Militia? Standoff? Harry Reid?? Turtles? Firefight??

[Buckrub]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/375619/nevada-ranch-standoff-escalates-questions-about-reid-arise-andrew-johnson

What in the world is going on???

[Captain]

This is the same site that is reporting not only human meat in McDonalds burgers but "child" meat? Wonder how you tell the difference?

"The United States Department of Agriculture answered with the seizing McDonald’s production and shipping. The FBI couldn’t be out of the swim. According to Huzler.com, FBI agent Lloyd Harrison stirred up the shock by adding that it was allegedly not only human, but child meat. He reportedly said, “The body parts that were found across the U.S. factories were deemed to small to be adult body parts, this is truly horrible.”

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[Buckrub]

Um....now I'm lost.

If it's the site I quoted that's a problem, I just grabbed one from Googling. Use CNN.COM or FOX or any news source. This is going on right now in Nevada.

[BarryBobPosthole]

I'm having trouble understanding why or how anybody finds a way to think this farmer is being oppressed by anybody. He seems to think the fact that he's broken the law for two decades gives him some sort of personal right of imminent domain.anyone who's had to run off trespassers for hunting has heard the old tired saw 'we've been hunting thos land for years'. That's a piss poor excuse for trespassing and its a piss poor excuse for doing what this rancher is doing. The BLM has every right to enforce the law. I guess I want to know why thT's a problem. FoxNews keeps making a big deal out ofthe fact he's a Mormon. What's that got to do withanything?
This is a story some crackpots are using to stir up shot.

BKB

[Niner]

WTF, over????
I didn't see nuthin' in that link about "human meat" being used for anything??????????
That's the problem with "naked links", and the reason I wish y'all would cut/paste stuff.

Evidently that link took Cap'n someplace other than it took me.

[Niner]

Nevada Ranch Standoff Escalates, Questions about Reid Arise
By Andrew Johnson
April 11, 2014 5:57 PM
Comments95


Print Text


The situation between Cliven Bundy and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management over land near Bunkerville, Nev., has intensified as federal officers and supporters of the rancher and his family exchanged a few blows.

The controversy is over whether Bundy owes the federal government millions in grazing fees for his cattle being on the land, which he contends is rightfully his going back more than a century. He also points to a previous agreement with local Clark County that allows him to use the land. As the circumstances unfold, the government has started seizing hundreds of cattle, many of which belong to Bundy.

Protesters and militia groups have begun to rally behind the Bundy family in recent days, sparking some scuffles between the BLM and federal agents. Both sides claim the other is growing overly aggressive; there are reports of protesters surrounding government vehicles, while Bundy’s family has reportedly been tasered and “roughed up” by government officials.

Tensions have reached such a point that one militia group has stated that it is not “afraid to shoot,” according to the Washington Times.

Meanwhile, Nevada governor Brian Sandoval spoke out against the bureau’s “disturbing” confinement of protesters to a “First Amendment area” on the public land; the federal officials have since allowed them to gather on the land as long as they don’t interfere with the seizure of cattle.

“No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans,” Sandoval said.

The Blaze’s Dana Loesch reports on possible ties to another prominent Nevada politician: Senate majority leader Harry Reid.

Part of the BLM’s justification for enforcing its authority over the land is that it falls within the boundaries of a protection area for desert tortoises, a threatened species. But, Loesch writes in her blog, exemptions and accommodations for land falling inside the boundaries have been made in the past for wind- and solar-power projects, as well as a top Reid donor named Harvey Whittemore (Whittmore is currently serving time in prison for illegal campaign contributions to Reid’s campaign.) She asks why similar accommodations can’t be made for Bundy.

As the situation continues to unfold, Bundy’s daughter has offered a plea to onlookers.

“Wake up America,” Bailey Bundy Logue told KSL-TV. “Look what our ancestors fought for and we need to stand up for that. We need to realize what’s happening. They are taking everything away from us. This isn’t only about one family. This is about everyone’s family. This is martial law and it’s in America and so what are you going to do to have it stay out of America?”

[Thumper]

Ha ha! Niner, ol' Cappy kind'a went off on a tangent there and lost you. He was talking about this website and their previous reporting practices. The National Review (IMHO) is like the print media equivalent of FOX News ... a different perspective, but about as far right as they come ... to the point they sometimes get a bit goofy.

Frankly, the only issue I see here is the government has been trying to deal with the LAW-BREAKER for years and he's nothing but a scofflaw who ignores the law just because his family has lived in the area for a bazillion years. Sorry, that doesn't cut it IMHO. It appears (to me) he's basically trying to claim "eminent domain" on the land he grazes his cattle on. He's fought the government all the way and refused to abide by the law, so they're now getting tough with him and seizing his property. What's the difference if I were to refuse to pay my taxes? Wouldn't the government seize MY property? If I were living in my great-grandmother's house, would I be given a "pass" because my family has lived there so long? I don't think so.

He's being a thug and the so called "militia" thugs (which I see as extreme right-wingers) are just itching to add fuel to the fire. Push too hard and it will end up like another Branch Davidian fiasco. What is the gov't supposed to do with law-breakers? "Try" to get forceful, but if the perp pushes back, simply back off and say, 'Oh, that's ok, sorry to bother you sir?"

The totally goofy part that I don't understand is, he's arguing that he has some sort of agreement with the COUNTY to use the land for free. Huh? It's FEDERAL land! I have no clue what the idiot is thinking here.

[LJ3]

IF the Govt kills all the cows in a fit of rage, can anyone go pickup the carcasses?

[Thumper]

Naaaa, who'd want them? They'd be way overcooked. :D

But seriously, again, in reference to my tax issue stated above. Sell off the cattle to help satisfy his debt to the government. That's what they'd do with my house if I didn't pay my taxes.

[Buckrub]

I wasn't trying to justify what he is doing. I don't know anything about him or this case. It DID tickle me to see Harry Reid's sideways involvement, via his big contributor though.........that and turtles (which is the only reason this is "government land" in the first place, to protect some desert tortoise).............makes this almost funny....

I was just surprised to see another of these "Government vs. Armed Militia" deals......Waco and Ruby Ridge didn't end well, regardless of how RIGHT the gummint was.

And y'all need to go read the Politics/News section of Arkansashunting.Net if you want to see the other side of your positions! wowzers....

[Thumper]

(Harry Reid is a whole 'nuther story)


... turtles (which is the only reason this is "government land" in the first place, to protect some desert tortoise)

Where the heck did you get that? This was Federal land waaaay before anyone ever started worrying about desert tortoises. I used to race dirt bikes all over Nevada ... 99.9% of that was on BLM controlled land. Whenever we staked out a race, we'd clear it and procure permits from the BLM. They'd provide maps of protected areas so that we could route around them.

As for grazing ... it's a heck of a deal for ranchers. What would a bazillion acres cost if they had to purchase it? Here's a nice link to peruse if at all interested. I'll paste the fee system here ... but there's some good reading on the site.

Federal Grazing Fee

The Federal grazing fee, which applies to Federal lands in 16 Western states on public lands managed by the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service, is adjusted annually and is calculated by using a formula originally set by Congress in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. Under this formula, as modified and extended by a presidential Executive Order issued in 1986, the grazing fee cannot fall below $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM); also, any fee increase or decrease cannot exceed 25 percent of the previous year’s level. (An AUM is the amount of forage needed to sustain one cow and her calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats for a month.) The grazing fee for 2014 is $1.35 per AUM, the same level as it was in 2013.

The Federal grazing fee is computed by using a 1966 base value of $1.23 per AUM for livestock grazing on public lands in Western states. The figure is then adjusted each year according to three factors – current private grazing land lease rates, beef cattle prices, and the cost of livestock production. In effect, the fee rises, falls, or stays the same based on market conditions, with livestock operators paying more when conditions are better and less when conditions have declined.

This is all recent info:

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html

[Buckrub]

Where? From an online news account of this at Fox and CNN. Here's the paragraph:

The fight involves a 600,000-acre area under BLM control called Gold Butte, near the Utah border. The vast and rugged land is the habitat of the protected desert tortoise, and the land has been off-limits for cattle since 1998. Five years before that, when grazing was legal, Bundy stopped paying federal fees for the right

Why does everyone fight me so when I haven't even taken sides??? I just posted something interesting on the news. I still don't know what I think about all this.

Geez. Sometimes you guys are danged hard to talk to.

[Penguin]

I've seen both sides chattering about this. Honestly some of the justifications and logic employed is breathtaking.

I think this kind of thinking becomes common when you start examing those on welfare or subsidized industries. People tend to confuse a helping hand or privilege for a right. These ranchers have had a good run for a long, long time on public land. Very secure. No competitive bids for grazing rights. Low tax rates.

Might be time to open some of this stuff up to public bid. Parcel some of it up and break up some of these century old "ranches" that are no more than a homestead with government subsidized squatter's grazing rights.

In general have a clarification session with these anarchists.

I know that having these ranches operating on public land serves a greater purpose. I appreciate that. But if this long term kind of deal nurtures this kind of mindset toward public land? Might be time to let them know the difference between a right and a privilege.

Will

[Buckrub]

By the way, ABC News, the most liberal of all of them, just reported that Bundy won, and BLM is leaving.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=23302610&sid=81

[Penguin]

No surprise there. The parasites have been winning for decades this is just the latest round.
Now this Bundy guy can wrap himself up in the flag, spout all of his right wing anarchist bullshit, and keep on running his cows on our land for a little bit of nothing.... if he bothers paying anything at all. I'm telling you these god damned freeloaders get more brassy every year.

Will

[BarryBobPosthole]

If it was people growing pot on public land you think they'd ride to their rescue?

BKB

[Buckrub]

If Harry Reid's former senior advisor is now Director of BLM, would that matter? If a BLM website had a page that clearly said that Bundy's operation messes up the construction of "utility-scale solar power generation facilities" on "public lands", and that page is now non existent there, would that matter? Would he still be an anarchist? The document that no longer seems to exist said, at one time, that "Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle".

If this were on GW Bush's Texas land, would that matter?

Do any of us have enough information on this to sit as judge and jury? Is the tortoise a made up block or real? If real, is it enough to justify blocking use? Is this guy a thug that's stealing from the public?

I don't know what's true, other than there's a lot of questions!!! If folks can raise questions about fracking the oil out of the ground and what it MIGHT do, I'm pretty sure they can also raise questions on how this is being handled.

[Buckrub]

Maybe if all those anarchists had bracelets like our government wants us all to wear, they could track down all those guys if they fire.....which some reports are saying has occurred.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/08/holder-want-to-explore-gun-tracking-bracelets/

I'm sure since they are NOT criminals that they'd actually wear these bracelets........course no criminal ever would.........

[BarryBobPosthole]

That's a purty far reach, Bucky. He's just a guy who's not paid his rent and he's bitchin' because he got called out for it. It ain't much more complicated than that.

[Buckrub]

The last one was a far reach.........but I just stumbled on it, and it didn't fit the fracking post, so.............. :)

[Thumper]

Where? From an online news account of this at Fox and CNN. Here's the paragraph:

The fight involves a 600,000-acre area under BLM control called Gold Butte, near the Utah border. The vast and rugged land is the habitat of the protected desert tortoise, and the land has been off-limits for cattle since 1998. Five years before that, when grazing was legal, Bundy stopped paying federal fees for the right

Why does everyone fight me so when I haven't even taken sides??? I just posted something interesting on the news. I still don't know what I think about all this.

Geez. Sometimes you guys are danged hard to talk to.

Bucky, I AGAIN quote you ...


... turtles (which is the only reason this is "government land" in the first place, to protect some desert tortoise)

What you are saying is, this was not government land before the turtles were discovered there. I have no clue what you're talking about. Are you saying it was Bundy's land and the Federal Government confiscated it from him? That's b/s. I don't know any other way to read your statement.

[Buckrub]

Huh?

I read it as "The land was used by Bundy, and no one, including the government, had a problem with him doing so UNTIL they 'found' a protected desert tortoise". Is that not what it means?

[Herb2]

Geez, I hate to do it, but I have to agree with Posthole and Thumper. As I understand it, the land clearly belongs to the government (AKA us), and administered by the BLM. Users of the land, such as cattle ranchers, or motorcycle riders, or prospectors, or anybody else for that matter, might very well need a BLM permit to conduct business, and that permit could very easily restrict the use of the land (things like not overgrazing, or protecting historical sites, or preventing conflicting uses). The rancher ignored these restriction and apparently also didn't pay all his rent.

From my perspective, this guy is a thief, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

And BOY, do I hate agreeing with Thump and Posthole on this

[Buckrub]

Here is a blurb by Bundy's daughter where she tries to explain what's going on. Make your own determinations:

By SHIREE BUNDY COX:
I have had people ask me to explain my dad’s stance on this BLM
fight. Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so
much to it, but here it is in a nut shell.
My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back
in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned
them over to my dad in 1972. These men bought and paid for their rights
to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the
survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax
dollars. These rights to the land use are called preemptive rights.
Somewhere down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the
bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in
the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly
allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with
repaires and improvements of the ranches.
My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were
no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead they began
using these money’s against the ranchers.
They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with they’re
own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a pittance he
said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their
job. He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the
county, which they turned down.
So my dad just went on

[Thumper]

So, he's making his own laws? Times change. My great-granddad owned slaves ... the ol' cotton farm is still in the family after being passed down through the generations. I think we should still be allowed to own slaves. Yes?

I have a cousin who's family has lived in Montana for a bazillion years ... up until 15-20 years ago, they had no speed limit (the "official limit" was "whatever is reasonable and prudent.") Should he still be able to drive 90 mph down the highway because he USED to?

I can come up with a zillion silly comparisons ... times (and laws) change.

This man is grazing his cattle for profit on taxpayer property. There is a system set up to collect compensation for the use of those lands. He chooses to ignore the system. I suppose next year he may just decide not to pay taxes because his great-great-granddaddy didn't. Where does it end? Who did those roads, fences and water tanks benefit? Him? Or the government?

I really don't get what the argument is. The guy is dead wrong ... no two ways about it. He's nothing but a squatter IMHO.

[Buckrub]

Maybe so.

[Gunther]

Government only has your best interests at heart. Really. Even though that rancher paid grazing rights to the county as per the agreement before makes him a naughty nasty asshole. And the BLM wanting a place for those box turtles is totally justified because they're endangered for crying out loud. Heck they are so endangered the BLM had to euthanize about 1000 at last count. I mean just because entities like the BLM and the EPA and stuff pass regulations even though they weren't elected and the people didn't vote and stuff doesn't mean there's a problem. They're just trying to protect box turtles, condors, stink bugs, rare disease bearing ticks and the like from the evil human being. The ones who say they want freedom are just stupid. Unless it's the freedom to marry dogs and stuff, as long as they consent you know. We need government control for our own good. We just need to get rid of the Constitution because it is so inconvenient. We need our elected rulers to not have to bother with a sill old document at all so they can tell us what is best for us! Wake up people! We as Americans are the cause of the whole wide worlds ills! That's why we are so lucky now, our president doesn't have to follow any orders or guidelines, he just puts in an executive order, kinda like Carter did with the EPA. The two best presidents ever! Another problem. Christians. Well did you hear about the nun who got pregnant? That proves every Catholic in the world is nothing but poopy face liar mouths and they need to be held accountable. And just because the overwhelming majority of terrorists are Muslim males doesn't mean we should take it out on the other 1% of the religion of peace!

The government is here for you! And if you don't agree you're ignorant. And have bad breath and B.O.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Gunther you can try to make this into something that it isn't but that won't change the truth. The fact of the matter, in words right out of his own mouth, is he said he does not recognize the federal government, or the public, you and me, as the owner of that land but the state of Nevada as the owner. Users of public lands for whatever reason don't have the 'right' to do that. In fact, its crazy. He is free to do believe and say whatever he wants, but if he's going to graze a goddamn cow on federal lands he has to pay goddamn rent to do it. I'm not sure how you can take that and twist it into anything else. Was BLM a little heavy handed in how they reacted? I don't know, I wasn't there.

Another thing that is pretty obvious is the crackpots are the ones who are jumping all over this. Like the guy who says the government faked the moon landings and were implicit in the 9-11 attacks. Yeah, those kind of people.

BKB

[Thumper]

I find it incredible that ANYONE here is arguing in favor of this guy. The Federal government has been trying to collect payment from this guy for 20 frigging years and he refuses to pay. He's ignored numerous court orders to pay his leasing fees. What is the gov't supposed to do? Just say, "Well, we asked and he told us to fuck ourselves, so I guess we'll just let him do what he wants and forget about it." If I don't pay my frigging taxes, the gov't has the right to seize my assets. That's what they're doing with this character. They've tried all legal means for the past 20 years to collect ... now they're seizing his assets ... his cattle. I fail to see any problem with that. That's the way our system works. If there were no repercussions ... why the hell would ANY of us pay our taxes? If I don't make payments on my car or my house, the bank will seize my assets. If I walk into Wally World and walk out with a bazillion dollars worth of goods without paying, the cops will seize my frigging "freedom" and park my rosy red ass in jail. Maybe that's where this ass-clown should be.

[Penguin]

Barry you have hit on the hot button of this whole shebang: We have a bunch of ranchers out west who don't recognize the right of the federal government to own property.

It is incredible but true. I even saw where one dolt who acts like the resident constitutional scholar of one site (which is overrun with right wing whackos) that the only land they could own according to the constitution was DC. I guess he didn't see this portion: "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

Not only does the federal government have the right to own land it also has the exclusive right to administer it according to the wishes of congress. Publicly held land goes back to the very beginning of this nation. It is nothing new. Further congress has made rules governing the acquisition of new lands as the nation expanded. And this is nothing new either. AND they have spelled out how to handle grazing on public lands about 80 years ago.

The problem this asshole, and others like him, has is that he wants to claim land that he has no right to. Running cows on 100 square miles and running off homesteaders a century ago doesn't mean your ancestors had any right whatsoever to this land. Period. There was a lawful way to claim land back then and it came in 160 acre parcels. The rest was public land. And because of the violence and overgrazing associated with public rangeland congress stepped in and created the Bureau of Land Management. And they are charged with administering it according to the good of the land in our stead.

And yes, that "our" includes environmental groups looking out for turtles and even those who wish to end public grazing altogether. History lesson over.

I know there is a greater good at work here. I know we have quietly subsidized these ranchers in order to protect a way of life and infuse some money into the rural west. I've never really had a big problem with that. Until now. If this is the thanks that these flag waving, anti-American anarchists want to send our way for allowing them to use public land? End it now. Throw this land into very short term public bids, break rangeland into small parcels, and send these lunatics packing.

Will

[Gunther]

Boy, here I am converting to liberalism and you're still arguing with me. In this case i think you should believe the big news stations, especially MSNBC and stuff, the local news, the Arizona Legislature and stuff should just keep their mouths shut. In fact they should be forced to. Our president needs to pass an executive order against the right wing news and people because it will be better for everyone. Our Government needs to become even more like Nazi Germany. After all Hitler had close to the right idea, we need to control the Jews. His problem is he didn't go far enough, he needed to control the Christians too. I am so sick of the right wing and what they stand for, freedom, family values, personal responsibility. I am trying to get enlightened, if possible I am going to be a bi sexual even. This might be difficult as I have never been attracted to dudes but that's probably the oppressive way I was brought up. You know to be tolerant of people that didn't share the progressive views like us. I might have to start out with a 3 way with Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus. They aren't the same person right? This way I can kinda ease into it. Even though I played catcher most of my life I'll probably have to start out pitching, just to get used to it. This whole thing about state rights sucks also. I think every law should be federal enforced, this isn't a Republic for goodness sake. I am loving being liberal, I used to have to try to think sometimes, now I don't have to think at all. Now I can just listen to MSNBC and they tell me what I need to know. It now longer have headaches because I can just turn my brain totally off for the most part. I really wished I had discovered this years ago. No stress, no muss, no fuss. usa2

[Thumper]

Well, I for one, miss your input around here and wish you'd drop in more often Gunther ... BUT ... in this thread, it seems you're simply spouting gobblety-gook and blowing a bunch'a worthless hot air. There are things that the State controls and there are things the Federal Government controls. This guy is claiming the State has control of this particular Federal land. It does NOT. He "claims" (which I seriously doubt) that he's tried to pay the State of Nevada. Huh? When I bought my house, I financed it through First Federal. They sold the loan to Nations Bank. Next thing I knew, Washington Mutual had the loan ... then they were bought out by Chase Bank. I now send my mortgage payments to Chase. According to this douche bag, I should be sending my payments to First Federal ... I'm sure they'd simply tell me to send them to Chase, but as far as I'm concerned, I've done my part, so I'll just KEEP the money.

That makes just as much sense as what this bozo is claiming.

[Captain]

WOW!!!

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[BarryBobPosthole]

If this wasn't taken seriously and treated as gospel truth by so many people, it was be almost a parody of what truth is. But it is the condition of information in our day and age. There's no real institutional credibility any more. Anybody can hang out a shingle on the innerwebs and it seems like the more crackpot you are, the more followers you get. I personally can't stand Obama. But he gets WAY more credit than he is due for his grand master master plans to dismantle shit in our good old nation. I don't think he has a plan to do anything except look good while he's doing it. Which is bad, but the far right makes him out to be some sort of criminal mastermind.

Anyway, here's a link to what the uber-right is treating as the gospel. Not the sane conservative people mind you, they've been fairly quiet on it. Sean Hannity seems to be making a living off of Cliven Bundy this past week but that's expects from that parasite.

BKB

http://www.independentsentinel.com/chilling-truth-siege-of-bundy-ranch-reaches-into-the-white-house/

[airbud7]

WOW!!!


You know what, that Thump is a Fart Smeller...oops...>I mean Smart Feller :slaphead

[BarryBobPosthole]

He'll do in a pinch, won't he?

BKB

[Gunther]

Damn Uber right! Nobody outside the major networks have the truth. You know they would never spin the news. These are the same people that want voter ID, to stop undocumented workers at the border and to deny people using their totally rightful welfare benefits to get tattoos. Nothing but a bunch of haters. Unlike all those conservatives I understand why the Post Office needs a bunch of ammunition. I don't understand why I'm getting attacked here, I'm agreeing with you all. So because of that I have to assume that you hate me because I'm Native American and trying to become Two-Spirited. You are a bunch of racist homophobes.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Well, now that you're an insider I guess we can teach you the secret handshake.

Post Office bought ammo? I thought it was DHS! I must've missed Rush that week.

BKB

[Gunther]

NOAA needs ammo too. And I totally understand that also. The department of education needs riot shotguns, Social Security admin needs ammo. And the 1.6 Billion rounds DHS ordered makes perfect sense if you put it in perspective. The military uses about 5.5 million rounds a month so if DHS needs to defend itself from these right wingers they can shoot 5.5 million rounds at them for about, well quite awhile. They're the government, they're here to help us. Secret handshake?? KEWL!!

[Gunther]

Can you believe this drivel? We NEED to get rid of the Constitution once and for all so we can be true Progressives!

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 few, 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 legislature to build military posts and other needful buildings (post offices and other structures pursuant to Article I, Section 8). Nothing more.

Being a requirement, state permission 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 lands 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, etc. unless 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 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).

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.

[BarryBobPosthole]

I only scanned. But still....me no tink so.

BKB

[Penguin]

Congrats Gunther, you have managed to discover a way to make the constitution mean exactly the opposite of what it says.... I think you have real potential as a liberal. Or a conservative. Both seem to have a gift at that sort of thing.

What they really meant by the property clause was "The US government has no right to own land. This is the sole right of the states."

Of course. Why didn't we see this before! :-)

[Gunther]

See, that's what I mean. We as liberals need to keep the people uninformed. They only need our side of the story. Otherwise they'll suffer like I used to.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Methinks some armpit with eyes is pulling on our collective chains.

BKB

[Penguin]

See, that's what I mean. We as liberals need to keep the people uninformed. They only need our side of the story. Otherwise they'll suffer like I used to.

~sigh~

Alright, let us inform ourselves a bit then.

1) The US was granted right to the untitled lands of Nevada under treaty with Mexico. They owned the land before Nevada was even a state.
2) In their state constitution the state of Nevada ceded any and all rights to this land to the US government.
3) Which was declared constitutional because the federal government already held title to it. Unlike the cases you mention of Georgia and some other southern states, Nevada was never a sovereign state and therefore could not claim title to the land. AND the land ceded by those southern states was done so in order to pay debt accrued in the Revolutionary War. IOW it was an agreement to pay their debt by giving land to the US which would in turn sell it. It was not a permanent transfer.
4) All of which occurred prior to a Mormon family by name of Bundy moving into a certain area of Nevada and running cows on this land.

Their kind of thinking was pretty common back in the old days. Even our western myths are filled with stories of powerful ranchers using brute force to lay claim to land they had no title to. And to use force to keep "squatters" from settling along creeks and waterways they needed to keep their large ranches viable. The ranchers resented it but the settlers were in the right. The legal way to own land was to buy it from previous owners if they existed, hold title prior to the land becoming property of the US government, or settle it 160 acres at a time.

That land belongs to US citizens, not the Bundy family. As it has been since Mexico relinquished title to it.

Will

[Thumper]

Agreed!

[Gunther]

See? That's the way to do it. Legislate by the courts. Just because the US Constitution is clear on it all we need is a couple Judges...........................

Also we really need to control the media. If folks see opposing views to CBS, ABC, NBC or MSNBC they might, just might start thinking for themselves and you know how dangerous that would be to our liberal agenda!

Here's an example.

http://www.infowars.com/unedited-video-shows-bundy-making-pro-black-pro-mexican-comments/