Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Breaking: Bureau of Land Management Won’t Enforce Court Order Against Bundy Cows
PJ Tatler / The Associated Press ^ | April 12, 2014 | Rick Moran

Posted on 04/13/2014 2:31:16 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

The Bureau of Land Management announced that it would not enforce a court order to round up cows owned by Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, effectively ending the siege at the southern Nevada ranch.

Associated Press:

“Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public,” BLM Director Neil Kornze said.

“We ask that all parties in the area remain peaceful and law-abiding as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service work to end the operation in an orderly manner,” he said....

(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: blm; bundy; bundyranch; harryreid; nevada
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-148 last
To: hoosiermama

Reid, China and BLM

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/us-usa-china-reid-solar-idUSBRE87U06D20120831


141 posted on 04/14/2014 7:00:24 AM PDT by pke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: pke; Jim Robinson; maggief; 2ndDivisionVet; WildHighlander57; null and void; DaxtonBrown; ...

It’s not just NV. Texas and CO also in BLM focus
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/04/129155-forget-cattle-ranch-story-government-trying-take-away-familys-entire-property/

Yesterday a thread on Texas

Has our government used public land as collateral for the Chinese loans and they are preparing them to be foreclosed? How do we find out?


142 posted on 04/14/2014 7:21:31 AM PDT by hoosiermama (Obama: "Born in Kenya" Lying now or then or now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

This is the administration trying to save the November election. Nothing more!


143 posted on 04/14/2014 9:30:11 AM PDT by maxwellsmart_agent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

It never hurts to show up armed, either.


144 posted on 04/14/2014 10:03:00 AM PDT by basil (2ASisters.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
Before I go any further, have you heard of the Resolution of 1780?
Yes, I have. It's a very interesting resolution which shows (to me) the intent of the Founding Fathers. It's too bad that it was never carried over as a proposed bill in the first session of the federal Congress.
145 posted on 04/14/2014 6:36:07 PM PDT by GAFreedom (Freedom rings in GA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone
Bundy relies on NRS 321.59 which has not been fully adjudicated
*shakes head* Not a good strategy on his part.
146 posted on 04/14/2014 6:49:15 PM PDT by GAFreedom (Freedom rings in GA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: GAFreedom

well he’s stuck it out longer than 50 other ranchers who were squeezed off.

If you lived in the south west you might be more sympathetic to his cause and understand where he is coming from.


147 posted on 04/14/2014 6:59:04 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: GAFreedom; All
... It's too bad that it was never carried over as a proposed bill in the first session of the federal Congress.

Thank you for your perspective. But the important thing, imo, is what does the Constitution say about the Resolution of 1780? Although the Constitution does not reference the 1780 Resolution per se, I think that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention arguably made the 1780 Resolution a part of the Constitution as evidenced by Clause 1 of Article VI.

Article VI, Clause 1: 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 [emphasis added].
In fact, I understand that the Supreme Court reflected on the Resolution of 1780 when it decided Johnson v. McIntosh.
"... and that the vacant soil is to be disposed of by that organ of the government which has the constitutional power to dispose of the national domains, ..." --Johnson v. McIntosh, 1823.

So given Clause 1 of Article VI, the states would arguably have to amend the Constitution to repeal the Resolution of 1780, even though it is not directly indicated in the Constitution, in order for the feds to "manage" land the way that they do.

148 posted on 04/15/2014 12:20:03 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-148 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson