons.

          • Baladas

            If you hadn’t noticed, the US v. Gardner was biased and a sham decision.
            Particularly as they ignore the fact the treaty in 1848 did not transfer title to the US government, but more importantly they refused to hear the most relevant argument regarding the guarantee clause because the defendant didn’t think to bring it up in district court. “Too late sucks to be you”.

            And you are damned right the Nevada legislature created that statute for political reasons. They are asserting their right to oversee policy in their own state, since the federal circuit courts are in the tank for the sharks in DC.

          • Trytobeobjective

            Okay, you think it was a sham decision. I bet you thought Kleppe v. New Mexico was a sham decision too. Who cares? It’s binding law now.

          • Baladas

            It is a damn good thing unlawful “legal” decisions are not capable of binding free men, wouldn’t you agree?

          • Trytobeobjective

            Well feel free to ignore those binding decisions and let me know how it works out for you. I hope you enjoy prison.

          • Baladas

            you are the one in prison already, however gilded your cage.

  • Hook Landry

    The State of Nevada is a State of the United States. The territory that is the State of Nevada and subject to the Constitution of the United States is the federal territory within Nevada, but it is misleading to write that “The State of Nevada” is owned by the United States of America. Does anyone get this?

  • JannyMae

    Absent from this article are these inconvenient little facts: http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Casper/range/taylor.1.html

    The federal government has been authorized by congress to regulate grazing rights on public lands. This article is a bit of a fail.

    • Michael Lotfi

      You cite the federal government’s website to try and prove the federal government owns land. Sure, that’s not bias. Oh, the feds say they own it? Shocker. Please show me in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 14 where Congress had the power to create “grazing rights on public land”.

      • Trytobeobjective

        Well that might be tough for him considering Art. I, Section 8, Clause 14 is about the regulation of armed forces and has nothing to do with this situation.

        • Michael Lotfi

          ;) Getting use to this new keyboard.

          • Trytobeobjective

            You’re still in the wrong Article.

          • Mike

            You mention the Northwest Ordinance in your article… Doesn’t that only involve “the Northwest Territories” ie land east of the Mississippi? Nevada territories were incorporated long after that by the treat if guadAlupe hidalgo. THAT treaty DOES seem to place the public land under control if the Feds. No mention of turnover control to a newly-formed state in that treaty I see…

    • Chris D

      the dea website says weed kills…the gov’t knows best….insert boot back into your mouth

      • Pax Humana

        JannyMae and Chris D(ouchebag), BOTH of you need to insert your feet back into your mouths until you learn to behave like grown ups again in your lives, you New World Order promoting storm troopers!

  • Chris D

    Great article Mike, I wish you could get this to the sheep in the MSM media. Or mabye every teacher in the land to bestow some real facts and critical thinking on the next generation

  • guber

    Very interesting analysis. Thanks. It would be interesting to know why so much of the land in all the western territories are deemed federal land. What was the history? When states cede powers to the fed (in whichever country you are) it is very often because the states, in need of financial resources, make some deal (with the devil) to trade bits of their sovereignty against assistance from the federal government. I would presume that this played a role here too. What is the historical debt these states have to the fed? And what were the instances in which these states proclaimed — verbally or tacitly — consent with the fed’s claim on the land?

  • NotQuiteAsRetardedAsYou

    Bundy’s have no title or deed, no grazing permit or acceptance of homesteading by any agency or government..ever. Just encroachment,ignoring of notices to file for permits for 20 years and a grand sense of entitlement typical of any welfare queen. This is no rancher, this is a mooch. Real ranchers own their lands or pay for usage and are scoffing at this story.

    • Derek Hendrix

      I would like for you to tell that mooch that has spent his whole life nickel in diming to make a living for his family through the cold winter storms and hot stormy days sometimes not having enough but he always survive to make sure he could sell his be to feed the American people. I would like for you to tell him he is a mooch to his face

      • kim891

        Wow your a idiot this guy is a multimillionaire!

        • Dr. Common Sense

          Do you know him, or did he show you his bank statements? Just curious because I know a lot of ranchers in that area and I can’t recall one of them that had enough wealth without selling their land to walk away and live happily ever after without having to work anymore. I bet dollars to donuts the state representatives have more money than him in their bank accounts and their salary really isn’t that much so how did they get so rich, hmmm… You’d think in a government of the people that the people would want to be sure that their politicians were making honest deals. Unfortunately we’ve turned into a people of government who wish to support our government no matter how bad their decisions hurt the very public they were intended to help through governance, not control. There is a difference. My oldest son once told me that the guy who cut my hair had to be a millionaire… because he had an old 80′s BMW and he saw on the TV that BMW’s were for rich people. I told him he was indeed rich, because he was making a living doing the thing he loved. Unfortunately the truth was that he was not rich with finincial wealth and was later closed down. He was the best barber I ever went to too bad he wasn’t a millionaire.

      • NotQuiteAsRetardedAsYou

        coming from a Utah ranching family with business ties to the Leavitts (the previous owners of the small ranch he claims to be on since Noah), I’d happily say it to his face. Over 900 head on land that you’re not paying for, suppressing the price of beef for legitimate ranchers in the area while you incur no land, feed or water costs and sucking up water that could be allocated to downstream farms, particularly during drought years doesn’t equate to “scraping by”.

        He’s exactly like the crack pipe whores he loves in NLV.

    • Pax Humana

      You have the user name of NotQuiteAsRetardedAsYou, yet your post has got to be one of the most retarded posts that I have ever came across Disqus. You are now literally a walking statement of irony thanks to your moronic comment.

    • Bill

      The feds own 30% of the US now, not the states. The United States, as it is, looks a lot different then the maps they show you if you exclude land that isn’t technically the states.

      He has stated many times his willingness to pay the fees, but only to the state. The state says they don’t own the land so they can’t take the fees. He had an agreement with the state about the grazing, the feds bought it out and said his agreement was null and void. The point is he doesn’t recognize the Federal governments power to seize land from the state… something you probably should be very wary of.

      Question for you… Is it even part of Nevada if the state doesn’t actually own it or have any authority over it? What state are these cattle technically in then and who actually has authority? Do you believe the constitution was written with the intention that the Federal Government should just be buying out the individual States a piece at a time? If not then you see where the problem is.

  • Fundamental Transformation

    No one owns the land, we just use it while we’re here. The planet has been here for a very long time and it will be here long after the current “civilization” (if you dare call it that) is gone. Nothing in this world is worth losing your soul over whether it’s gold, property, land or anything else you can think of.

    Isn’t it ironic that we are about to become extinct as a race of people and we spend our time arguing about who owns the land. The rancher’s cattle have just as much right to that land as the bankers, politicians and Chinese do.

    Better start thinking about ways to reduce the size of government before the government reduces the population to what they think it should be. I guarantee you that no one participating in this discussion will survive the culling that is about to take place.

  • Bill

    Okay quick question… If Nevada sold part of it’s territory to the Fed’s…and I drive through it…what State am I in? Technically it’s not a sovereign part of Nevada. The term United States seems misleading, since the Federal Government seems to own 30% of it, not the States. Yet the Federal Government was formed by the States, to re[present and serve the States and people… yet it can also take their land? Who controls who here?

    I seriously doubt anyone can argue that the Constitution was written with the intention that the Federal Government should just buy out the individual States. I think that goes against everything the United States was founded on. If that’s what they wanted it wouldn’t be the United States, it would just be America, all owned by one government with no individual state rights.

    • Bill

      Nevada is claiming they do not own the land the cattle are on, the BLM (Feds) do. So if Nevada claims they do not own it, and have no authority over it…what state are these cattle grazing in then? What is 30% of the United States then technically if they are not part of states?

      The feds are slowly eroding the states and buying them out with fake money they don’t even have. Do you honestly believe this is what the Founding Fathers believed in? This is what this is about, not grazing fees.

      • Baladas

        According to the State of Nevada, as of 2013, they own Bundy’s allotment.

        2013 Nevada Revised Statutes
        Chapter 321 – Administration, Control and Transfer of State Lands
        NRS 321.596 – Legislative findings.
        Universal Citation: NV Rev Stat § 321.596 (2013)

        The Legislature finds that:

        1. The State of Nevada has a strong moral claim upon the public land
        retained by the Federal Government within Nevada s borders because:..

        …(f) Federal administration of the retained public lands has not been
        consistent with the public interest of the people of Nevada because the
        Federal Government has used those lands for armament and nuclear testing
        thereby rendering many parts of the land unusable and unsuited for
        other uses and endangering the public health and welfare.

        4. The intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States
        was to guarantee to each of the states sovereignty over all matters
        within its boundaries except for those powers specifically granted to
        the United States as agent of the states.

        5. The attempted imposition upon the State of Nevada by the Congress of
        the United States of a requirement in the enabling act that Nevada
        disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying
        within said territory, as a condition precedent to acceptance of Nevada
        into the Union, was an act beyond the power of the Congress of the
        United States and is thus void.

        6. The purported right of ownership and control of the public lands
        within the State of Nevada by the United States is without foundation
        and violates the clear intent of the Constitution of the United States.

        Full statute language at link. http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2013/chapter-321/statute-321.596

    • David Van Risseghem
  • tarandfeatherthecrooks

    “Bench Legislation” is Judicial Tyranny

  • gatekeeper96740
  • gatekeeper96740

    http://www.wildlandsprojectrevealed.org
    The goal of the Wildlands Project is to set aside approximately
    fifty (50) percent of the North American continent (Turtle Island)
    as “wild land” for the preservation of biological diversity.
    The project seeks to do this by creating “reserve networks”
    across the continent. Reserves are made up of the following:
    Cores, created from public lands such as National Forest
    and ParksBuffers, often created from private land adjoining the cores
    to provide additional protection Corridors, a mix of public and private lands usually following along rivers and wildlife migration routes.The primary characteristics of core areas are that they are large (100,000 to 25 million acres), and allow for little, if
    any, human use.The primary characteristics of buffers are that they allow
    for limited human use so long as they are “managed with
    native biodiversity as a preeminent concern.” Moral and ethical guidelines for the Wildlands Project are based on the philosophy of Deep Ecology.
    The eight point platform of Deep Ecology can be summarized
    as follows:
    All life (human and non-human) has equal value.
    Resource consumption above what is needed to supply “vital”
    human needs is immoral.
    Human population must be reduced
    Western civilization must radically change present economic,
    technological, and ideological structures.
    Believers have an obligation to try to implement the necessary
    changes.
    The Wildlands Project itself is supported by hundreds of
    groups working towards its long-term implementation. Implementation
    may take 100 years or more.
    The Wildlands Project has received millions of dollars in
    support from wealthy private and corporate foundations such as
    the Turner Foundation, Patagonia, W. Alton Jones Foundation,
    Lyndhurst Foundation, etc.
    Conclusion:
    The Wildlands Project exist within legal boundaries, however
    that should not prevent us from being concerned. At the very
    least, it advocates an extreme manifestation of environmental
    and public policy. Therefore, any claim the Wildlands Project
    makes toward public policy must be debated, and ultimately decided,
    in the public arena. Yet to date it has existed almost anonymously;
    beyond the knowledge of the wider public. It must be examined
    out from behind the cover of more general environmental concerns,
    held up for public scrutiny, and either accepted or rejected
    by a public fully aware of its implications. Failing to do so
    could have dire consequences, for as John Adams once wrote, “Liberty
    cannot be preserved without a general knowledge by the people.”
    Maps

    https://www.google.com/search?q=wild+lands+project&client=firefox-a&hs=wo&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Dx1LU-ilLITM2AX1vYGABA&ved=0CEMQsAQ&biw=953&bih=531

  • gatekeeper96740

    Rewilding Network—Saving Globe Through Big Wilderness: Another UN Agenda 21 Hoax

    Perhaps the most jaw-dropping part of the rewilding plan involves
    reintroducing long-gone American animal groups back onto the North
    American continent. This could happen in several ways. The first would
    be to reintroduce former indigenous species who once roamed our
    land—such as elephants and the (wooly) rhinoceros. The second,
    reminiscent of a sci-fi movie, would be to find DNA materials to
    recreate extinct animal groups. For example, under this plan,
    well-preserved extinct animals—such as glacier-bound woolly mammoths,
    recently disappeared passenger pigeons, or the La Brea Tarpits’ saber
    toothed cats could be raised as fetuses from scratch. On this Science
    Daily published: A Plan For Reintroducing Megafauna To North America:

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/48568

  • Baladas

    The proper thing to be done would be for the state of Nevada to follow
    the procedure for revoking Bundy’s foraging and water rights under the
    auspices of eminent domain.

    As he owns the rights to forage and water, he owns some of that property
    even though his ownership is conditional on making the land and the
    fruit of the land available to the public.

    The only way the Feds can own land is if a state grants it to them, and
    Nevada has not exercised eminent domain and compensated Mr. Bundy for
    the loss of his private property, the loss of his business revenue, and
    his costs in moving his Family and cattle (property) to another place he
    can survive.

    That is the bottom line.

  • terry black

    Remember when Obama had the big Chinese PR party and stinking Chinese Flags flying in America and was entertaining some big Chinese officials and they were displaying their theatre arts here in America? Now all these buildings in Detroit are being sold off to Chinese businessmen and some city they are erecting is planned to be an experimental city in America? I’ll bet that is when this Bundy land grab was made involving Harry Reid and his son? Dirty Treasonous bugers! I’ll bet the tyranny going on in this rabbit hole goes much, much deeper – Hillary Clinton asking the Chinese for more money! I bet they’ve been selling us out under our noses? We need some outfitters to look into this Treasonous Real Estate business real deep! Anybody else know or hear something about America being sold off to foreigners – like Greece is being stolen from the people by the Globalists’?

  • JustAnotherPatriot

    The Articles of Confederation, dated November 15, 1777, are the originating articles of formation and the fundamental foundation, of the “United States of America“. These articles are the irrevocable “Substance” that the later “Constitution” its self would be executed upon, and draw their jurisdiction from.

    The first two Articles of the Confederation of “The United States of America“, speak VERY Clearly, about this power.

    ARTICLE I. The Stile of this confederacy shall be ‘‘The United States of America.’’

    ARTICLE II. Each State retains its Sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.

    The “Articles of Confederation”, supersede and take full judicial jurisdiction over the later “Constitution” articles, because they were the originating documents, or “Oath”, that the “Constitution” its self, was built, and based upon.

    Any interpretation of the “Constitution”, must then be interpreted from and by the originating “Articles of Confederation”, Hence, making those Ratified documents supreme, as accepted and agreed upon by “Oath” of the 13 states. Dated November 15, 1777

    For the most part, these articles have been widely forgotten, few people even know they exist, Much less understand the irrevocable power they contain.

    These, documents contain the foundation, of Individual State Sovereignty.

    Hence, upon Transfer of land to the Newly Formed State of Nevada, the United States of America, also transferred the full rights contained within the Articles of the Confederacy, and the Sovereignty of States it Gives, and Protects.

    For what its worth, that’s my two cents on the matter.

    • MarlboroStan

      Let me some this up for everyone.

      Articles of Confederation = small ineffective government
      United States Constitution = big, more perfect union, government.

      They scrapped the Articles because it was ineffective.
      They supported a more Federalists view on this newly formed country.

      The Federalists won. The Federalists concluded that in order to have a more perfect union then some natural rights have to make way for everyone’s rights.

      • Baladas

        never heard it said like that before. What exactly about a Federal Government authorized and limited by the US constitution has the mandate to negate “some natural rights?” And which natural rights do you believe the existence of the federal government lawfully prevents you from exercising?

      • Robert Miller

        By definition, isn’t a natural right representative of “everyone’s rights”?

      • BambiB

        But even the Federal Government is supposed to operate within the Constitution.

        This isn’t even close.

  • MarlboroStan

    Two thoughts.

    1. How can you argue FOR the constitution but REJECT the outcome of the constitution? Meaning, the judicial branch of government –as outlined in the constitution– has concluded time and time again that Bundy is trespassing.

    2. When the territory was purchased, the transaction was between Mexico and the United States of America. It was not between Mexico and Nevada. So how can Nevada be the legal owner of that land UNLESS they purchase it from the United States of America? How can Bundy claim sovereignty over something he does not own? Has no deed or title?

    • Baladas

      http://benswann.com/lofti-who-actually-owns-americas-land-a-deeper-look-at-the-bundy-ranch-crisis/#comment-1335239463

      He is not claiming sovereignty. He is agreeing with Nevada that Nevada has sovereignty over that land, and since the State of Nevada has not exercised eminent domain to take Bundy’s property (forage rights and water rights) and compensate him for it according to the eminent domain clause in the Nevada constitution, the Feds have no jurisdiction. The BLM is a manager under hire by the State of Nevada. Bundy has a problem with that manager. The Fed court order is null and void, because it is not federal land, although it was at one point. This is what he is saying.

    • casterofpeals

      i will only address your first point: the decision of any officers of the constitution, is not the constitution itself; in fact, many decisions have been made directly violating the constitution, in other instances.

      as for a constitutional explanation of that, and the rest of your statement, i will refer you to the article above.

  • MarlboroStan

    “Bundy’s family has controlled the land for more than 140 years.”
    ===========================================================

    Nice use of word play. I noticed you said “controlled” and not “owned.” So you DO admit that Bundy does NOT own the land he is abusing?

    In Sharia Law, if you claim ancestral stewardship of the land, then you own the land. Bundy claims his family has controlled –stewarded– the land for over 140 years.

    So my question is quite simple. Why is Cliven Bundy using Sharia Law in the American Judicial System?

    • Baladas

      The land is still owned by Mexico according to the 1848 treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. That aside, US federal government has broken that treaty and possession is 9/10 of the law. The feds gave “stewardship” over that land to the State of Nevada in 1864, while retaining their claim to title.

      In 2013 Nevada state legislature asserted their sovereignty and declared federal holding of those lands within Nevada borders to be unconstitutional, reclaiming it as Nevada land.

      So Nevada owns the land. Bundy’s family has OWNED the forage rights and water rights tax free since 1877. The BLM began charging grazing management fees in the 1970s. Bundy stopped paying those fees in 1993 after watching the BLM put ever single cattle rancher in his county out of business. He asked his state and county to form a local agency to do the BLM’s job with the needs of locals in mind instead of the federal agenda. That proposal was rejected, so Bundy used the money to make improvements and manage the land on his own. And sell food to the market so you can eat.

      • MarlboroStan

        Bundy presented NO documents to suggest he owns any of that property. He owns some land in that area, he does not own the land where he cattle graze. He produced NOTHING, other than the mere allegation, that he owns the land where those cows are grazing.

        • Baladas

          He owns the forage rights. He owns the water rights. Those are his property. If the BLM does not allow him to graze cattle, he goes out of business. If the Fed is going to claim eminent domain, they need to compensate you for the lost property and revenue. Nevada claims the land is theirs, so the Fed cannot easily assert eminent domain, but even if they could, they won’t and didn’t. Instead they chose to spend decades of time and money on lawyers, on studying the cattle, and a million dollar operaton to herd and slaughter the cattle.

        • Dr. Common Sense

          He owned the grazing rights before the BLM revoked them. For those unfamiliar with how land rights work this is confusing. But in the most basic example I can think of which I know might be oversimplified but this is only an example. It would be like you paying a friend to watch a DVD not just once, but, the right to watch that DVD whenever you want. As if you owned the content. The friend owns the physical property but you own the right to view the content whenever you want because you bought those rights. Now say that person starts charging a fee for every time you watch that content and justifies it by saying that with the income brought in with that fee he’ll help you manage that content better. But, then he doesn’t offer the services agrees upon and uses the fees and terms of fees to limit your access to the content you purchased outright. Just a very simplistic example of how it would work in a different media. Would you continue to pay the fee to watch your content that you already had rights to. Would you pay a fee to listen to the media you purchased through ITunes. You don’t own the physical rights to that media, you’re just paying to have the right to listen to that media. You can’t duplicate it or redistribute it but just use the content. These are the basics of how mineral rights and grazing rights work. You don’t own the land but you own the rights to a certain aspect if that land.

  • MarlboroStan

    One last point.

    1. Govt says its their land.
    2. Nevada says its the government’s land.
    3. 16,000 other ranchers conclude its the governments land and they are paying the fee.
    4. Bundy says its not the governments land.

    • Baladas
      • MarlboroStan

        The allotment is one thing. The Bundy cattle have moved off his property, through the allotment and onto federal land.

        The allotment is where he owes the fees. The removal is from the federal property. And since he hasn’t paid his bill for the allotment, they can legally removed the cows off that that also.

      • MarlboroStan

        “The State of Nevada has a strong moral claim upon the public land
        retained by the Federal Government within Nevada s borders because:..”
        ==================================================

        A strong MORAL claim is far from a strong LEGAL claim. Would you agree with that?

        Heck, I have a strong moral claim for that property as well. But that is not a legal argument in any court that I know of.

        • Baladas

          Did you not read the entire piece of legislation? Nevada rejects the Fed ownership WHOLESALE.

          5. The attempted imposition upon the State of Nevada by the Congress of
          the United States of a requirement in the enabling act that Nevada
          disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying
          within said territory, as a condition precedent to acceptance of Nevada
          into the Union, was an act beyond the power of the Congress of the
          United States and is thus void.

          6. The purported right of
          ownership and control of the public lands within the State of Nevada by
          the United States is without foundation and violates the clear intent of
          the Constitution of the United States.

          • MarlboroStan

            The Nevada legislature can declare that the entire United States belongs to Nevada. They can declare anything they want to. A declaration is not a force of law.

            So where is the Nevada v United States of America lawsuit? Where is the lawsuit suing the fed over ownership of that property?

          • Trytobeobjective

            U.S. v. Gardner, in which the 9th Circuit rejected the claim that Nevada owns any federal public land. This question has already been decided against Bundy.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            “This question has already been decided against Bundy.” – Trytobeobjective

            Decided by Whom?

          • dunkonyerhed

            The 9th circuit = a bunch of Harry Reid wannabes.

  • MHnsn

    Great article

  • MarlboroStan

    People are confusing way too many things.

    1. Cliven Bundy does in fact own land in that area. This is true.

    2. The Bunker Hill allotment –may in fact– belong to Nevada. I’m not sure about that though. Either way, Nevada or the Fed used BLM to manage it and BLM speaks for one of them. IF the land belongs to Nevada, all the Governor has to do is forgive the debt and allow the Bundy cattle to forage. Why won’t he do that IF he claims that Nevada owns the Bunker Hill allotment?

    3. Then there is Gold Butte. Bundy’s cows are foraging in Gold Butte which is 100% public property.

    Bundy’s cattle have moved OFF his private property. Moved through the Bunker Hill allotment. And are now inside the Gold Butte public land.

    • Baladas

      The “Bunkerville allotment” comprises 160000 acres and is a good portion of Gold Butte. The entire allotment is public property. After the BLM changed the rules regarding grazing rights and fees in 1993 because of “turtles”, Bundy rejected all relationship with BLM, and began to graze cattle OFF his allotment, as he was the last of many cattle ranchers who were put out of business, and he was encouraged to not only maintain but increase a local food source DESPITE the federal government trying to force Nevadans to get their meat from out of state. Bravo. Had some problems along the way controlling the herd. Too bad no one was there to help him out.

  • MarlboroStan

    I suspect if the author of this article pulled up old Nevada land contracts, he would find that those contracts are between the Citizen and the United States of America. They are not between the Citizen and Nevada.

    When Nevada became a state, the federal government ceded land for the purpose of settling the state. They drew the lots so small that they couldn’t sell all the land. Most people settled around waterholes and didn’t move inward.

    The unsold land REMAINED in the possession of the United States of America. The Nevada legislature making a moral claim is not a legal claim. They can reject the govts claim all they want to. What they can’t do is win a court case based on a moral objection.

    • Baladas

      That is rich. Defeat the federal government in federal court. Surely you jest. This is exactly why the locals and militia were overwhelmed with emotion and taunting the BLM rangers. The federal overreach supported by sold out Judges has gone to far, and has wakened a sleeping tiger.

      • Trytobeobjective

        The federal government loses in federal court all the time. Believe it or not, judges generally do not have a pro-government bias. If anything, it’s the opposite.

        • Baladas

          Not in my experience. And especially not on an issue that would severely effect the feds bottom line. After all, the feds employ most of this country, and support the rest via welfare, and the congressmen have a lifestyle and retirement to protect.

          • Trytobeobjective

            The federal government has about 2.7 million employees, so yeah, not even close to most. The number of people on welfare is right around 4 million. So 6.7 out of 300 million either work for the govt. or are on welfare. Nice try.

          • Baladas

            If you were honest, you would count companies like GE that now exist due to federal subsidy, you would count all the companies that exist simply because they contract to the fed gov, and you would take into account the real unemployment rate which is about t25% of able bodied adults. If you were honest.

          • Trytobeobjective

            Sure, if you redefine welfare to mean whatever you want it mean, you can bring as many people under the definition as you want. It doesn’t make you factually correct, it just makes you extremely biased.

          • Baladas

            Ha! The federal government is the only one guilty of defining welfare according to their own caprice. I apply common sense to cut through all the legal sophistry uttered by the pirate law merchants plying their trade in order to advance the original aim of the “attorney” which is to transfer all title and property acquired by the Land Lord’s “legally dead” and errant tenants back to the possession of the “Land Lord”. And take your blood money payoff for your efforts.

            I see you.

    • ChillyinAlaska

      You are full of crap, view the video I posted above about the truth and what the CONSTITUTION requires and OBLIGATES the federal government to do.

    • Cathy McMahan

      It sounds to me like a lot of people need to read the constitution and the Bill of Rights.

      • Hook Landry

        Very true and study it not just read it but study and read it with the other three Organic laws of the United States of America, the declaration of Independence 1776, the articles of Confederation 1777 which created a confederacy of thirteen states free and independent, the northwest Ordinance 1787 temporary government for future states and the Constitution of 1787 same year as the Northwest Ordinance. There exists no one in state or federal or county local or whatever to take a binding Article VI cl.3 written oath to support “this Constitution” all oaths follow the oral oath of the President of the United States Article II cl.8, any questions?

    • Michael Lotfi

      Actually, there is no need to pull the Nevada land contracts. That’s not how statehood works. You draw borders- That is the state. As a whole. If the land was still “Federal” then state law would not guide such lands within the border.

      • MarlboroStan

        No sir, you are wrong. Before Nevada was even a state, the government was settling the land. Settling the land from property the United States owned. The boundaries were drawn AFTER Nevada became a state. Nevada was a state before it even had a constitution and elected representation.

        This is nuts! How little of the constitution do the Bundinites know?

        • Dr. Common Sense

          Clearly you’re the one I should be getting all my Nevada fun facts from. Did you know Nevada is the most mountainous state in the continental US. It’s not all flat desert like most the population thinks. But I bet if you ask an ill informed group of citizens you’ll hear probably every state before you hear someone say Nevada. I’ve never had anyone I asked that to get it right. Your turn…. I want to know the state tree. No Googling cheater.

  • David Van Risseghem

    I just wrote a similar article this afternoon. It’s encouraging to get the kind of affirmation that this post provides. http://soonerpolitics.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-bundy-ranch-debate-and-state.html

  • ChillyinAlaska

    Please, watch this video. It plainly shows how the federal government and congress has violated the constitution in regard to the states and their land. The federal government is OBLIGATED by the constitution, to extinguish BOTH their governmental jurisdiction, AND their title to lands that achieve STATEHOOD. This is clearly explained in this video starting a 8:28 of this video. Clearly explained quoting sections of the constitution pertinent..Please watch and SHARE.

    Our Constitution was written in COMMON LANGUAGE for a reason!
    OUR CONSTITUTION determines who is the rightful owner of PUBLIC lands in America…it clearly
    points out that the states own it, unless it is SOLD to the Federal
    government! Start viewing at the 8:00 minute mark…boy did I learn a
    lot!!!
    Thanks to my good FB friend Robert Arciola for sharing this fascinating and informative presentation.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb7Or-f62jY

    • GodBlessAmericaAgain

      It is my understanding that the areas that are sold to the federal government are limited to 10 square miles for the purpose of building military bases.

    • Melissa Kellison

      So you’re saying there was no consideration (payment of money) when the title was passed to the US?

      • ChillyinAlaska

        I’m saying that the federal government has violated the constitution by holding the western lands and not giving up the title to the states as the constitution obligates them to do. they federal government is also violating the constitution by holding lands in ways it is not authorized to do by the constitution, forts etc…Even if the federal government paid the states, they are not empowered to own vast amounts of lands in the state borders, limited to military bases and such. How can one even call these western territories STATES, when the federal government owns and controls the majority of THEIR lands? These states are nothing but slaves of the federal government, exactly opposite of what the founders intended and our CONSTITUTION..

  • joe foley

    who owns it? he who has the most weapons owns it ..
    ask the native population

    • Cathy McMahan

      no they don’t but I guess it’s gives cowards an excuse to sit. lol They all need some testosterone, our founders would sure be proud of us.

  • paul harris

    People must understand the ramifications of the southern states walking out of the last valid congressional session. People must understand the incorporation of the UNITED STATES/US/USA (ALL CAPITAL LETTERS FOR A REASON based in UCC uniform commercial code – an extension of maritime admiralty law from the British system we tried so hard to free ourselves from….totally unconstitutional) in 1871- and then went bankrupt (how convenient) to its creditors- the international bankers in 1933.
    There is a reason they confiscated all gold in 1933- and soon ensured that there is no actual money anymore- only fed reserve debt notes.
    The Corporation is in receivership- AND THEY- THE CREDITORS/BANKERS/FOREIGNERS FRAUDULENTLY CLAIM its assets -land and stock -we the people- (that’s what the number on the backside of your birth certificate is- a ucc serial “warehouse” number – which has a value and that’s what treasury bonds value is based on in a moneyless debt economy) ARE OWNED BY THEM. Thats why they feel they can steal anything they want here.
    People must understand the British Accreditation Regency/Registry BAR and the oaths all Judges and Lawyers have taken to practice law in the post-1933 USA (their allegiance is to the TEMPLE BAR in London- not any country of person).
    People must understand that that Federal courts in the post 1933 USA are UCC courts hence the gold fringe on the flags within. NO MORE CIVIL COURTS so citing pre-1933 SCOTUS decisions is a waste of time
    THIS IS OF COURSE ALL FRAUD PERPETRATED ON THE Citizens (with a capital “C” not lowercase 14th amendment citizens which are simply employees of the corporation of USA which is only the 10 square miles of DC outside of which no federal code, executive order, of bureau- CIA, ATF BATF, FBI etc has any jurisdiction.
    Ever wonder why you pay the”Franchise Tax board “?
    its because you fraudulently claim to be a franchisee of a corporation- the UNITED STATES when you file your taxes. There are TWO constitutions you should know about- the organic document “The Constitution FOR the United States of America” that we are all lead to believe are leaders take an oath to- and then there is the corporate “Constitution OF the UNITED STATES” to totally separate documents.
    When it incorporated, the USA inc statutes (just a corporation like any other- starbucks/apple etc- called their employees “CITIZENS” that’s why when you get a job and claim to be a “citizen of the UNITED STATES on your w4 you are volunteering to pay taxes as an employee of the corporation, and to obey their statutes/codes. You are committing fraud unless you actually work for the federal government, are contracting/doing work for them/deriving your income from them or hold federal public office.
    Do you think your ancestors would have ever voted for a new income tax?! are you serious?
    If only the people who are actually part of the Federal government paid the fed income tax this bloated, morally dysfunctional, war mongering imperial colonial empire wouldn’t have the money to wage death and destruction through the world- the bankers aren’t gonna use their own money- just yours- while America’s (our REPUBLIC) infrastructure collapses.
    here’s a tidbit extra if your still reading- pulled from the web:

    U.S. Bankrupt since
    1933/martial law has been since then

    THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE UNITED STATES

    The fact of the matter is, the United States did go “Bankrupt” in
    1933 and was declared so by President Roosevelt by Executive Orders 6073, 6102,
    6111 and by Executive Order 6260 on March 9, 1933, under the “Trading With
    The Enemy Act” of October 6, 1917, AS AMENDED by the Emergency Banking
    Relief Act, 48 Stat 1, Public Law No. 1, which is presently codified at 12 USCA
    95a and confirmed at 95b. You can confirm this for yourself by reading it on
    FindLaw. Thereafter, Congress confirmed the bankruptcy on June 5, 1933, and
    thereupon impaired the obligations and considerations of contracts through the
    “Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard And Abrogate The Gold
    clause, June 5, 1933″ (See: HJR-192, 73rd Congress, 1st Session). When the
    Courts were called upon to rule on various of the provisions designed to
    implement and compliment FDR’s Emergency BANKING Relief Act of March 9, 1933,
    they were all found unconstitutional, so what FDR did was simply stack the
    “Court’s” with HIS chosen obsequious members of the bench/bar and
    then sent many of the cases back through and REVERSED the rulings.

    House Joint Resolution 192 (HJR-192), 48 Stat. 112, was passed by Congress on
    June 5, 1933. The ‘Act’ impaired the obligations and considerations of contacts
    and declared that the notes of the Federal Reserve banks were “legal
    tender” for the payment of both public and private debts, and that payment
    in gold Coin was against “public policy”. (In effect, FDR and
    Congress, under executive orders and legislative fiat, nationalized the
    people’s money, i.e., their gold Coin. Nationalization is a violation of the
    Law of Nations and existing public policy of Congress. See: Hilton vs. Guyot,
    159 U.S. 113 (1895). The gold Coin that was confiscated (nationalized) was
    later used to purchase voting stockholder shares in The Bank and The Fund at
    $35 per ounce.) At this point in time, “Fair Market Value”, i.e., a
    willing seller and buyer, without compulsion, lost any substantial meaning.

    Moreover, all of the Governor’s of the several States of the Union, who were
    summoned to and were in Washington, D.C. during the several days of this
    pre-planned economic “Emergency” (the first phase of which was to
    nationalize and expropriate the people’s Money, i.e., their gold Coin on
    deposit in the banks), pledged the full faith and credit thereof to the aid of
    the National Government, and formed various socialist committees, such as the
    “Council of State Governments”, “Social Security
    Administration”, etc., to purportedly deal with the economic
    “Emergency.” The Council of State Governments has been absorbed into
    such things as the National Conference Of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws,
    whose headquarters is located in Chicago, Illinois, and “all” being
    “members of the Bar”, and operating under a different
    “Constitution and By-Laws”, far distant from the depositories of the
    public records, and it is this organization that has promulgated, lobbied for,
    passed, adjudicated and ordered the implementation and execution of their
    purported “Uniform” and “Model” Acts and pretended
    statutory provisions, in order to “help implement international treaties
    of the United States or where world uniformity would be desirable.”
    (1990/91 Reference Book, NCCUSL). These organizations operate under the
    “Declaration of INTERdependence” of January 22, 1937, and published
    some of their activities in “The Book Of The States.” The 1937
    Edition openly declares that the people engaged in such activities as the
    Farming/Husbandry Industry had been reduced to mere feudal “Tenants”
    on the Land they supposedly owned.

    On April 25, 1938, the supreme Court overturned the standing precedents of the
    prior 150 years concerning “common law,” in the federal government.

    “THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, and CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE
    SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER they be LOCAL or
    GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW OR a part of the LAW OF
    TORTS.” — Erie Railroad Co. vs. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188.

    You must realize that the Common Law is the fountain source of Substantive and
    Remedial Rights, if not our very Liberties.

    The members and association of the Bar thereafter formed committees, granted
    themselves special privileges, immunities and franchises, and held meetings
    concerning the Judicial procedures, and further, amended laws so as “to
    conform to a trend of judicial decisions or to accomplish similar
    objectives”, including hodepodging the jurisdictions of Law and Equity
    together, which is known today as “One Form Of Action.” This was not
    by accident, but by a carefully conceived plan.

    The enumerated, specified and distinct Jurisdictions established by the
    ordained Constitution (1787), Article III, Section 2, and under the Bill of
    Rights (1791), Amendment VII, were further hodgepodged and fundamentally
    changes in 1982 to include Admiralty jurisdiction, which was once again brought
    inland.

    “This is the FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE necessary to effect unification of Civil
    and ADMIRALTY PROCEDURE. Just as the 1938 Rules ABOLISHED THE DISTINCTION
    between actions At Law and suits in Equity, this CHANGE WOULD ABOLISH THE
    DISTINCTION between CIVIL actions and suits in ADMIRALTY.” (See: Federal
    Rules Of Civil Procedure, 1982 Ed., pg.17; also see, Federalist Papers No. 83;
    Declaration Of Resolves Of The First Continental Congress, October 14, 1774;
    Declaration Of Cause And Necessity Of Taking Up Arms, July 6, 1775; Declaration
    Of Independence, July 4, 1776; and, Bennet vs. Butterworth, 52 U.S. 669)

    The United States thereafter entered the second World War during which time the
    “League of Nations” was reinstituted under PRETENSE of the
    “United Nations” (22 USCA 287, et seq.), and the “Bank For
    International Settlements” was reinstituted under PRETENSE of the
    “Bretton Woods Agreement” (22 USCA 286 et seq.) as the
    “International Monetary Fund” (The Fund) and the “International
    Bank For Reconstruction And Development” (The Bank or World Bank).

    The United States as a corporate body politic (artificial), came out of World
    War II in worse economic condition that when it entered, and in 1950 declared
    Bankruptcy and “Reorganization.” The Reorganization is located in
    Title 5 of the United States Codes Annotated. The “Explanation” at
    the beginning of 5 U.S.C.A. is MOST informative reading. The “Secretary of
    Treasury” was appointed as the “Receiver” in Bankruptcy. (See:
    Reorganization Plan No. 26, 5 U.S.C.A. 903; Public Law 94-564, Legislative
    History, pg. 5967)

    The United States went down the road and periodically filed for further
    Reorganizations. Things and situations worsened, having done what they were
    Commanded NOT to do (See: Madison’s Notes, Constitutional Convention, August
    16, 1787; Federalist Papers No. 44), and in 1965 crowned their continuous
    fraudulent acitivities with passage of the “Coinage Act of 1965″
    completely debasing the Constitutional Coin (gold & silver, i.e.,
    “Dollar”). (See: 18 USCA 331 & 332; U.S. vs. Marigold, 50 U.S.
    560, 13 L.Ed 257) At the signing of the Coinage Act on July 23, 1965, Lyndon B.
    Johnson stated in his press release that:

    “When I have signed this bill before me, we will have made the first
    fundamental change in our coinage in 173 years. The Coinage Act of 1965
    supersedes the Act of 1792. And that Act had the title: An Act Establishing a
    Mint and Regulating the Coinage of the United States….”

    “Now I will sign this bill to make the first change in our coinage system
    since the 18th Century. To those members of Congress, who are here on this
    historic occasion, I want to assure you that in making this change from the
    18th Century we have no idea of returning to it.”

    It is important to take cognizance of the fact that NO Constitutional Amendment
    was EVER obtained to FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE, amend, abridge or abolish the
    Constitutional mandates, provisions or prohibitions, but due to internal and
    external diversions surrounding the Viet Nam War, etc., the USURPATION and
    BREACH went unchallenged and unnoticed by the general public at large, who had
    become “a wealthy man’s cannon fodder or cheap source of slave
    labor”. (See: Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars, pgs. 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 &
    56) Congress was clearly delegated the Power and Authority to regulate and
    maintain the true and inherent “value” of the Coin within the scope
    and purview of Article I, Section 8, Clauses 5 & 6 and Article I, Section
    10, Clause I, of the ordained Constitution (1787), and further, a corresponding
    DUTY and OBLIGATION to maintain said gold and silver Coin and Foreign Coin at
    and within the necessary and proper “equal weights and measures”
    clause. (See also: Bible, Deuteronomy, Chapter 25, verses 13 thru 16; Proverbs,
    Chapter 16, Verse 11; Public Law 97-289)

    Those exercising the Offices of the several States, in equal measure, knew that
    such “De Facto Transitions” were unlawful and unauthorized, but
    sanctioned, implemented and enforced the complete debauchment and the resulting
    “governmental, social, industrial economic change” in the De Jure
    States and in the United States of America, and were and are now under the
    delusion that they can do both directly and indirectly what they were
    absolutely prohibited from doing. (See: Craig vs. Missouri, 4 Peters 903).

    You can confirm the whole affair by taking a look at 12 USC 95a and 95b. In
    addition, the various Reorganization Acts listed in Title 5 of the United
    States Code. There are your legal public record and historic proofs. Now we are
    going to hear from a former Congressman who (surprise!) ended up indicted and
    in federal prison, while more brazen felons continued to run the Congress:

    __________________

    United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303

    Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:

    “Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11.. Members of Congress are
    official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt
    entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully, a
    blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner’s report that
    will lead to our demise.

    It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been
    dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law
    89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R.
    192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 – Joint Resolution To Suspend The
    Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of
    the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental
    Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United
    States Federal Government exists today in name only.

    The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers,
    via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All
    United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de
    facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the Constitutional
    Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy
    have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of
    government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist
    order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established
    by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that
    of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8,
    Section H.R. 13955 reads in part: “The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives
    no compensation for representing the United States?’

    Gold and silver were such a powerful money during the founding of the united
    states of America, that the founding fathers declared that only gold or silver
    coins can be “money” in America. Since gold and silver coinage were
    heavy and inconvenient for a lot of transactions, they were stored in banks and
    a claim check was issued as a money substitute. People traded their coupons as
    money, or “currency.” Currency is not money, but a money substitute.
    Redeemable currency must promise to pay a dollar equivalent in gold or silver
    money. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) make no such promises, and are not
    “money.” A Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation of the federal
    United States government, not “money?’ The federal United States
    government and the U.S. Congress were not and have never been authorized by the
    Constitution for the united states of America to issue currency of any kind,
    but only lawful money, -gold and silver coin.

    It is essential that we comprehend the distinction between real money and paper
    money substitute. One cannot get rich by accumulating money substitutes, one
    can only get deeper into debt. We the People no longer have any
    “money.” Most Americans have not been paid any “money” for
    a very long time, perhaps not in their entire life. Now do you comprehend why
    you feel broke? Now, do you understand why you are “bankrupt,” along
    with the rest of the country?

    Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are unsigned checks written on a closed account.
    FRNs are an inflatable paper system designed to create debt through inflation
    (devaluation of currency). when ever there is an increase of the supply of a
    money substitute in the economy without a corresponding increase in the gold
    and silver backing, inflation occurs.

    Inflation is an invisible form of taxation that irresponsible governments
    inflict on their citizens. The Federal Reserve Bank who controls the supply and
    movement of FRNs has everybody fooled. They have access to an unlimited supply
    of FRNs, paying only for the printing costs of what they need. FRNs are nothing
    more than promissory notes for U.S. Treasury securities (T-Bills) – a promise
    to pay the debt to the Federal Reserve Bank.

    There is a fundamental difference between “paying” and
    “discharging” a debt. To pay a debt, you must pay with value or
    substance (i.e. gold, silver, barter or a commodity). With FRNs, you can only
    discharge a debt. You cannot pay a debt with a debt currency system. You cannot
    service a debt with a currency that has no backing in value or substance. No
    contract in Common law is valid unless it involves an exchange of “good
    & valuable consideration.” Unpayable debt transfers power and control
    to the sovereign power structure that has no interest in money, law, equity or
    justice because they have so much wealth already.

    Their lust is for power and control. Since the inception of central banking,
    they have controlled the fates of nations.

    The Federal Reserve System is based on the Canon law and the principles of
    sovereignty protected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, the
    international bankers used a “Canon Law Trust” as their model, adding
    stock and naming it a “Joint Stock Trust.” The U.S. Congress had
    passed a law making it illegal for any legal “person” to duplicate a
    “Joint Stock Trust” in 1873. The Federal Reserve Act was legislated
    post-facto (to 1870), although post-facto laws are strictly forbidden by the
    Constitution. [1:9:3]

    The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and distinct
    from the federal United States government. The Federal Reserve is a maritime
    lender, and/or maritime insurance underwriter to the federal United States
    operating exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law. The lender or underwriter
    bears the risks, and the Maritime law compelling specific performance in paying
    the interest, or premiums are the same.

    Assets of the debtor can also be hypothecated (to pledge something as a
    security without taking possession of it.) as security by the lender or
    underwriter. The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the debt
    was to be paid in gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve Act for
    ever paying the principle.

    Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and
    clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913)

    “Hypothecated” all property within the federal United States to the
    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in which the Trustees (stockholders)
    held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a
    “beneficiary” of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933,
    the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future
    properties, assets and labor of their “subjects,” the 14th Amendment
    U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.

    In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United
    States corporation all the credit “money substitute” it needed. Like
    any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral
    and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal
    United States didn’t have any assets, they assigned the private property of
    their “economic slaves”, the U.S. citizens as collateral against the
    unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal
    territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit
    organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been
    transferred as payment to the international bankers.

    Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots
    whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to
    hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and
    sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the
    Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master for another.

    This has been going on for over eighty years without the “informed
    knowledge” of the American people, without a voice protesting loud enough.
    Now it’s easy to grasp why America is fundamentally bankrupt.

    Why don’t more people own their properties outright?

    Why are 90% of Americans mortgaged to the hilt and have little or no assets
    after all debts and liabilities have been paid? Why does it feel like you are
    working harder and harder and getting less and less?

    We are reaping what has been sown, and the results of our harvest is a painful
    bankruptcy, and a foreclosure on American property, precious liberties, and a
    way of life. Few of our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. have dared
    to tell the truth. The federal United States is bankrupt. Our children will
    inherit this unpayable debt, and the tyranny to enforce paying it.

    America has become completely bankrupt in world leadership, financial credit
    and its reputation for courage, vision and human rights. This is an undeclared
    economic war, bankruptcy, and economic slavery of the most corrupt order! Wake
    up America! Take back your Country.”

    So there it is. No wild-eyed “conspiracy theories”, just the facts,
    witnessed and recorded. If you are here to defend the status quo, please don’t
    bother, but please do answer whether or not you believe any citizen would be
    liable to criminal prosecution if we modeled our lives or financial affairs
    after the conduct of what passes for “our” government. If you care
    what happens to US next, tell ten people to tell ten more. The hour is late.
    Conspiracy is not “a theory”, it is a federal felony.

    Unknown author

    ____________

    “They who have put out the people’s eyes reproach them of their
    blindness.”

    John Milton, 1642

    • David Wilson Rowley

      That is no doubt correct. There is little we can do except stand where our freedom becomes a life or death issue. If you have Christ, you know the ending to this saga. He shall reign for ever and ever. Hallelujah!

  • George E. Tarrant III
    • Baladas

      Exactly! It has been a land grab from the very beginning. The only element that endangered the desert tortoise was the Federal government! The presence of grazing ruminants helped the tortoise thrive!

  • Jon C

    And it really does not take all too many connect-the dots to show that
    the Native Americans have even a better claim to that land. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=750658984965809&set=a.537995626232147.119335.100000651442523&type=1

    • Melissa Kellison

      It’s possible about Native Americans having a better claim to the land, however, they would need to prove they had been removed from the land after properly staking their claim to it. Many natives didn’t believe the land could be owned. They didn’t form bounded nations but used a system of territories between them. After it was proved to them in the most terrible demonstrable way that land most certainly could be owned, some may have attempted to own property. To prove an old claim you would need an heir of the property owner, property markers, and perhaps a written deed depending on the requirements at the time. There might not have even been any American tribes occupying the area at the time of the territories, since that was previously Mexico and the territory was taken in a war with Mexico.

  • betyangelo

    While you squabble about who owns the land, nobody mentions the fact that the BLM, supposed managing the land as its mission, used helicopters, snipers, etc, proving that they are a part of the national army that Obama promised to create, just as well armed as our military. When he promised it, he didn’t say how he would use it: now we know. He will use it against citizens, to evict, to corral, to dispossess. To arms, To arms, To arms, you fools: the enemy is upon us.

    • Baladas

      And Bundy did all he could since 1993 to avoid war. 20 years of oppression, watching all his neighboring cattle ranchers fold to BLM extortion and dispossession. He took up arms when he was pushed to the limit and literally had property stolen, cattle killed, and his kin were fired upon with electric shock weapons.

      Pure self defense and a stand against tyranny. This will be Obama’s waterloo.

      • Trytobeobjective

        You really are one of the most insane and idiotic people I have ever encountered. No matter how many times it is pointed out to you that Bundy does not own this land and never has, you simply refuse to believe what the law says.

        • Baladas

          And you are an artful dodger, who hides behind legalese in order to ignore the essence of the god given natural rights to life, liberty and property.

          The fed does act as if they own that land. So they must own the consequences of the abuse they dish out to the residents, no?

          If the BLM was the right manager for the job, pray tell how they were able to manage to remove 50 cattle ranchers from their livelihoods? Unless you will argue that was their management goal? And if not, what business owner allows their management to decimate the local industry they were formed to protect and facilitate? Unless that was their goal?

          Contradiction and hypocrisy results from such tyranny and the effort to paint it as benevolent, and all your legal sophistry is useless to cover it up from free men. The courts covered for BLM abuse and pushed Bundy into a situation of last resort. It is obvious to anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together who hasn’t been assimilated into the hive mind of weak kneed sycophants.

          If you don’t get off the fence, expect to be pushed one way or the other, time is up.

      • Cowgirlpal

        You can thank Dictator Ronald Reagan for establishing grazing fees on Clive Bundy by executive order when he was president.

        • Baladas

          Yeah, Reagan was too trusting of that which he had little understanding of. Unless you believe he was complicit in some sort of conspiracy. All I know is that it is obvious to me that Obama REVELS in the exercise of capricious power based on his misguided childish impulses, and will not brook competition. Wait and see. If this situation doesn’t draw him out completely for all the world to see, Operation American Spring one month from now certainly will.

          • Melissa Kellison

            It’s the politicians that know about law that worry me. We’re blessed with a unique constitutionally protected republic that can be defended by a vigilant and moral people.

        • GodBlessAmericaAgain

          You Get your FACTS straight before you start pointing fingers!!!

          Charging fees for grazing private livestock on federal lands is statutorily authorized and has been
          the policy of the Forest Service (FS, Department
          of Agriculture) since 1906, and of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM, Department of the Interior) since 1936. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21232.pdf

          • Baladas

            not quite. The forest service charged a fee when ranchers voluntarily enlisted the forest service to adjudicate disputes over water rights. They then issued a permit to those ranchers designating the forage area and # of cattle each rancher could manage.

            The Talyor Grazing act of 1934 changed this voluntary process into a mandatory permit for all cattle ranchers where they paid a permit fee to the grazing bureau of the DOI for up to 10 years of grazing rights.

            The DOI created the BLM in 1946 by merging the grazing bureau with the general land office.

            In 1978 The Public Rangelands Improvement Act created the current formula of charging YEARLY rental fees for ranchers to use public land to feed their private livestock, and was extended by President Ronald Reagan in a 1986 executive order. Notice the act claims to be geared to increase production of livestock.

            (a) The Congress finds and declares that –
            (1) vast segments of the public rangelands are producing less
            than their potential for livestock,

            (3)unsatisfactory conditions on public rangelands present a
            high risk of soil loss, desertification,(!1) and a resultant
            underproductivity for large acreages of the public lands

            prevent expansion of the forage resource and resulting benefits to livestock and wildlife production.

            (4) the above-mentioned conditions can be addressed and
            corrected by an intensive public rangelands maintenance, and improvement program involving significant increases in levels of rangeland management and improvement.

            (5) to prevent economic disruption and harm to the western
            livestock industry, it is in the public interest to charge a fee
            for livestock grazing permits and leases on the public lands
            which is based on a formula reflecting annual changes in the
            costs of production – See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/43/37/1901#sthash.AQGzxAIv.dpuf

            So, the act was obviously a sham, because every single cattle rancher in Clark county nevada was forced off their land following the terms and conditions of their permits.

            Next?

          • dealinfacts

            Seemed like a good deal for the ranchers. Isn’t bundy’s herd a thousand strong and he see’s the benefit of using public lands. Seems like the act worked for him, only he didn’t want to pay.

          • Melissa Kellison

            At the time Bundy quit paying the permit, he was limited to only 150 head of cattle. Death for his ranching business.

          • dealinfacts

            His wife could own 150 , his cousin could own 150 etc etc etc.Regardless, the guy didn’t pay the agent who was in charge. Whether he liked them or not, he had to pay.Besides, does it really matter which useless branch og government you pay. At .0025 per pound, that 1.53 for a year of feed is a bargain.

          • Melissa Kellison

            No, that’s not how it worked. There was no playing the new system. There could be no more than 150 cattle grazing those whole thousands of acres of land, and that actually was because of the transplanted tortoise, displaced by a housing development project that eventually failed. You can’t run a cattle business with only 150 head of cattle. You can’t breed them with that few, the haploid drift would be detrimental in the stock. They deliberately tried to shut him down while he was paying the fees. They did succeed with the other 20 ranchers. That’s like saying no one’s stopping you from entering the marathon, but we’re cutting off your legs.

          • Baladas

            a good deal? surely you jest. The act worked for him? Lord have mercy.

          • Melissa Kellison

            You can draw up all the laws you want, but you can’t legislate to yourself powers you don’t have. The federal courts can decide all they want, their jurisdiction is strictly over federal agencies and their employees. It would be like Mexico legislating they can issue speeding tickets in Texas. They can write on all the paper they want, the only power they can derive is from the dummies who actually pay the fines.

      • dealinfacts

        what extortion – for a buck and a half, a full grown head of cattle with its calf could graze freely on public lands ( whether is state or Federal ). A buck and a half per year – why thats about .0025 cents per pound.

    • Cowgirlpal

      LOL. Worry about the crazyass people who shoot babies in school rooms and kill people in theaters for texting during the previews.

      • GodBlessAmericaAgain

        Really ? A handful of mentally disturbed people have more cause for concern than a government gone wild???

    • Michael Lotfi

      Actually, everyone is “squabbling” about arms, turtles, cows, etc. and hardly anyone has actually taken the time to write about the root cause– being ownership. Case and point the very reason this article has gone viral because it was one of the first ones to actually take about this issue. I like to strike at the trunk- not the branches, as you’d prefer.

      • dealinfacts

        Cleared it up for me somewhat. The state owns the land ( taxpayers ) but they handed off the management to a federal department since they couldn’t handle issues in the 30′s. But it seems , ranchers paid a fee to these federal departments.

    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94rcOVJBMYQ Winston Blake

      Michelle Obama’s Mirror · 108 comments

      Beyond Clive Bundy: The Real Range War and Why We’re Losing

      betyangelo replied to you · 9 hours ago

      “We are Americans here, defending our right to free speech. You right to free speech ends where ours begins. Now piss off some more.”

      You filthy Jews over there don’t believe in free speech… You are a lying bítch of the devil… Satanism is a Jewish cult…

      Talmudic Jew terrorists are bankrupting this country, bankrupting Europe and have hijacked the American police state.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrlHKR9QBHg

      If the Iranians nuke the Israelis, the Palestinian filth also dies in the fallout… win/win situation

      I wash my hands like Pontius Pilate…

    • David Wilson Rowley

      wise comment!

  • Cowgirlpal

    Guess which US Dictator established grazing fees when he was president? Reagan. Of course Fox News will never let that fact be told on air.

    • Baladas

      yeah they are more or less in the tank with disinfo. The BLM really got its start as the forest service way back when the forest service used to arbitrate conflict between ranchers over water rights, carving out allotments and charging fees for their service.

      All agencies usually start off with more or less good intentions and reasonable practices, and deteriorate from there due to lack of vigilance on the part of those who empower those agencies. That is no excuse for corruption, just an observation that dealing with corruption is MUCH more difficult if it is not nipped in the bud and allowed to flourish.

    • GodBlessAmericaAgain

      Get your FACTS straight :

      Charging fees for grazing private livestock on federal lands is statutorily authorized and has been
      the policy of the Forest Service (FS, Department
      of Agriculture) since 1906, and of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM, Department of the Interior) since 1936. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21232.pdf

      • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

        Grazing fees to the federal government have no constitutional basis of authority. That land belongs to the State of Nevada. Bundy is not obligated to obey unconstitutional authority.

        Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137: This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn’t exist in law.”

        • GodBlessAmericaAgain

          I agree wholeheartedly with that. Federal claim to the land was ceded to the state when the state was admitted to the union. The state then could sell property to the federal government but they were limited to 10 square miles for the purpose of building a military facility. The question that arises out of this is WHEN did the state recognize the federal control and was it just to have the federal government maintain properties that they didn’t want to maintain ? It certainly doesn’t supersede ownership of state held lands. I believe the states should assert their hold and control over these.

          • Baladas

            The feds never ceded their claim to title to the western territory after they reneged on their treaty with the Spanish/mexicans in 1848. When they carved into that territory to form states, they told the newly formed states that all unappropriated lands would remain under federal control. Nevada accepted that until recently when they saw the results of that overreach, and demanded they have title to the land and be able to manage it for themselves.

          • dealinfacts

            how can you prove that ? We see how the department was formed and themn morphed, but where is the document that comes out of the reneging of the treaty with Spanish / mexicans

          • Paul

            http://www.onlinenevada.org/articles/nevada-statehood

            “all undistributed public lands would be retained by the federal government
            and could never be taxed by the state. These provisions would be
            “irrevocable” without the consent of Congress and of the people of
            Nevada.”

      • Baladas

        it is the nature of the grazing fee which is in dispute. Below I will present the true origins of grazing fees, and how they have evolved into a tool used to eliminate cattle grazing in Nevada.

        not quite. The forest service charged a fee when ranchers
        voluntarily enlisted the forest service to adjudicate disputes over
        water rights. They then issued a permit to those ranchers designating
        the forage area and # of cattle each rancher could manage.

        The
        Talyor Grazing act of 1934 changed this voluntary process into a
        mandatory permit for all cattle ranchers where they paid a permit fee to
        the grazing bureau of the DOI for up to 10 years of grazing rights.

        The DOI created the BLM in 1946 by merging the grazing bureau with the general land office.

        In 1978 The Public Rangelands Improvement Act created the current formula
        of charging YEARLY rental fees for ranchers to use public land to feed
        their private livestock, and was extended by President Ronald Reagan in a
        1986 executive order. Notice the act claims to be geared to increase
        production of livestock.

        (a) The Congress finds and declares that –
        (1) vast segments of the public rangelands are producing less
        than their potential for livestock,

        (3)unsatisfactory conditions on public rangelands present a
        high risk of soil loss, desertification,(!1) and a resultant
        underproductivity for large acreages of the public lands..

        …prevent expansion of the forage resource and resulting benefits to livestock and wildlife production.

        (4) the above-mentioned conditions can be addressed and
        corrected by an intensive public rangelands maintenance, and
        improvement program involving significant increases in levels of
        rangeland management and improvement.

        (5) to prevent economic disruption and harm to the western
        livestock industry, it is in the public interest to charge a fee
        for livestock grazing permits and leases on the public lands
        which is based on a formula reflecting annual changes in the
        costs of production – See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/us

        So, the act was obviously a sham, because every single cattle rancher in
        Clark county nevada was forced off their land following the terms and
        conditions of their permits.

      • MarlboroStan

        so you agree its federal land?

        • GodBlessAmericaAgain

          No I do not. I was just pointing out that grazing fees did not originate with President Reagan

          • dealinfacts

            Now why would – God Bless America — Again . Seems to me he should just torch the whole fcking place.

          • GodBlessAmericaAgain

            That is a bit too cynical for me. I still have faith that God is capable of making miracles happen

          • dealinfacts

            LOL cynical – “god” has given America everything any country can want, and yet, its devolved into a scorpions nest where everyone is fighting against each other or screwing everyone over. Nah , a torch would be best.

  • Dr. Common Sense

    He owned the grazing rights before the BLM revoked them. For those unfamiliar with how land rights work this is confusing. But in the most basic example I can think of which I know might be oversimplified but this is only an example. It would be like you paying a friend to watch a DVD not just once, but, the right to watch that DVD whenever you want. As if you owned the content. The friend owns the physical property but you own the right to view the content whenever you want because you bought those rights. Now say that person starts charging a fee for every time you watch that content and justifies it by saying that with the income brought in with that fee he’ll help you manage that content better. But, then he doesn’t offer the services agreed upon and uses the fees and terms of fees to limit your access to the content you purchased outright. Just a very simplistic example of how it would work in a different media. Would you continue to pay the fee to watch your content that you already had rights to. Would you pay a fee to listen to the media you purchased through ITunes. You don’t own the physical rights to that media, you’re just paying to have the right to listen to that media. You can’t duplicate it or redistribute it but just use the content. These are the basics of how mineral rights and grazing rights work. You don’t own the land but you own the rights to a certain aspect of that land. I know this is way over simplified and I’m not pointing out legal cases but I’m just trying to break it down Barney style. You start looking at it from too many angles and you miss the basics. You can argue ownership of physical land and the different means by which different agencies and bodies of government do or don’t have existing rights to or from said land but in the end what sounds right. This example is just meant to bridge the gap between those familiar with these rights and those who are more familiar with our modern era. I figure most people today could relate to digital content and it’s a representation of rights to a commodity that you don’t physically own but probably feel you have the rights to use once purchased. Remember every company out there has very specific ways in which that digital content can be used and I’m sure 90% of the people out there have copied a disc or shared digital content with someone going against the legal rights of the company owning the actual rights to the media. If you want to argue for BLM then make sure you haven’t misused your purchase rights agreements for all your digital content. If you like cars you can substitute digital content with gas. You don’t own the gas station but you purchase the commodity from them and pay taxes on it. But, I bet you wouldn’t be happy if you had to pay a fee everytime your engine consumed it.

    • Baladas

      The fee evolved over time into a management fee. The ranchers were unsuccessful at managing themselves and let the feds get a toehold and gradually abdicated the management of the lands to them. The feds didn’t do a very good job of managing and in some cases abused their office and hurt ranchers. Now when rancher associations or even entire states want to hire new management, the Feds say tough luck, we own the land, your grazing rights,, and by extension, you.

      An honest landlord exercising eminent domain upon a tenant will compensate the tenant for lost property and rights, and aid them in relocation.

      The feds put you 6 feet under. Fuggetabowdit.

      • Dr. Common Sense

        I am familiar with this and agree. I grew up just north of the Bundy’s and earned a little extra cash through high school helping other ranchers in the area brand and cut their cattle every year. It’s just hard to find a good modern example to apply to a situation like this that will allow for people to understand the basics of the wrong doing. A lot of the ranchers that I used to work for are either out of business now, with their land being sold off to corporations or have had to downsize drastically due to over regulation. My family was not ranchers but more like homesteaders, we did what we could to be able to provide for ourselves. A handfull of cattle, sheep, chickens and some other oddball creatures (two pet crows, pigeons and rabbits) called our home home as well. Most of my family works in mining so we’re very well up on the land rights situation, which small mining developements are also being forced under to the larger mining corporations through targeted legislation and regulations that are in place to financially hurt the smaller businesses while offering huge Government subsidies to the Corporate establishments that often can get around these obsticles due to holes in the legal verbage that allow them to not abide by the same. I believe there needs to be certain fees and regulations in place to keep a fair and balanced approach for governance and management but when those having the fees and regulations thrust upon them without the representation of the goods and services that are suppose to be provided along with said fees and such, than really something is wrong. Too many people with a spoon in the pot and the soup ( income earning citizens ) is getting thin. Most governing agencies really do think they’re doing a great service to us and I believe most of the employees in these agencies probably believe that they’re doing their best to make us as a whole better. Unfortunately most agencies within this government are so compartmentalized that the left hand rarely knows why he’s passing something to the right hand and therefore abuses are born. Not from the many but by the few. I no longer live in Nevada but still call it home. I now live wherever I can find work.

        • Baladas

          I am beyond the point of giving credit for good intentions and giving people a pass because they remain ignorant to the fact they are being used to destroy the lives of their fellow man. Those very people are now being asked to take a side and the reality of their naivete and complacency should be fully evident to them. I pray that they come down on the correct side of the fence, but those who don’t are making a choice to choose to support despotism in full view and need to be treated accordingly.

          • Dr. Common Sense

            Not disagreeing with you a bit. Sheeple will be sheeple.

          • http://benswann.com Truth In Media

            KSNV News 3 is the wing of the Democratic Party!

  • Norris Allen

    Making some federal parks international parks ,has no legal standing at all .

  • Das Ram

    It isn’t the ONLY question, but at least you are on the right track. As you correctly point out, the US Con1787 is limited to its Exclusive Legislative Jurisdiction, 10miles square. Back up one more step and you will see in the Preamble that it is the Constitution Of the United States….For the United States of America. The United States is owned by the U.S.ofA., which is Our Republican Form of governmet….unless you consent to being governed by the Representative-Democracy. If you are calling a Senator or Representative, state or National, you are partaking of the Representative-democracy as a citizen.
    Iron Shackle slavery was long on Iits way out as they planted and administered the White Collar slavery scheme decades earlier as its replacement. Voluntary Servitude for the Benefits and Privileges offered by , The State.

    • Hook Landry

      Das Ram while I tend to agree with you partially I will state in law the Preamble is not a part of the Constitution the Constitution begins with Article I Section 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in “a” Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
      Please take note of the article “a”…this means in plain English grammar there is another Congress otherwise known as “the Congress” remember written is what it says there can be no ambiguity in LAW. This other Congress in the united states in congress, assembled. There are other places in the Constitution that reference the United States of America and it is in Article II and Article VII where in Article VII only nine of thirteen states were required to establish “this Constitution” not “the Constitution”.

  • Nate B

    Michael, thanks for writing this article. I’d like to hear your thoughts on this part of the debate.
    http://www.onlinenevada.org/articles/nevada-statehood
    Regarding the Nevada constitution: “all undistributed public lands would be retained by the federal government”

  • MarlboroStan

    “The land being fought over by Bundy and federal agents, some 600,000
    acres in Gold Butte, Nev., belongs to the U.S. government, according to a
    2013 U.S. District Court ruling.”

    “[T]he public lands in Nevada are the property of the United States
    because the United States has held title to those public lands since
    1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States,” the court said,
    adding that the federal government lawfully acquired ownership of the
    land under the Treaty of the Guadalupe Hidalgo.”

    I don’t know what else to tell you folks. Y’all are NULLIFYING our laws. NULLIFYING our way of law. NULLIFYING the basic tenants of a Democratic Republic.

    Know who else supported Bundy? They guy that shot up a Jewish center.

    • Dr. Common Sense

      Do you own land? No trolling here just curious. Always up for good conversation.

    • Baladas

      America was never intended to be a democracy for starters.

      Second, if you do your research, you will find that the treaty being cited did not cede title to the land to the Federal government.

      And last, please read the historical facts about the introduction and evolution of “grazing fees” in my reply to you at 2:17pm on this thread that you ignored.

      https://disqus.com/home/#discussion/benswannfulldisclosure/lofti_who_actually_8220owns8221_america8217s_land_a_deeper_look_at_the_bundy_ranch_crisis/comment-1336118458

      Fees which began in 1905 as voluntary adjudication fees, and evolved into yearly permits in 1976 with strict terms and conditions that the rangeland imp. act claimed were meant to prevent economic disruption and harm to the western livestock industry.

      Then please explain how only 3 cattle ranchers remain out of 53 in Clark county Nevada. Explain why Bundy should have voluntarily assisted his own destruction? Explain why the Feds would allow the BLM to not just disrupt and harm the livestock industry, but destroy it utterly?

    • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

      1780 RESOLUTION ON PUBLIC LANDS required the federal government to give ownership of the land to the State of Nevada.

      The Federal government was bound by constitution to support the 1780 Resolution.

      U.S. Constitution. Article. VI.
      All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

      The land contained within the boundaries of Nevada belongs to the State of Nevada.

      • Hook Landry

        From 3rd Organic Law of the United States of America, Northwest Ordinance 1787
        Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the resolutions of the 23rd of April, 1784, relative to the subject of this ordinance, be, and the same are hereby repealed and declared null and void. 1780 Resolution is mute against Organic Law.

        • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

          “The legislatures of those districts or new States, shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in such soil to the bona fide purchasers.” – Northwest Ordinance 1787

      • Melissa Kellison

        They don’t have the authority to use their weapons on people, additionally. They have as much authority over people and people’s property as your vacuum cleaner salesman would. Their territory is a toothless overlay with an inexecutable directive to “manage” it. Thus, the fallback on the use of force. Has Bundy been brought up on charges? Has he committed a federal offense? Stealing mail from a mailbox is a federal offense, the post office is a federal agency. Are they able to charge him like that?

    • David Wilson Rowley

      “Know who else supported Bundy? They guy that shot up a Jewish center.”
      Trolls use guilt by association. It is a well known ploy to connect psychological guilt to any individual by association. Marlboro, it says a lot about your bias.

  • MarlboroStan

    “The land being fought over by Bundy and federal agents, some 600,000
    acres in Gold Butte, Nev., belongs to the U.S. government, according to a
    2013 U.S. District Court ruling.”

    “[T]he public lands in Nevada are the property of the United States
    because the United States has held title to those public lands since
    1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States,” the court said,
    adding that the federal government lawfully acquired ownership of the
    land under the Treaty of the Guadalupe Hidalgo.”

    I don’t know what else to tell you folks. Y’all are NULLIFYING our laws. NULLIFYING our way of law. NULLIFYING the basic tenants of a Democratic Republic.

    Know who else supported Bundy? They guy that shot up a Jewish center.

  • MarlboroStan

    Latest Court Ruling: “In sum, in this most recent effort to oppose the UnitedStates’ legal process, Bundy has produced no valid law or specific facts raising a genuine issue of fact regarding federal ownership or management of public lands in Nevada, or that his cattle have not trespassed on the New Trespass Lands”

    Maybe Bundy should hire the author of this article when he appeals the ruling. Oh wait! He didn’t appeal the ruling. I’m not even sure he showed up for the last hearing.

    • Baladas

      perhaps after 20 years of harassment by a corrupt government agency that had already taken out every other rancher in sight, 20 years of losing money in court costs, he decided enough with “diplomacy”?

      And I suppose it is safe to say you didn’t listen to Kevin Allan’s guest who is a lawyer from texas spend an hour going over the latest court judgement against Bundy and proving beyond a doubt his Lawyers cut his throat and bled him dry?

      http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1nljfq_bundy-ranch-live-show_news

      • AlbertCat

        “he decided enough with “diplomacy”?”

        Then he is in violation of the court and a criminal….who owes money that he is not paying. He is a welfare queen freeloader who thinks he deserves a free ride and laws don’t apply to him.

        • Baladas

          ha ha ha. another foreign country heard from.

          When your black robed overlords throw you under the bus, remember what you just said as the tire rolls over your skull.

        • Dr. Common Sense

          Most of the biggest changes in this country occurred because someone finally had the balls to say no. Civil rights come to mind. Many of those people were breaking the law or was it a good idea to have segregation. Or how about them indians we worked over with the almighty power of government. The government never makes a law that is bad though even if it bleeds people dry physically or financially.

  • Truth In Media
  • http://benswann.com Truth In Media

    Corrupt politicians Harry Reid and his son Rory Reid are back at it again!: https://www.facebook.com/krnvnews4

  • http://benswann.com Truth In Media

    KSNV News 3 openly admitted that they don’t care about it at all if Harry Reid and Rory Reid are corrupt politicians or not!

  • Hook Landry

    This is direct from the Constitution of the State of Nevada… Can anyone read this especially Michael Lofti…It is so very clear that #1 the State of Nevada is part of the Federal Union and #2 All territorial laws remain in effect. but yet left out of the this Nevada Constitution is the Whereas actually not part of the Constitution…Whereas,

    The Act of Congress Approved March Twenty First A.D. Eighteen Hundred and Sixty Four “To enable the People of the Territory of Nevada to form a Constitution and State Government and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the Original States,” requires that the Members of the Convention for framing said Constitution shall, after Organization, on behalf of the people of said Territory, adopt the Constitution of the United States.—Therefore, Be it Resolved,

    That the Members of this Convention, elected by the Authority of the aforesaid enabling Act of Congress, Assembled in Carson City the Capital of said Territory of Nevada, and immediately subsequent to its Organization, do adopt, on behalf of the people of said Territory the Constitution of the United States[.]

    Sec: 2.  Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States.  All political power is inherent in the people[.] Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair[,] subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existance [existence], and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

    Sec: 2.  Territorial laws to remain in force.  All laws of the Territory of Nevada in force at the time of the admission of this State, not repugnant to this Constitution, shall remain in force until they expire by their own limitations or be altered or repealed by the Legislature.
    What this means is Nevada and 49 other States are Federally unioned Statesowned by and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America. There is no ambiguity here just reading of the LAW. Now I agree this is a bad deal for any FREEDOM loving people but nonetheless this is the way the LAW is written. This is why it it so important to wake the sleeping giant of the Second Organic Law of the United States of America The Articles of Confederation which is still very much LAW.

    • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

      The States are bound by the U.S. Constitution as is the Federal government. The Federal government is bound by law to dispose of the ownership of the land when a state becomes a State.

      “Resolution Demanding that Congress Convey Title of Federal Public Lands to the States

      This resolution urges the US federal government to extinguish title and government jurisdiction over public lands that are held in trust by the US federal government and convey title and jurisdiction to willing states in which the federal public lands are located as was promised in congressional resolutions in 1780, the Land Ordinance of 1784 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, among others.”

      http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/resolution-demanding-that-congress-convey-title-of-federal-public-lands-to-the-states/

      “WHEREAS, the promise and duty to dispose of the public lands originates from a “solemn compact” among the States in 1780, during the Revolutionary War, whereby the States ceded their “claims” to all western lands to the national government on condition that it timely dispose of the lands to create “distinct republican states with the same rights of sovereignty, freedom and independence as the other states” and to use the proceeds, as there may be, to pay for the War and the resulting national debt;”

      • CornellUG1993

        How would extinguishing title comply with the promise of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787?

        “The legislatures of those districts or new States, shall never interfere
        with the primary disposal of the soil by the United States in Congress
        assembled, nor with any regulations Congress may find necessary for
        securing the title in such soil to the bona fide purchasers.”

        • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

          The way I read it is that when a territory becomes a State the United States disposes of title of the soil to the State.

          • CornellUG1993

            That doesn’t make any sense, it explicitly says the states created out of the territory shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by the united States.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            The Resolutions of 1780 required the United States government to give up title to the soil when a territory became a State. That concept was backed up by the Northwest ordinance of 1787. The soil contained within the boundaries of the State became the property of the State. Property ownership is a State issue not a Federal issue. The Resolutions of 1780 and the Northwest Ordinance became part of the Constitution when it was ratified. Article IV. Clause I. Therefore, the Constitution does indeed say that.

          • CornellUG1993

            Article IV Clause I says nothing about property, but Article IV Section 3 Clause 2 says the territory and property belonging to the United States shall be regulated or disposed of at the sole will of Congress. I’ll even quote it for you:

            “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”

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            Key word being “Territory”. The U.S. government did retain ownership of the soil as a Territory, but when a State was formed, the State was promised title to the soil by the Resolutions of 1780 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 which are still part of the Supreme Law of the Land to this day.

          • CornellUG1993

            “or other Property”, it’s right there, I don’t have time for someone who is just trolling. And the Resolutions of 1780 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 do not contain the language you’re ascribing to them. You wont actually quote anything, you just claim they say these things somewhere, when they don’t.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            “Other Property” is not soil. The Territory was the land.

            If your interpretation is correct, then why aren’t the Eastern States mostly owned by the Federal government like the Western States? What changed?

          • CornellUG1993

            Well, the states on the Eastern Seaboard weren’t formed out of federal territory, the same is true of Texas. The first state to have this provision was Ohio in 1802, it’s not mostly federal because a fair amount of the land was sold, and what wasn’t was claimed under the Homesteading Acts. The Homesteading Acts aren’t very amenable to desert terrain for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the largest parcel available under the acts was 640 Acres and it required you to irrigate and reclaim desert land for crop production, which was really difficult to do prior to massive federal irrigation projects, which were never present in the west.

            Bundy’s home is actually on land his family got as a homestead, it’s on one of the 160 acre plots and didn’t have quite as stringent requirements, since the plot is smaller.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            I disagree with your premise. Many of the States that are not mostly owned by the Federal government were formed out of the Federal Territory known as the Louisiana Purchase.

            IMO, the reason that the Eastern States are not mostly owned by the Federal government and the Western States are is because the Feds saw the error of their ways and if they disposed of their soils as required by the original intent, then they would lose their power. Leviathan gets its power from monopoly money and owning Western lands and resources.

          • CornellUG1993

            “I disagree with your premise. Many of the States that are not mostly
            owned by the Federal government were formed out of the Federal Territory
            known as the Louisiana Purchase.”

            I’m not sure how that’s relevant to my argument, I explained why Eastern and central states aren’t mostly owned by the federal government in a way that’s perfectly consistent with this. Are you saying you disagree that the enabling acts of these states ensured the federal government retained title to the public lands? I can show you where each state’s enabling act says exactly that.

          • Melissa Kellison

            The eastern states were the ones that ratified and adopted the Constitution. They were likely more zealous to get a nation started than to cook up ways to destroy it. Same with the next few states that came in after and only had to adopt the Constitution. Then we have a pause in history. The west wasn’t getting settled, that was a government subsidized movement with removal of Indian tribes later, and we also had a civil war before the remaining western territories formed states and the Mexican war in the midst of those actions. Did I miss any?

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            You explained but I do not believe your explanation. I believe the Western states are are mostly “owned” by the Federal government for the purpose of empowering the Federal government which is in violation of the Constitution.

          • Melissa Kellison

            We didn’t have a BLM skeezing with corporatists and dirty politicians at the time.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            Yesteryear was a whole different world. Free people lived free lives free from the counterfeiting cabal.

          • JK Hout

            The “other property” refers to land the States ceded to the government with the consent of the state legislatures and purchased from the States according to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17.

          • Melissa Kellison

            Trump that with the US can’t own property and you have a Congress compelled to dispose of the soil ASAP

          • Melissa Kellison

            That means no one can come back and claim the unappropriated (unclaimed now public) land had a lean on it. Legal language is so thick. That just meant once the territory became a state, the unclaimed land is clear of title. It is disposed of and no person or the state can claim a past lean on it.

        • Melissa Kellison

          That is at the heart of the problem. When all these states included the clear title ordinance in their constitutions, it was explicitly for the purpose of the US to sell the unappropriated land within the states’ borders back to those states. The states would also get a portion of that money back for roads and schools, etc. The US would get the revenue needed to pay off the debt incurred buy the civil war amounting to $7trillion in today’s value. The US never sold back that land as was promised back to Nevada. Right now there is a pickle. The land has to be appraised for market value. Apparently this is an impossible task, because there aren’t buyers at market value which ends up necessitating the land remain held by the state or US. A solution is propose to be jabber jawed about in September this year. Nevada has suffered from the loss of the ability to sell and tax that land for their own state revenue. It’s time to make the transfer. Long overdue. The state and the fed will mutually benefit, and the people can finally be left alone.

          • CornellUG1993

            This I totally agree with, they absolutely have an obligation to sell, but they never put a timetable on it and so the courts have said it’s not a legally enforceable obligation. Which means its an issue voters have to make clear to the federal government, there was a promise the land would be sold (and once it’s sold to anyone the state gets jurisdiction), and they need to live up to that.

          • Baladas

            In principle you are correct. however, the fed can make more use of that land as leverage to foreign investors in order to offset their lavish spending on top of their bankruptcy, so will NOT negotiate with the states according to their implied contract, and will only relinquish control if FORCED TO, as has become obvious.

          • Melissa Kellison

            That’s their motive as we presume it to be. There’s just something that doesn’t seem right with the latest solar panels theory. There are so many plots of desert land out there nobody wants, why does the solar farm need to go right there? Solar farms don’t need water, or pasture. Why not just find a different allotment for foreign investment? Why do they have to kill these businesses to get that, there’s plenty of room?

          • Baladas

            California set the standard. 3 to 1. Meaning for every solar project built, the company needs to designate 3x the size of the project as “off site mitigation zone” with all sorts of wildlife conservancy standards. Basically no one can use it. The same for the big 300 mile water pipeline being built through eastern nevada to las vagas. They are required to set aside so much land as untouchable. So if you are the BLM and know this is in the future, you need to start clearing lots of land for all the future solar projects. It took them 25 or so years to clear out 50 cattle ranchers in Clark county.

          • Melissa Kellison

            That doesn’t give anyone the right to clear the lot of it’s rightful owners and users. My research indicates, these ranchers with permits certainly do have resource rights backed by deeds, and were required to show proof of such rights to obtain the permits. We can safely assume Cliven Bundy’s claim is backed by deeds. According to this document witnesses testify in this case that BLM requires proof of rights to issue it’s grazing permits. You see this by the time you get to page 13. It also establishes the revocation of a permit does not affect to revoke any right. There is also description through the document of deeds on wells, ditches, rivers, and hard pans, easements etc. The purpose of the permit system being to protect ranchers with rights from trespassers that would compete for resources. The defendant won this bench case. Do give it a read, it covers the very intimate detail of how grazing public lands is a protected activity, even though BLM has done the dirty on them.
            http://www.scribd.com/doc/144609491/United-States-v-Estate-of-Hage-No-2-07-cv-01154-RCJ-VCF-Findings-of-Fact-Conclusions-of-Law-and-Injunction-D-Nev-May-24-2013

          • Jester

            The permits were “sold” to the ranching industry as protective devices, and may have even been intended as such to one degree or the other, but where there is a corrupted will, there is a way to use any license against the license holder by altering the terms. Another thing that happens is lawyers may by ideologically opposed to their clients interests and will sabotage the case while making it look like they did their best. They get paid and further their ideals. Or the lawyer may not want to buck the system or is looking for a political appointment, so even though a case can be won, it is not, and the Judges are the same way. Even if a Judge wants a case to go a defendants way, that judge may not be able to override the influence of a corrupt prosecutor/defense tag team.

            Bundy was railroaded by his lawyers. He still has alot of appeals leverage according to the latest ruling against him, but I think he is done playing that game, he is out for blood and doesn’t want to play that game anymore.

          • Melissa Kellison

            I wouldn’t say he’s out for blood, but he’s out for justice. I believe justice will be served when BLM is held liable for all the damage they’ve done, including acts of aggression, assault and battery, impersonating an officer, and a whole plethora of other crimes they committed since they started playing their game.

          • David Wilson Rowley

            Excellent post. If solar panels are really a motive in this saga, put them in the Mojave desert or death valley where no cow or human cares anyway.

      • 7LibertyForAll

        The people are NOT bound by the Constitution. That document was written to bind down our government so that they would not become the treasonous despots that they have become. The people are the sovereigns here, not the effing government.

        • CornellUG1993

          Not sure you know what the word “sovereign” means. The Constitution explicitly acknowledges powers of arrest and incarceration of people, something you cannot do to a sovereign.

          • Baladas

            that is not correct. There is always a sovereign with the capability of arresting and immobilizing the freedom of another sovereign when the moment calls for it. Trust me on that one. The only sovereign who is not subject to such reality does not spend alot of time on this planet.

          • CornellUG1993

            The moment another exerts that authority and presents a legitimate threat, that other sovereign isn’t really a sovereign anymore.

          • Baladas

            True. Sovereign refers to one who exerts superior force over their domain. If such is challenged and loses, the winner has sovereign authority over that domain. In essence Sovereignty has nothing to do with laws, and everything to do with force. That said, some sovereigns use the force of just laws to amass a loyal following in their dominion and this helps them to dissuade a sovereign tyrant and his dominion full of knaves and slaves from attempting to take that “just” sovereign’s power away.

            In the context of Liberty4all’s original comment, we need to realize that terms have more than one definition. The people as a whole ARE sovereign. Yet they select from among them a security force( govt) into which they vest their sovereign power to act on their behalf and agree to submit to if wielded according to the constitutional law that security force is bound by. Thus the gov’s sovereignty is NOT full in the true sense of the definition, because at any time the people who outnumber the gov have the sovereign right to arrest and disband the gov if they disobey their charter.

          • Dp_Thinker

            You throw out a lot about the constitution so let’s use yoir own document to prove you are wrong.. Us Constitution Article 1, Section 8, clause 17. “The federal government shall never own title to any real property which is not specifically authorized by this Constitution such as parks, forests, dams, waterways, and GRAZING Areas, without the consent of the State where same is located… Nuf said.

          • pffff

            nice try retard. article 1, section 8 says nothing of the sort. it says that the government can own ANY land “purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state,” which in this case is the land that king bundy thinks he owns. bundy is just as much a bully as the blm. if you ask me they deserver each other. you sir are just a liar.

          • CornellUG1993

            Did you just freaking make up your own version of our most sacred document you un-American shill? Art 1 Sec 8 Cl 17

            “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,
            dockyards, and other needful buildings”

            That talks about two things and only two things. The establishment of a capitol, and PURCHASING land from a state. Neither is what is happening here, so why would you got this part of the Constitution, rather than the part I cited?

      • Melissa Kellison

        “When the state becomes a state” means the deadline to dispose of the soil was the date the state came into being? Then they are overdue.
        We have to assume the parties to the contract knew what they were doing, all the other states that entered into these entered into the same contracts. If things didn’t happen as expected, we must presume it is not caused by an error or some loophole, but an outright breach of contract, or failure on a party’s part to fulfill the requirements to complete the agreement.
        Is the state interfering with the disposal of the soil?

    • Baladas

      All political power is inherent in the people[.] Government is
      instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and
      they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good
      may require it.

      (But don’t actually try it or we will cut you down)

  • Hook Landry

    The State of Nevada is a State of the United States. The territory that is the State of Nevada and subject to the Constitution of the United States is the federal territory within the outer boundaries of Nevada, but it is misleading to write that “The State of Nevada” is owned by the United States of America.

  • Luap Seugirdor

    We all saw the civil uprising in Ukraine. Same thing will happen here, starting at the Bundy Ranch. The feds are not about to back off. Too bad these BLM thugs don’t realize the same thing could happen to them. They might not be ranchers, but I bet they own homes and other things. Wouldn’t it be ironic if while they are raiding the Bundy’s, their homes were being invaded as well?

  • Jon_Roland

    There is an important way that the federal government may have acquired title, although only as a proprietor, to the land in question: If retention of title was agreed as a term of admission of the state. That would provide the consent of Art. I sec. 8 Cl. 17. If that was not agreed to, and the state was admitted, then title would pass to the state.

    So the key to resolving this dispute is to determine whether title retention was part of the act of state admission. That is what has to be determined.

    I have examined the congressional act of March 21, 1864, which can be found at http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/013_statutes_at_large.pdf starting at page 30, and it does indeed provide for retention of title by the U.S. government of “unappropriated public lands”, Sec. 4, Third:

    That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that the lands belonging to citizens of the United states residing without the said state shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States.

    The only question, then is whether the specific land in question in the Bundy case was “unappropriated public land” or appropriated private land in 1864. That is not clear without examination of evidence of prior appropriation.

    • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

      Yet, the U.S. government retaining land in the States violates the promises made in the Resolutions of 1780 and Northwest Ordinance of 1787.

      The Resolutions of 1780 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 became part of the Supreme Law of the Land with the ratification of the Constitution.

      Article. VI.

      All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

      The Supreme Law of the Land can not be violated with lesser law; therefore, the citizens of Nevada did not have the authority to let the United States retain their soil. They were bound by U.S. Constitution to dispose of the soil to Nevada when Nevada became a State.

    • ChillyinAlaska

      So, the federal government can blackmail citizens and steal their birthright? Or can a handfull of men unconstitutionally give the birthright away? The federal government has no RIGHT to demand states allow them to keep vast amounts of land in order to obtain statehood, and the federal government owning these lands after statehood is a breech of the constitution.

    • Melissa Kellison

      By issuing permit BLM recognized Bundy’s rights, as rights were given preferential treatment to obtaining a permit. Besides, doesn’t the start of the ranch post-date 1864? If it does the rights were purchased after that.

      • annette

        Bundy’s family did not obtain the ranch until the 1940s. Bundy gave up his rights to use that land by refusing to pay for the permits.

        • Melissa Kellison

          That may very well be true. The argument isn’t even over the privately owned ranch itself. He has water sources on the public land predating the 1900′s, if not deeds to and I’m inclined to believe he might have, prior appropriation water rights which when a water right is sold, it retains its original appropriation date. How do you skeeze such rights from someone not willing to sell? Get them to stop using them, of course. If he had not continued bringing his cattle around to his water sources, he would have lost those properties… worth billions of dollars. The permits system empowered the BLM to orchestrate just such a taking. So far they’ve failed by his very act of defiance.

  • AlbertCat

    Bundy is simply a freeloader welfare queen who doesn’t want to pay what he owes. He is benefitting from public land and refusing to pay for its use. A taker and a mooch. Period.

    • Elegy56

      Man you are a dumb, mindless whore and you watch too much network news. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about

    • ChillyinAlaska

      His grandfather paid for the rights to the land, but after Nevada became a state, the federal government was OBLIGATED by the constitution to turn over jurisdiction and title to all the lands not sold before statehood. The federal government is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY holding title and jurisdiction to these lands, and the BLM has NO constitutional authority.

    • LadyforLiberty2012

      You are a misinformed fool. Go ahead and keep your head in the sand while your ASS is sticking straight up in the air, but brace yourself for you are about to be F$&%@ed!

  • Guest

    KSNV News 3 Anchor and Reporter Jessica Moore had the nerve to say that we have to follow federal laws!

    My response is WHAT FEDERAL LAWS?!

    And besides Jessica Moore is completely nervous and also is the creepiest person in the world!

  • mgrafius

    Unfortunately the Nixon Administration created the Endangered Species Act which basically gave the Federal government the ability to bypass the Constitution and seize any lands it needed under the pretext of conservation. This law gave the Federal government the legal ability to claim all lands in the United States that weren’t currently privately owned and also allowed them to claim privately owned land if it was deemed necessary for conservation purposes without compensation.

    We let this happen.

    • John

      except they’re killing off the endangered tortoise due to lack of funding…so, what exactly are they “conserving”?

      • mgrafius

        It was never about conserving anything. The ESA was a land grab plain and simple. The desert tortoise isn’t lacking in land. A person would have to be an idiot to believe that this tortoise can only survive in this one small part of Nevada. The whole state is a desert and these tortoises can be found all over it.

        A common tactic is to claim a species is endangered because there are only a few left in a particular area. Meanwhile, in a much more suitable area down the road they are thriving.

        • Don Gettys

          Your proof that this was a “land grab”? As a citizen of the US (and one of 300 million that land owners, I want this a**h**e to pay his grazing fees. He’s a thief, pure and simple.

          • Terry Neckar

            He paid his state grazing fees. That’s enough for me.

          • annette

            There are no State grazing fees. Why don’t you people get that?

          • mgrafius

            Bundy’s argument was never about the grazing fees. It was with who was receiving the fees and what they were being used for. He paid his fees until BLM decided to change the deal.

          • dontbesheep

            No he didn’t,He admits he would but hasn’t.

          • Melissa Kellison

            Don’t worry Don, we’re onto the truth. The permits don’t give grazing rights, grazing rights had to be proved to issue permits. Lack of permits doesn’t revoke rights. Bundy’s ranch has always been granted the permits and is enough evidence to any of us he has the rights and right of way. The BLM had no right to limit him to grazing only 150 head cattle on the 600,000 acres for any reason. That’s one cow to 4000 acres. I’m sure they figured that certainly won’t hurt a turtle. Way inside the line on that. We see it for what it is: a land grab.
            This document esplains it all to you, Lucy:

            United States v. Estate of Hage, No. 2:07-cv-01154-RCJ-VCF, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Injunction (D. Nev. May 24, 2013)
            http://www.scribd.com/doc/144609491/United-States-v-Estate-of-Hage-No-2-07-cv-01154-RCJ-VCF-Findings-of-Fact-Conclusions-of-Law-and-Injunction-D-Nev-May-24-2013

          • Guest

            So anyone there can use the land? Free for all?

          • Melissa Kellison

            Anyone would have easement on the land, not everyone would have forage or water rights. Yes, anyone should have been able to go visit the land. You would have to buy a well, spring or right to a water source like a stream or hard pan (area where water puddles) to be able to “use” the land or water. Even the government needed special rights to occasionally use other people’s claimed waters to drink and wash dishes when they were out doing their job policing the area. If you own these and have animals that need them, they can’t block off your access to the point where the only way the animals can get to them is by being airlifted. Grazing animals can’t be prevented from eating some forage along the way because it is impossible to prevent them. Ranchers are charged some additional fee when their animals are found in places they aren’t permitted. It’s not possible to stop them from wandering.
            I’ve been looking at the parcels in the area and it looks like it’s being subdivided. If there ever was a free for all, it’s gone now. I don’t understand how BLM can be allowed to purchase so many parcels in checker board manner, and for such high prices. Many other parcels are only showing purchased for $0.
            When you subdivide a lot, it becomes more valuable. Looks like there’s speculation going on for land sales and they’re trying to get the prices up.
            Hope I answered your question.

    • bonnieblue2A

      Nothing gives our goverment the ability to bypass the Constitution other than a complacent people.

      “When people fear their government there is tyranny. When goverment fears the people there is liberty.”

  • http://benswann.com Truth In Media

    Jon Ralston and Hugh Jackson are liberal establishment propaganda hacks!

  • http://benswann.com Truth In Media

    KSNV News 3 = Liars!

  • BambiB

    Michael, you are generally correct in your analysis with one caveat. Since the Constitution spells out the enumerated and limited powers of the Federal Government, the acquisition of land by the Federal Government from a state may ONLY be in accordance with Article 1 Section 8 purposes. That is, the Federal Government is NOT permitted to own land for ANY PURPOSE other than as you’ve detailed (new territories) and:

    “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”.

    In short, if the government wants to buy “rangeland” – sorry, that’s unconstitutional.
    If they want to buy land for solar power plants… NOT constitutional.
    The National Parks are UNCONSTITUTIONALLY “OWNED” BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
    The range land in question CANNOT be CONSTITUTIONALLY OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

    There’s no argument that the Feds plant to put forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards or other ‘needful’ buildings on the Nevada range land. Consequently, the Federal Government CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY OWN THE LAND –OR– “exercise legislation” over the land.

  • http://benswann.com Truth In Media

    KSNV News 3 = Garbage!

  • http://benswann.com Truth In Media

    KSNV News 3 is full of controversies!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSNV-DT

  • http://benswann.com Truth In Media

    KRNV News 4 Is On Your Side!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KRNV-DT

  • Lucifer999

    I’m all for reviewing the Constitution in a modern context. Let’s start with the 2nd Amendment and save some innocent lives.

    • ChillyinAlaska

      No one falls for your bulls**t, get lost troll.

    • Joe Schmoe

      I agree, we should re-write the 2nd amendment – it should say something like this…. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, restricted, usurped, restrained, regulated, tied, limited or otherwise prohibited by anyone or any thing (for any reason), including groups, governments or entities of any type within the boundaries of the United States, or within the confines of a state or a group of states. Arms should also be defined as being any weapon of war – from the most basic to the most sophisticated. Perhaps we should add another clause that states any attempts to limit such rights would be considered treason and would not exclude anyone from it’s application or enforcement, regardless of one’s position or stature. It’s amazing just how many lives are saved when everyone around you is exercising their right to bear arms.

      • odinallfather

        Very good, cogent addition to the second amendment. Someone would unfortunately still find a way to lawyer their way past it.

        • Joe Schmoe

          I agree, but one can still dream of a time where the rights of the people are not down-trodden upon, and that words still have meaning. But its not just the second amendment I would be referring to, it’s “all” of the them.

          • LadyforLiberty2012

            If you are dreaming, you are SLEEPING! The American Dream was nothing but BS to lull Americans to sleep. WAKE-THE-F#%@-UP America!

      • http://benswann.com Truth In Media

        Get lost!

      • Melissa Kellison

        It’s fine the way it is. The proper response to oath breaking law makers and bill pushing governors is knee jerk reaction recalls.

      • Parabellum

        Hell yeah!

      • Guest

        So you want gangs and criminals have all that eh?

        • Joe Schmoe

          Like they dont already???

    • http://benswann.com Truth In Media

      Hey KSNV News 3 Viewer! Stop listening to the mainstream media propaganda right now!

      KSNV News 3 Anchor and Reporter Jessica Moore is the creepiest person in the world after she said that we have to follow federal laws! Our response is WHAT FEDERAL LAWS?!

  • George Winston

    THE USA doesn’t “Own” the land. Bundy has permission to use that area
    only. The Indigenous peoples of the usa have aboriginal title and
    according to article six of the US Constitution, it’s all esplained in the
    treaty, you dombquats.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_title
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_land_rights
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_rights
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_rights

    • FrozenPatriot

      Article 6 of the United States Constitution: “All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.”

      What “debts contracted and engagements entered” were entered into by the Confederation with the indigenous people? Those are the only debts and contracts to which Article 6 applies.

  • https://plus.google.com/+ChadRobinsonKyLumberJack/about Chad Robinson

    Under the guise of the EPA act in 1971 D.C. took public (called federal) land’s and used as collateral for the National Debt incurred because there was no more gold to stand good for money borrowed & D.C. wanted to continue over spending buying bullet’s & bomb’s from their buddies in the Defense Industry for a bogus CIA/ Corporate America made war in Vietnam.

  • bradgates

    1848. Mexico deeded Nevada to The United States (aka “Federal Government”).
    1864. Nevada surrendered any claim to public land as a condition to Statehood.
    U.S. Constitution Art.IV, Sec.3 gives the Federal Government authority to own and manage public land.
    The land belongs the the U.S. Government, and Cliven Bundy is a trespassing squatter who owes the American People over $1 million for his freeloading “ranch” business.

    • Baladas

      you neglect the various congressional acts which obligate the federal government to dispose the unappropriated lands within the borders of the western states. Those acts in combination with the recognition of the state constitutions are equivalent to treaties, and the feds have have had almost 170 years to do as promised yet retain 80% of the lands in Nevada, to the point where in 2013 the Nevada Legislature declared those holdings unconstitutional and null and void.

      Or haven’t you been paying attention?

      • rfired

        That would be the key point of legislation right there. Do you have a link to support that?

        • Jester

          The long and the short of it is the doctrine of equal footing was established in the Northwest Ordinance as a principle, and later the Supreme Court upheld in Coyle v. Smith that equal footing was owed to every state regardless of how and when they obtained their territory, and further that if a state was coerced into including language in their constitution giving special privilege to the feds that would limit their ability to be equal with other states, to enable them to join the union, that it was UNENFORCEABLE.

          The odds are stacked against a state resident when they are forced to argue their case against federal abuse in a federal court whose officials are not elected locally. This is why the constitution limited federal landholdings to very specific federal duties, which would not involve federal management of private affairs of citizens of a state.

          How is a state expected to flourish when a foreign interest holds superior title to 85% of its land and can hold that over the states head while claiming to be partners in decision making? Where any dispute goes under arbitration (courts) staffed by federal appointees? How are those state residents supposed to exercise independent and sovereign?

          It is ludicrous on its face.

          Case in point is a tale just told today by a rancher who knows the Bundys who claims that before Bundy was brought to federal court by the BLM there was a case brought before the Dept. of Interior Board of Land appeals where the question of livestock’s impact on the desert tortoise was heard, and the court ruled the livestock were a benefit, based on science and historical research. But when Bundy was brought to fed district court after he refused to agree to a permit restricting his grazing rights strictly based on the classification of the desert tortoise as endangered, the court refused to hear the previous ruling as evidence.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eooqqf26gsE#t=234

    • FrozenPatriot

      Article 4, section 3 gives the federal government authority to “make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property”. Nowhere in those words does it say “own”. Separately, in a section that discusses forming new states, the words “territory or other property” are intentionally used to refer to land which is not yet a state, but is property (e.g. a territory) of the federal government. Once an area becomes a state, Article 4, section 3 no longer applies.

      The federal government never had the authority to own land, except in Article 1, section 8, clause 17, which gives Congress authority:

      “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, dockyards, and other needful buildings”.

      Focusing on the second half, Congress is granted authority in all cases over any district not exceeding ten square miles (“like authority”) to purchase land, with the permission of the state’s legislature and of Congress, and requiring the cession (giving up) of that land from the state, only “for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings”.

      The tens of millions of acres of the western US “owned” by the federal government:
      1. are far in excess of 10 square miles
      2. were not purchased from any state
      3. were not transferred with any states’ legislature’s permission
      4. were not granted cession from the state (i.e. it remains part of the state)
      5. are not being used for military bases, ports, or “other needful buildings”

      The violation of any one of these requirements cause the ownership of said land to be unconstitutional, and the “ownership” of the land in question violates them all. Activist judges have opined otherwise over the decades, but this does not make their opinions constitutional or correct. The words in the Constitution are easy to understand and have specific meanings, but are rarely considered or contemplated.

  • David Wilson Rowley

    Spent a good hour or more reading comments. Came away with…
    Don’t let all these distinctions about who owns what cloud the real issue. The real issue is creeping Federal control at all levels. It wouldn’t hurt to see the other times the Fed, for instance, the TSA investigating the Gibson guitar manufacturing company for using imported wood to make their instruments. Don’t forget WACO, no matter whose side you were on. The gov’t have all aces in that situation. They (righly or nor) painted Koresh and his followers as anti-American, anti-goverment Wako’s. Then they BURNT to a crisp, women and children.
    Folks, they are dangerous to our way of life, and they will work to divide us over stupid issues that in the end won’t matter if we’re in a concentration camp somewhere.

    • Baladas

      You can win certain hearts and minds when you can prove that the federal government has not obeyed their own laws. It is not easy to do, and requires wading through many documents, but it is worth it to get those people behind the truth because they are the type that willingly support the gov until you can shame and embarrass them for helping the gov “break the law”. Once you prove to them that the Gov tricked them into believing they were on the up and up, you gain an ally, or at least remove a supporter of the gov.

      • David Wilson Rowley

        Baladas, Agreed, but in the meantime, folks need to understand that there are so many “new laws” that they themselves are guilty of something. When the boots kick in their doors, they won’t have a clue. Than is a sad sad commentary on the American mind.

        • bonnieblue2A

          For every one law passed by Congress there are approx. 51 regulayory rules/policies created by federal agencies. These agencies in turn use the full force of the federal government, including force at the point of the gun. We live in a nation ruled by regulation without representation. Our Congress has given away their powers and as such, the ability of the people to have both representation and fair redress of their government.

          When federal corts rule on federal regulatory authority the deck is always stacked against the citizens and liberty.

  • Joe Schmoe

    The federal government cannot “own” land, I know some would argue against that statement but the fact remains that the land within the United States belongs to the states and to the people respectively. Only land that is sold or otherwise obtained which has not been allocated to a specific state can be construed as being “owned”, but even then, it would still belong to the people as everything the government has belongs to the people.

  • MarlboroStan

    Two words. Supremacy Clause

  • Bob Vance

    Isn’t the point what one does or doesn’t do on federal land? And how and for what reason rules that govern federal lands are enforced? There’s a incoherency and inconsisitency in how whatever rules that govern federal lands are adminsitered and enforced. So it is okay to harvest timber on federal lands at pennies per acre, but it’s not okay to graze your cows. You can frack the bejeezus out of the rapidly depleting aquifers from federal land, but you can’t carry certain kinds of guns…. unless you are a federal agent. Cleary the rules are being enforced to accomplish other goals. That being said, however, it is clear that allowing anti-government militias to propagate and grow from bases established on federal lands without some kind of oversight would not be in the interest of the lands, the reasons they are “public”, or the well being of the nation as a whole.

    • bonnieblue2A

      Anti-govetnment militias or pro-Constitution citizens? I guess it depends if you embrace statism or liberty which language you use. If a government violates the Constitution with abandon how can its actions be legitimate?

      • Bob Vance

        Liberty OR Statism? Since when must they be mutually exclusive? These militias and tea partiers depend on the state for innumerable things but then bitch and moan and refuse to make the connection between what they’ve voted into being and the reality of how it plays out. Get a bunch of leftist communalists out there fighting for their right to run a farm on the federal land with rampant nudism, gay marriage, polyamory and anti-clerical agno-atheism and all those gun toting militias will be the first to embrace the state. So I guess it’s whether the state enforces your pet projects or not that determines who is the statist and what freedom is.

        • LadyforLiberty2012

          WTF are you talking about??? “…rampant nudism, gay marriage, polyamory, and anti-clerical agno-atheism…”???
          Glad you’re not on OUR side.

        • will777

          Not sure about other gun-toting liberty loving conservatives, but I would support rampant nudism with married gay couples, polyamoric relationships, anti-clerical, agno-atheism farming neighbors just as soon as ranchers if they were Constitutionally sound in their actions. Hell, I think you just described half of our farming community here in Texas, all liberty loving, gun-toting individuals. The one thing we try to focus on is unity and big-picture issues, not divisive irrelevant issues that our masters are doing their darnndest to get all of us to fight over. Freedom loving means exactly that, loving the idea that you can believe and do anything you want as long as it does not harm others and you follow the law of the land, the Constitution. We don’t give a shit what you do behind closed doors or who you pray or don’t pray to. Sounds like you may have an issue with bigotry my friend, and that is no way to enjoy life considering you may be blocking yourself off from getting to know some possibly wonderful people. Come join us over here in freedom land brother 8-)

          • Bob Vance

            Well, in the meantime… your partner down below (next response: “ladyforLiberty”) is merely glad I’m not on your side and you both seem to have assumed that because I put forth a hypothetical (and, I thought, humourous) scenario I must wish to have it as a steady diet for breakfast lunch and dinner…. what’s that they say about making assumptions? Besides… running around naked up here where I live, especially this winter, deep in federally held forest lands or not, would simply get one labeled insane.

            Also… I posted a link on this comment thread to a rather well-vetted article about this Bundy fellow that described how he seemed to be more than willing to pay fees while there was a Republican president but stopped only after Clinton took office. That link and my comment that accompanied it has since disappeared. Not being on your side may indeed be true, but being evicted from a conversation for trying to inject a little bit of sense into it, however hyperbolically (amd with a fair amount of nonsense), seems odd considering the fact that what we all seem to be most concerned about is liberty. No matter how wrong I might be or how many Texans are running around their ranches with their guns and gonads exposed.

          • Bob Vance

            Here’s another: Never Mind Cliven Bundy: Here’s the Real David vs. Goliath Story Between Ranchers and Feds

            http://www.alternet.org/heres-real-david-vs-goliath-story-between-ranchers-and-feds?akid=11733.76856.hL3OP5&rd=1&src=newsletter983505&t=7

            “Bundy, a multi-millionaire farmer who hasn’t paid for grazing rights on public lands for more than 20 years, also stands to garner substantial support from some very wealthy enemies of President Obama. Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group backed by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch (which spent $122 million trying to defeat Obama and other Democrats in 2012), is already instigating a campaign against the Bureau of Land Management on Bundy’s behalf. It began a social media campaign, using the hashtag #BundyBattle, and is taking to the Internet to mock the time and money the bureau has wasted (some $1 million according to its poster) fighting the “little guy.”

            But Nevada is home to another epic battle between ranchers and the feds. As in Bundy’s case, it involves ranchers Mary and Carrie Dann, whose ancestors lived on the land long before the federal government staked a claim to it.”

        • Joyce Clemons

          Statism surely isn’t the strict equivalent of the rule of law in a republic. If federal lands can be called “a means of production” (grazing, minerals, etc.) with state-directed allocation of resources.then federal ownership of most of Nevada is a microcosm of statism as in state socialism, i.e. communist. I see this whole incident as a birth pang, of Nevada stuck in the birth canal, trying to be mature enough to choose real statehood over pablum statism. If so, Bundy and the patriots are merely midwives offering to turn the breech baby, Harry Reid should have taken off his shoe and banged it on his desk while calling them domestic terrorists….”We will bury you!”

      • Bob Vance
    • Melissa Kellison

      If a rancher owns a series of wells he has the deeds on them. He can also hold deed to rights to use water from certain sources like rivers, streams, springs, he may also be entitled to divert these waters to areas where he has forage rights. BLM issues grazing permits and gives preference to ranchers with these rights, which means at some point the ranch had to produce proof of rights. The very fact Bundy ever held grazing permits there is compelling proof to us he has irrevocable rights there. Revocation of permit does not revoke rights. Those rights are owned by the ranch. As long as it’s on federal land, it can’t be taxed. I expect that why all those energy corporations would want to keep those lands federal, but Nevada is losing out on the revenue.

    • Joyce Clemons

      For one, if you are between 17 and 45, you are in the unorganized militia. That’s the law…federal law. Are you then, “anti-government”? Oh, I guess you would only be “anti-government” in whole, if, in part, you were standing on public property in the middle of BFE exercising your right to assembly and free speech. That being said, however, it is clear that allowing special federal militias to propagate and grow from bases established in arcane and unresponsive bureaucracies, subject to any manner of political and economic abusive power, without some kind of oversight by law-abiding citizens who are paying attention, would not be in the interest of the lands, the reasons they are “public”, or the well being of the nation as a whole.

  • ecbucs

    What about the Nevada Constitution: Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and
    declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the
    unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the
    same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the
    United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United
    States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher
    than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes
    shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging
    to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless
    otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.”

    • Melissa Kellison

      To clear the titles of any unclaimed lands within the states borders, that were to be sold back to the state after it became a state. You can’t transfer ownership of land unless it is free and clear of liens.

  • hungry4food

    Here is the link to the page about the EPA taking control
    of all fresh water-

    http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/biggest-land-grab-in-the-history-of-the-world/

  • hungry4food

    more reason why the states need to be in charge of Federal lands !!!!!
    Government’s Shocking Interference in Rancher’s Life

    http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/11/court-rebuffs-government-overreach-in-nevada/

    Fight federal abuse of property rights by making the government obey its own
    rules

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/fight-federal-abuse-of-property-rights-by-making-the-government-obey-its-own-rules/article/2547278

  • hungry4food

    Subject: Bundy and Harry Reid’s abuse of Power !!!!!!

    BRAZEN – Harry
    Reid Vows to Escalate Crisis at Bundy Ranch in Spite of FBI Corruption Probe

    http://scgnews.com/brazen-harry-reid-vows-to-escalate-crisis-at-bundy-ranch-in-spite-of-fbi-corruption-probe

    This
    abuse of power by the feds is why the States need to be In charge of the
    state lands so the people of that state cannot be Influenced as much over
    management of those lands from a National Political standpoint that does
    not reflect the states needs as much as it reflects a national political
    ideology and that Ideology be enforced at the barrel of a GUN !!!!! Check
    out this National and even International Ideology that is encroaching state
    citizens rights and using the fees and taxes from states for national
    Ideological policies that do not reflect the states citizens use of those lands
    ,

    Right here this goes to show This abuse of power by the feds
    is why the States need to be In charge of the state lands so the people of that
    state cannot be Influenced as much over management of those lands from a
    National Political standpoint that does not reflect the states needs as much as
    it reflects a national political ideology and that Ideology be enforced
    at the barrel of a GUN !!!!! Check out this National and even International
    Ideology that is encroaching state citizens rights and using the fees and taxes
    from states for national Ideological policies that do not reflect the states
    citizens use of those lands ,

    Right here this goes to show WHY the Bundys and Hages can make a case
    around the NEED to Change the Law so the States control the grazing allotments
    and STOP the ABUSE and Political Abuse of POWER at the federal Level with all
    this Environmental Marxist Worshiping going on killing the Individual Right
    clause of the Constitutions and Bill of Rights doing so by Oppression thats
    causing DEFAULT of the System !!!!!!!!!

    BLM fights to keep secret names of ranchers with grazing permits

    http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2010/04/21/blm-fights-keep-secret-names-ranchers-grazing-permits/

    And this is just the tip of the Iceberg , this kind of damning encroachment is
    going on all across the various economic sectors causing the same defaulting
    results to the Individual !!!!!

    This is why Bundy and Hage and the other 18,000 grazing permit holders of these
    United States of America are in a perfect position to make the case for
    the states to be In control of their lands and NOT the FEDS because they are
    oppression the people of their rights by rallying support for a Unjustified Cause
    all of MORE POWER Over we the people !!!!!!! Heck Even Alan Savory says
    Livestock Grazing is GOOD for the Grasslands , http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change

    Its time for the states to be In charge of their Grasslands management and the
    fees associated with it that should be put back to work making the production
    of those grasslands better not for some ridiculous National and International
    Ideology , like what is portrayed here in these links ,

    Man I tell ya this Bundy thing gets more Crazy by the Minute , CHECK THIS OUT
    !!!!!!!!!

    Russian Soldiers on US soil trying to take Down Clive Bundy
    !!!!!!!!!!!

    Nevada Standoff: Harry Reid, Russian Soldiers, Chinese Businessmen and
    Euthanized Turtles

    http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/04/12/nevada-standoff-harry-reid-russian-soldiers-chinese-businessmen-euthanized-turtles/

    And they won’t Censor harry Reid because the Corruption in the Senate by both
    parties is so out of control we are LAWLESS PEOPLE !!!!!!!!!!!

    EXCLUSIVE: FBI blocked in corruption probe involving Sens. Reid, Lee

    http://scgnews.com/s/13317/lxIwith

  • Don Matson

    All this time I thought of Nevada as being mostly desert and mostly owned by the federal government. I thought Nevada statehood, some 150 years ago, was pushed by Republicans to ensure Republican dominance in Congress. I thought that homesteads, like Bundy’s homestead,
    were granted by the U.S. government under federal laws and the homesteaders were
    allowed to used nearby public lands to graze their livestock. Then again it’s a long time since I studied American history in high school.

    • Midnight

      They are supposed to pay for using the Federal grazing lands. I saw a post online that said Reagon implemented this.

  • Melissa Kellison

    United States v. Estate of Hage, No. 2:07-cv-01154-RCJ-VCF, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Injunction (D. Nev. May 24, 2013)
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/144609491/United-States-v-Estate-of-Hage-No-2-07-cv-01154-RCJ-VCF-Findings-of-Fact-Conclusions-of-Law-and-Injunction-D-Nev-May-24-2013

  • nc2879

    The Fed in it’s ALL KNOWING..does in fact have a say so on ALL property…just give it a rest…

    • Melissa Kellison

      Ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa…aaaw! *wheeze**snort* hoot hoot hawwww! *knee slap* wooohoo wooohoo! ah ha! oh ho! meh sides are splittin’ ! Ha ha ha!

    • Joyce Clemons

      Here we have the oldest living white survivor of The Wounded Knee Massacre of 1890.

  • Sovereign Mary

    There are some who seem to wish to sell off their sacred unalienable rights to an overreaching Big Brother government, but thank heaven that not everyone wants to march like lemmings in lockstep with them!

  • Mr. WalrusQ

    Except they aren’t sovereign states, they are federated states. Big difference.

    • Joyce Clemons

      Each state is sovereign within the federation.

      • nemomen

        The Nevada Constitution is very clear that Nevada isn’t sovereign.

        Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:

        All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

        • Joyce Clemons

          Odd language for a State Constitution. Sounds like Nevada decided it wasn’t worthy of being a state from the get-go…just another territory. I am all for preserving the Union. I am also in favor of not forgetting what the Founders said about tyranny. A lot of what amounts to tyranny is engendered by the colossal incompetence of bureaucracies in dealing with administrative functions. People like to remember what G. Washington did to quell the Whiskey Rebellion. They don’t like to refer to the final outcome, after the brief fight. Pardons, and the noxious tax repealed. What is really ridiculous is that the government could have used liens against the sale of those cattle. They are beef…beef goes to market. This thing “Bundy” failed to do, that is a tort. There was a mutual breach of contract. No crimes.They didn’t have to shoot any of the cattle. Bundy protested, but Harry Reid protested OVERMUCH…tipped his cards, shot off his mouth, and no poker face. You’d think someone smart from Nevada (Reno, Las Vegas…gamblers) would know what that means.

          • nemomen

            “What is really ridiculous is that the government could have used liens against the sale of those cattle.”

            Take a look at the court order:
            http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2012cv00804/87613/35/0.pdf?1373464715

            If you read it, you’ll see that in recent years Bundy went beyond trespassing on BLM lands he was ordered to stay off to trespassing onto national park territory and creating a public safety issue by herding his cattle through recreational areas.

            At that point, the primary goal of the BLM was to remove the trespass cattle to prevent the cattle from causing further destruction and remove a public safety hazard. A lien against Bundy’s cattle would not serve the goal of removing them.

        • Billy The Squid

          “…the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States.”
          Supreme Authority does not rest in the government of the United States. Supreme Authority rests in the Constitution of the United States which restricts federal ownership of land outside Washington, D.C. to that land which is ceded by the states ONLY for the specific purposes listed in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. The federal government did not obtain the disputed land for the purposes stated in the Constitution; therefore the federal government has no claim to that land.

          • nemomen

            I commented above on this, but here’s the short answer:

            Article IV, Section 3 says, “nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States”

            You are using Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 to prejudice claims of the United States. That is plainly in violation of the Constitution.

            These are the kinds of things one can disagree about, but the appropriate way to handle those disagreements is through the law. The Constitution establishes the law, and is the supreme law, so we should abide by its provisions for handling questions of legality.

          • Kerry Kolsch

            The problem with this country is that there are well meaning people like you who still view our government as a moral body of men. Fact is, we have one of the most corrupt governments in the history of man. There is not one aspect of our lives where we are safe from their unholy intrusion. If you do not get that we are under attack by those perpetrating the planed destruction of the American way of life, as we knew it, then you are uninformed, You need to stop “abiding” and educate and arm yourself.

          • nemomen

            “Fact is, we have one of the most corrupt governments in the history of man.”

            I am very sure that the governments under Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Qadaffi, Peck (or any East German), whoever is running Somalia these days, Kim Sung Il, and many, many others could be listed as far, far more corrupt.

            Every administration has had its a serious series of dismal failure and corruption since Nixon, but none are anything like what Pol Pot did. You need to step back and get some perspective here.

            “There is not one aspect of our lives where we are safe from their unholy intrusion.”

            I disagree. The fact is that there was an armed militia that was able to gather at the Bundy Ranch without being captured and executed before they arrived. In many countries they’d never have made it. In the US they are still alive and well, and the only arrests were for the morons who actually attacked law enforcement.

            “If you do not get that we are under attack by those perpetrating the planed destruction of the American way of life, as we knew it, then you are uninformed,”

            I do not get it, but I do try to stay informed. I have noted that the people supporting Bundy have been *egregiously* uninformed. Bundy’s lied through his teeth for years, with clear evidence he’s lying. So we should be thoughtful about how the label “uninformed” is used.

            “You need to stop “abiding” and educate and arm yourself.”

            I believe in the Constitution and the principles it puts forth. Once central tenet is that the rule of law must be respected and followed for recourse of wrongs and establishing justice. Even if attempts fail through the courts, that is still the only right and proper way to seek justice. I see armed rebellions as lawless and unjust. The founding fathers had to justify their own acts of sedition and treason against the Crown, and they said a lot of weird and foolish things about political violence. In this day and age it’s clear from history that political violence is only the right response when it’s a defensive response to actual political violence.

            In the case of the Bundy fiasco, Bundy and his friends initiated the violence. That’s immoral, lawless, and unjust in my view.

    • Narco Hawg

      The articles of confederation were replaced by the constitution “in order to form a more perfect union”

  • judynz

    They can only make this claim about `UNITED STATES’ not the United States….& they can only STEAL from the STRAWMAN NOT the human being. Google MEET YOUR STRAWMAN for some understanding. Any contracts they claim to have between the human being & themselves were made without full disclosure & comprehension….& under COLOUR of law…a fictional BAR law enforced by FORCE of law (not our true law LAW OF THE LAND) & (not justice, as we were taught to believe) but In fictional (as in PRIVATELY OWNED COURTS) The publics ignorance of the true facts (because the TRUTH was deliberately hidden) the public believe the COURTS are their courts because THEY PAID for these to be built.

  • brett

    Did Bundy buy the land? Does he pay taxes on the land? Does he pay to lease the land? If the answer is no to all what is his claim to the land?

    • Conniption Fitz

      Mr. Bundy PURCHASED grazing and water rights from the State of Nevada…or the agency that managed the land. The BLM refuses to honor that and has run all the other ranchers who did so, except for Bundy, off the land.

      This is about money, greedy corrupt politicians and their made-up myth of global warming caused by cow flatulence. These people are ruthless and corrupt.

      • Annette

        No, he did not “Purchase” grazing and water rights from the STATE. The State would not take his money because the BLM manages all public lands. He denounced the federal government back in 93 (I believe) and has refused to pay for the graizing and water rights since that time. If you want to denounce the fed. govt., fine, be my guest, but you cannot take part in the benefits of the public lands if you do not pay for it. Besides that, Bundy’s family did not acquire that “Mellon Farm” until the 1040′s. His family has not been there for 140 years. He can’t possibly graze his cattle on his mellons, now can he? He feels he has the right to those “public lands” without paying for it.

    • BOBT12

      Bundy, and other ranchers, has rights to use the STATE LAND going back before the State of Nevada existed(1820s). State law recognizes these rights. The feds never had a right to steal this land and destroy such rights.

      • Narco Hawg

        But, it wasn’t STATE LAND before Nevada was a STATE. The Enabling Act of 1864 which authorized admittance to the United States contained the following clause: “Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that the lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without the said state shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States. ”

        Therefore: if the Bundy family did not OWN (have title to) the land prior to statehood, any claim to that land was transferred to the United States. The TERRITORY had to relinquish all rights to non-privately owned land prior to becoming a state.

        • BOBT12

          The land that Bundy is using was “APPROPRIATED” AT THE TIME OF STATEHOOD the grazing rights followed into statehood.

          • Narco Hawg

            Comes down to the legal definition of appropriated. (I’m not a lawyer.) Designated for a particular use… From thelawdictionary.org: The act of selecting, devoting, or setting apart land for a particular use or purpose, as where land is appropriated for public buildings, military reservations, or other public uses. I may have misinterpreted the enabling act. Thank you for prompting me to look further into it. Now, I guess it’s time for someone to contest BLM’s claimed authority over the land in the courts. That would best be done by the State, but nothing prevents an individual from doing it.
            Law Dictionary: What is APPROPRIATION OF LAND? definition of APPROPRIATION OF LAND (Black’s Law Dictionary)

          • BOBT12

            Thanks for actually researching the information, and doing your own independent thinking on the matter. This is what self-government is all about. Much respect.

  • will777

    Excellently written article Mr. Lotfi. This is journalism, the kind that I originally came to this site to find and that I started to lose faith in after the writing quality went downhill in a very bad way. You sir, have restored that faith and I look forward to future articles. Thumbs up big time.

  • http://granitegrok.com/author/mike Mike Rogers

    Most educational.
    Linked over at GraniteGrok.com.
    If I understand this correctly, all relevant Supreme Court rulings prior to Nevada’s statehood clearly limited Federal power over state lands, and rulings counter to that position did not appear until near the end of the 19th century (beginning of the Progressive era).
    That being the case, and the Federal and state governments having encouraged land improvement via homesteading, Bundy has at least the rights to use the land his family works for 140 years, and most certainly a Federal bureaucracy has no rights to maintain a standing army inside a sovereign state.
    The state police and National Guard units should be disarming and evicting the BLM.
    I look forward to a general uprising in the Western states as they reclaim their own land.

    • nemomen

      “Bundy has at least the rights to use the land his family works for 140 years”

      Bundy’s claim of 140 years of use was investigated in the courts. There isn’t any evidence to back it up. What the facts show is that they started using the Bunkerville Allotment in the ’50s and again in the ’70s. At that point they paid the BLM grazing fees, making the eminent domain claim moot.

      Also since the conflict with the BLM started in the 90s Bundy expanded beyond the Bunkerville Allotment into new areas including the National Park’s Lake Mead National Recreation Area.

      Part of the justification for impounding the cattle was that Bundy was herding catle through public recreational areas which is is a public danger.

      Beyond that, if we do want to claim to respect the Constitution, then we need to accept that the SCOTUS is the highest law in the land. The SCOTUS has made many rulings on the questions in this article that establish the BLM’s legal ownership and management of public lands. We can certainly disagree with the rulings, but to dismiss those rulings would fly in the face Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution.

      Bundy has no legal justification, he’s lost in court for 20 years, and has lied about enough things that he doesn’t deserve support. Using someone who is dishonest, lawless, and who defies the letter of the Constitution while praising it as a totem does no good for the cause of reining in the Feds. overreach, it does the opposite. If the Constitution matters we need to abide by it, not dismiss it.

      • Kerry Kolsch

        You are looking at the Bundy side of the family. The grandmothers side has been on that land as long as they claim. The Constitution does matter, but ignoring the fact that our out of control, illegitimate government is not abiding by the law of the land, makes your argument pointless. As a former criminal defense attorney, not once did I have a case where the government trained liars didn’t offer perjured testimony to enhance a conviction. It is the reason I stopped supporting the death penalty. Too many innocent people occupy death row. Supporting a tyrannical, lawless government that pointed guns at citizens over a civil matter is foolish for anyone who truly believes in the rule of law.

        • nemomen

          The question of continual habitation was dealt with in court. The public records showed Bundy was lying, and there wasn’t continuous habitation. In fact, the family didn’t even start ranching Bunkerville Allotment until 1949, and since the 90s Bundy’s moved into the Gold Butte, and into the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Since he’s recently started trespassing on new territory (and moved into national parks!), he certainly can’t make any eminent domain claims. Also he’s been herding cattle on public recreational parks.

          I don’t believe in the idea that the government is illegitimate. I certainly have seen the courts railroad convictions unjustly, and have no sympathy for prosecutors. I live in Williamson County where Ken Anderson withheld evidence in the Morton case. It’s disgusting. He destroyed an innocent man’s life and paid virtually nothing for it.

          “Supporting a tyrannical, lawless government that pointed guns at citizens over a civil matter is foolish for anyone who truly believes in the rule of law.”

          Law enforcement was there to enforce the court order to impound the cattle since the BLM wanted them off the land. Bundy is an irresponsible maniac who is not fit to be a rancher, and has lost all rights to ranching by his behavior. He’s overgrazed and damaged lands that caused him to move into new territories. He’s herding cattle through public parks which is really unconscionable.

          After the court order was announced, Bundy threatened “range war” and started reaching out to armed militias. I fully understand why the BLM brought in guns in a situation like that, they were covering the hired hands herding the trespass cattle. The Bundys approached and harassed the BLM officers, while the BLM actually were keeping their distance.

          They were pointing guns at citizens over a matter of those citizens threatening violence. I fully believe they were in their rights in this particular case. Bundy is a lying, deceitful fool who duped a lot of patriotic individuals into backing up his fraud.

    • Billy The Squid

      Well said.

  • nemomen

    This article has a lot of very serious problems. Bundy’s been fighting the BLM for 20 years. There were a whole lot of legal cases. Bundy lost every single of them. The question of Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 has come up, and the relevant case law was discussed. This is a legal question, so let’s look at some claims.

    Lofti:

    “Article IV does not grant Congress the power to exercise sovereignty over land.”

    Kleppe v. New Mexico says otherwise. So does Light v. United States. The SCOTUS is the highest law in the land. Done.

    Except, no. Lofti does later look at Light v. United States, Kleppe v. New Mexico, some of the Insular Cases, but dismisses them through the horrifying explanation that they were made by “corrupt federal judges.” If we are permitted to dismiss SCOTUS opinions because of some character smear on the justices, then we have to also dismiss Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution to try to grant extra-judicial legal standing for dismissing settled legal opinions we dislike. That’s some childish, lawless, unconstitutional, and deeply dangerous reasoning there. If we all had this authority there would be no rule of law since we could simply choose to not follow whatever laws we personally disagreed with based on amateur legal reasoning and claiming the SCOTUS to be wrong because they were “corrupt.” It would destroy the country by undermining the Constitution.

    One other absolutely critical point is the eminent domain claim due to continual use:

    “Bundy’s family has controlled the land for more than 140 years.”

    This is something that has several serious problems.

    1) The claim of continuous use of that land was made by Bundy in court. When the property records and other relevant records were investigated it was proven that Bundy and his father didn’t start using the Bunkerville Allotment until the 1950s, and then only intermittently. Not 140 years, not 100 years, but sparse use for 40 years.

    2) When they did start using the Bunkerville Allotment in the ’50s and again in the ’70s they paid the BLM grazing fees, making the eminent domain claim moot.

    3) Initially Bundy was grazing on the Bunkerville Allotment. Up until the late ’90s that was the area under dispute. After that point Bundy started expanding his range, and moved into further territory past the Bunkerville Allotment into the Gold Butte, and into the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Since he’s recently started trespassing on new territory, he can’t make any eminent domain claims.

    4) The LMNRA areas are actually National Park System territory, not BLM territory, which is simply unconscionable. He’s trespassing on National Parks. This was part of the justification for impounding the cattle, since herding catle through public recreational areas is a public danger. Of course, I expect Lofti might not recognize the National Park System.

    In sum, to make the case for Bundy you have to:

    1) Dismiss case law.

    2) Dismiss the Constitution.

    3) Lie about the Bundys continuously using land that they definitely didn’t continuously use.

    I think you might be better off dismissing Bundy as a guy without a legitimate claim, and look for other cases to reign in the Feds. There are certainly places where the Feds. overstep their bounds, but using Bundy as a champion for this cause actually hurts the cause – he’s a flat-out liar, a selfish cheapskate, a deeply lawless individual, he has neither respect for the actual Constitution, nor understanding of the Constitution (much like the Bible, it’s abused as a totem, rather than understood as a document). He is not someone who has earned the kind of respect and support he’s getting.

  • Billy The Squid

    First, the Nevada Constitution notwithstanding, the U.S. Constitution trumps state constitutions. Second, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution sets the standard for constitutional federal possession of land. That clause forbids the U.S. federal government from owning any land outside the 10 square miles of Washington D.C. except land which is (1) ceded by the state which owns the land and (2) is purchased from said state ONLY for the specific reasons listed: “…for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings….” There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to own the vast majority of land they claim, including the Bundy Ranch and the shores of the Red River.

    • nemomen

      Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 is where Federal ownership of territory is put forth. The Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 draw on that article. As Federal territories gained statehood, the states didn’t necessarily have ownership of land, and often didn’t. Nevada is a prominent example of a state that didn’t, and actually has this explicitly stated in its Constitution.

      The supremacy clause matters a lot here. Camfield v. United States, Kleppe v. New Mexico, Light v. United States, and a number of other cases all clearly and definitively establish the right for the Feds. to own public land inside a State, as do the so-called Insular Cases.

      At this point you might feel that it’s wrong for the Feds. to own land, but the SCOTUS, the supreme law of the land says that it can and does, and bases this in the Constitution’s Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2. So it is definitely Constitutional for the Feds to own land.

      • Billy The Squid

        And therein lies the crux of the problem: many people such as yourself actually believe that SCOTUS is the supreme law of the land. That is utterly false. The U.S. Supreme Court is NOT the supreme law of the land. The supreme law of the land is the U.S. Constitution, and it trumps the mistakes of SCOTUS and all state lawmakers down through the centuries. The Founders of this country were legal geniuses. Contrast that with the incredibly stupid and corrupt crop of SCOTUS justices. One is so unbelievably ignorant that she actually believes that people who commit an illegal act (such as invading a sovereign country against its laws) are not criminals. At least four of these modern-day justices (who are sworn to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution, by the way) actually take the position that murder is perfectly legal (Roe v. Wade), and a fifth waffles in his elderly senility on virtually every issue. Please explain how SCOTUS is the supreme law of the land if its justices are sworn to uphold and defend a document you claim is not the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution. Being the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution’s restrictions on federal ownership of land in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 are not to be ignored, all other documents notwithstanding.

        • nemomen

          You are right that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You
          don’t seem to understand the Constitutional role of the SCOTUS, though. They have final say on what is or is not constitutional. Not the states. Not people commenting on the internet. You are in the right to disapprove of decisions by the, and of the justices on the SCOTUS, but we must abide by the rule of law.

          The Constitution was put together rather quickly, and has enough language that’s not clear, or holes of coverage that there’s leeway in how many things get decided based on interpretations, but that should be and is handled within the legal system.

          The Constitution’s Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 makes it clear that the Feds. can own land.

          Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is the Enclave clause which enumerates DC and some other area like forts and arsenals as being Federal enclaves to prevent state laws from having authority where it would be dangerous to the country.

          The territory owned by the Feds through Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 is not enclaves. It’s still part of the State and governed by the State and state laws, it’s just not owned by the State (just as private property isn’t.)

          The territories governed by the Feds in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 are Federal enclaves and not part of the State they are in. That’s why the Enclave clause is called the “swiss cheese” clause. It puts holes in the state.

          Article IV, Section 3 says, “nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States.”

          You are using Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 to prejudice claims of the United States. That is plainly in violation of the Constitution.

          These are the kinds of things one can disagree about, but the appropriate way to handle those disagreements is through the law. The Constitution establishes the law, and is the supreme law, so we should abide by its provisions for handling questions of legality.

          • Kerry Kolsch

            There is no argument about the branches of government and the ultimate power of the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution, but when the “interpretation” strays so far from the intent of the framers as to be unrecognizable, what we have is usurpation under the color of the law, that in my opinion, is an act or treason against our sovereign nation. Not one of men and women in those black robes would recognize a constitutional restraint if it bit them on the ass. You can not possibly believe that there is any legitimacy to the powers in control when drowns can target and kill american citizens without consequence, do you?

          • nemomen

            While there are many points where I’ve disagreed with rulings, the SCOTUS has made terrible unconstitutional rulings for centuries. Nothing new there, and nothing to justify sedition. There has not been a full course of efforts at legal remedies.

            I don’t support the way Obama justified the drone attack on a citizen, though it was a highly qualified and complex justification that wouldn’t apply to any individuals on US soil. The SCOTUS wasn’t involved in that either.

            My main point is that the Feds have Constitutional grounds for owning land in states, Article IV, Section 3 covers this. The BLM is justified in their claims on the land Bundy’s trespassing on.

            It’s important to recognize that Bundy isn’t just herding cattle on the Bunkerville Allotment where he tried to make a false claim of eminent domain. He overgrazed and moved into the Gold Butte, and into the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Since he’s recently started trespassing on new territory (and moved into national parks!), he definitely can’t make any eminent domain claims. The fact that he’s herding cattle in parks is unconscionable. Bundy’s a deceitful individual unworthy of trust or respect, and a very irresponsible rancher. He’s hurting a lot of patriotic guys who came to his side based on his false claims, it’s utterly disgusting what Bundy is doing, and he deserves a very harsh backlash for what he’s done. Those guys who were told they were protecting liberty were really just helping the lying Bundy’s bottom line.

  • http://www.batman-news.com/ KeepToTheFactsPlease

    I guess the author missed his chance to make this argument back in the mid-1800s. Michael, the book has closed on this issue as the Supreme Court has ruled consistently in favor of the Federal government in terms of the US government’s power and jurisdiction over federal lands.

    In addition the Nevada legislative process that created their state Constitution included the following:

    Nevada Constitution: Article 1, Section 2 – “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.”

    It was a nice try to make an argument for overturning 100 years of decisions on the basis that they were all unconstitutional. But it is a quite rare instance where the US Supreme Court doesn’t follow stare decisis (precedent) and makes a major change in direction.