Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bundy Boots the BLM Is This a Significant Moment?
http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/35207/Bundy-Boots-the-BLM--Is-This-a-Significant-Moment/ ^ | April 14, 2014 | Staff Report

Posted on 04/14/2014 6:57:22 AM PDT by B4Ranch

 

Bundy Boots the BLM – Is This a Significant Moment?

By Staff Report - April 14, 2014

Nevada Rancher: 'The Citizens Of America' Got My Cattle Back ... After a tense standoff with the Bureau of Land Management, the Nevada Rancher at the center of the disagreement proclaimed that "the citizens of America" got his cattle back. Rancher Cliven Bundy reached a deal with the BLM Saturday allowing the cattle that had been removed from the BLM land to be released back onto the federal lands. But Bundy is still on the hook for the fees he owes for having the animals on the land in the first place. "There is no deal here. The citizens of America and Clark County went and took their cattle. There was no negotiations. They took these cattle. They are in possession of these cattle and I expect them to come home soon," Bundy told KLAS-TV. – CBS

Dominant Social Theme: The revolution has begun.

Free-Market Analysis: Some in the alternative media have been celebrating the defeat of the Bureau of Land Management, which unsuccessfully attacked rancher Cliven Bundy for not paying grazing fees. This analysis attempts to ascertain the importance of the Bundy "victory."

After national coverage and the convergence of numerous US citizens on the Bundy ranch to show their support, BLM backed down. They removed the armed enforcers, their trucks and even, reportedly, gave back the cattle that were confiscated.

Alex Jones celebrated at Infowars, and Drudge posted numerous headlines on the affair. The controversy expanded when it was reported that BLM was moving on Bundy in part to open up land for an expanding Chinese solar farm.

Here's more:

The standoff Saturday brought hundreds of protesters who attempted to storm the BLM's cattle gate, but weren't successful. Some protesters were even armed with weapons. I-15 was closed in both directions at one point because protesters were blocking the freeway.

Roughly two dozen police officers and a SWAT unit were at the scene in Mesquite to help keep the peace. "We had a lot of fears. Individuals being shot, trampled. Individuals being run over on the highway. So it took a lot of resources, a lot of resources to associate with this," Assistant Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo said to KLAS-TV.

The fight between Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management widened into a debate about states' rights and federal land-use policy. The dispute that ultimately triggered the roundup dates to 1993, when the bureau cited concern for the federally protected tortoise in the region. The bureau revoked Bundy's grazing rights after he stopped paying grazing fees and disregarded federal court orders to remove his animals.

... The 400 cows gathered during the roundup were short of the BLM's goal of 900 cows that it says have been trespassing on U.S. land without required grazing permits for over 20 years. Bundy, 67, doesn't recognize federal authority on land he insists belongs to Nevada.

His Mormon family has operated a ranch since the 1870s near the small town of Bunkerville and the Utah and Arizona lines. "Good morning America, good morning world, isn't it a beautiful day in Bunkerville?" Bundy told a cheering crowd after his cattle were released, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

The crowd protesting Saturday recited the pledge of allegiance, and many offered prayers. Others waved placards reading, "This land is your land," and "We teach our children not to bully. How do we teach our government not to be big bullies?" according to the newspaper.

It's the latest skirmish since the 1980s when the Sagebrush Rebellion challenged federal ownership of Nevada rangeland ranchers said was rightfully theirs. A federal judge in Las Vegas first ordered Bundy to remove his trespassing cattle in 1998.

Despite the current state of affairs, BLM's decision to disengage may not be as final and decisive as it first appears. Its press release said as much. There are numerous other ranchers who interact regularly with the BLM, and if the Bundy capitulation is seen as precedent-setting then the US federal government might lose control of lands that fedgov has been acquiring for decades.

The US federal government's power is vastly enhanced by land management and the federal government is said to control up to one-third of US lands in the "lower 48." There are at least three reasons why land control is so important.

Such control ...

Every part of the US governmental apparatus is at risk if the Bundys can claim a continued victory. Any single setback of this magnitude threatens to unravel the entire laboriously constructed system of federal legislative, judicial and executive command.

The entire globalist edifice depends on ever-expanding government control of the private sector. If the power elite running Western governments behind the scenes cannot count on expanding and untrammeled government authority then the whole internationalist agenda is put at risk.

So while it was inspiring to see people on horseback facing down BLM enforcers, the chances that significant change will be engendered via these kinds of confrontations is certainly questionable.

One can even argue that top elites are actively hoping for the kind of chaos and civil destruction that such dramatic clashes will inevitably give rise to. One could even ask if the Bundy confrontation itself was manufactured.

We are sure that real change will come as people take individual human action to opt out of the system – psychologically as well as professionally. This, in fact, IS happening as a natural occurrence of the current information revolution. Elite memes are crumbling; dominant social themes such as global warming are increasingly rejected. Even the war on terror has not proven convincing.

Societies usually do not crumble via internal, physical revolution that only provides a justification for a bigger and more invasive police state. Societies DO collapse when people lose their belief that the sociopolitical and economic structure is beneficial to them.

What has been set into motion by the Internet Reformation has decades to go yet. Government authorities have every reason to fight the physical confrontations manifested by the Internet – and no doubt they will. But it is the larger and likely unstoppable shift in citizen sentiment regarding basic building blocks of society that shall create real change.

This change will not happen so dramatically as recent events, and will evolve out of the dissemination of knowledge about the Way the World Really works. One need only consider the sociopolitical and economic conversation today in the West – especially in the US – versus a decade ago. The differences are startling. They will continue even if more visible evidences of resistance are defused.

Conclusion

The Internet is a process not an episode.


TOPICS: Local News; Reference; Society
KEYWORDS: bhoblm; bundy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

1 posted on 04/14/2014 6:57:22 AM PDT by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

“All ye Feudal Serfs bow down to thine Feudal Lords at the Bureau of Feudal Land Management, (BFLM), who own the land beneath thy feet!”

Commune-Style Obamantion forever!

FORWARD!


2 posted on 04/14/2014 6:59:48 AM PDT by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
I don't think this is over by a long shot - I fully expect them to break this guy with legal fees alone - not to mention the coming irs audits.....how do you protest that with a posse? -

The govt will not only do this, they will reappear in a massive show of force shutting down roads for miles with a clear delineated perimeter - then, and only then will the govt/contracted (deniability) snipers get the green light....far away from the cameras

3 posted on 04/14/2014 7:10:15 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

the BLM will be back..


4 posted on 04/14/2014 7:11:13 AM PDT by cableguymn (It's time for a second political party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Overall I think this is a good summary. The facts are stated accurately, and you can take the speculation as to motive with as many grains of salt as you wish. But there is no doubt that “this ain’t over”, and that the Feds are not going to simply forget about Bundy and go away never to be heard from again. It is fortunate all around that they realized they had picked a fight they could not win, and that things de-escalated before people got hurt or killed.

The biggest winner of this “victory” is as stated, the “internet revolution”. It may not level the playing field, but the internet sheds light in many corners that otherwise would remain very dark indeed.

Now, consider how easily the darkness returns if the feds have the ability to flip the switch on cellphone towers and broadband connections. Maybe it’s time for the Koch Brothers to get into the satellite business?


5 posted on 04/14/2014 7:11:21 AM PDT by bigbob (The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

OK so the way I see it is he now has 500 head and 150 acres of land to run them on. 150 acres of that land might support 3 to 4 with no supplemental feeding and I’m being generous. Where did he win?


6 posted on 04/14/2014 7:11:53 AM PDT by Dusty Road
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf

I’ve been asserting for a long time that what the left wants is a return to the feudal system with them as the “neo-nobility”.


7 posted on 04/14/2014 7:12:14 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

I agree. The more gloating over this, the sooner they will be back with much more firepower. I would be very surprised if this ends well.


8 posted on 04/14/2014 7:14:41 AM PDT by Portcall24 (aer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Thanks.


9 posted on 04/14/2014 7:15:33 AM PDT by MarMema (Run Ted Run)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Bundy Supporters Sound Off on BLM Tyranny
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbuC2uaaKtg


10 posted on 04/14/2014 7:16:35 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (Pubbies = national collectivists; Dems = international collectivists; We need a second party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Portcall24
I just want to share with you the basics of a post I saw here yesterday I believe. A poster said he was with a militia in Michigan. He said the militias are all linked across the country and they are ready to go when they are called. He said they were receiving hourly reports from the ranch yesterday.

Keep the faith. Our state rep Matt Shea is still there I believe at the ranch or nearby, along with some oathkeepers.

11 posted on 04/14/2014 7:18:13 AM PDT by MarMema (Run Ted Run)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

I still do not see a “happy ending” for Bundy. The gubmint will take him to court forever and will in the end, wind up with everything Bundy has now or will have in the future. They will continue pursuing him via legal channels and eventually break his “bank” until they win.

Reid will eventually “win” and get his “solar collector farm” for the Chinese, not to mention his “kickback”. (Too much power for one nasty old man.)


12 posted on 04/14/2014 7:21:23 AM PDT by DaveA37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911

My bet is that the get a court to place liens against his bank accounts and any future sale of cattle. The banks (FDIC) will transfer money with their computers.


13 posted on 04/14/2014 7:22:38 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
But Bundy is still on the hook for the fees he owes for having the animals on the land in the first place.

Having ignored those fees and the court orders to pay them then I doubt he has any plans on paying them in the future.

14 posted on 04/14/2014 7:23:02 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

It wasn’t big enough. I just listened to 770 am (New York) radio this morning... No mention of the Bundy affair. Imus has a ranch, grew up in cattle country... So something stinks here.


15 posted on 04/14/2014 7:23:51 AM PDT by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf
Time to go to Nevada and support the last of the Americans.
16 posted on 04/14/2014 7:25:01 AM PDT by ANGGAPO (Layte Gulf Beach Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

I am so relieved that this phase of Bundy was not a massacre; that real USAians came to protect the Bundys from BLM; that some USAians are awake to the fact that _fees_ for grazing cattle on open land and DC takeover of _massive_ tracts of We the Peoples, common land is a fraud. DC is lawless as it disregards the law/instrution of YHWH, USConstitution and the USDOI (Declaration of Independence). Regardless of what the future holds, some in USA remain true to the true laws.


17 posted on 04/14/2014 7:25:05 AM PDT by veracious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Progov

I am concerned that the reports of ATF in Mesquite are true and they are going to trump up some reason to take away his firearms.


18 posted on 04/14/2014 7:25:23 AM PDT by MarMema (Run Ted Run)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Portcall24

I really doubt they’ll try the brute force approach again. I mean look at the logistics - hundreds of cars passing thru the area on a busy interstate highway, heavily armed and highly agitated (not without reason) protestors, and even with all the people BLM brought in, they were easily out-numbered and out-flanked. All it would have taken is for one trigger-happy person on either side to turn this into a bloodbath. So I do give someone in the federal gummint credit for having the brains to realize they were treading on very thin ice, and to make it back to shore before it cracked underneath them.

Does anyone really doubt the conference rooms and phone lines are buzzing this morning while the BLM comes up with it’s next approach?

I will admit I was mesmerized by the live video streaming from the scene, but when you have people like Alex Jones or this Santilli guy at the forefront, our side is on a slippery slope as well. For example, Santilli called 911 live on his feed demanding the sheriff show up in person, calling it a “national security emergency” and stuff like that. Citizen Journalism is fine, but becoming an actor or inciting others to break the law is not going to help.


19 posted on 04/14/2014 7:25:44 AM PDT by bigbob (The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Trying to find someone who knows or can find out:
Is/Has the federal government used this land as collateral for the Chinese loans ? Are they preparing for foreclosure?


20 posted on 04/14/2014 7:33:39 AM PDT by hoosiermama (Obama: "Born in Kenya" Lying now or then or now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

I am tossing the idea in my mind about how they will come back. Will it be with a larger, more heavily armed force or will it be a mixture of judicial orders, media advertising, public educational consortium that attempts to get us to bow down once again to the powers of the elected office holders?

Washington never expected that the citizenry armed with their deer rifles would rise against them over this issue. Certainly they never expected to be overpowered by a bunch of bible carrying, angry rednecks joining together in a dusty desert wash from across the nation. This hasn’t happened since the end of WWII in Kentucky when the voters rose up against corruption.

I think too many Americans are just fed up with being lied to by our public officials day after day and we are done bowing down to kiss their feet. We will continue to pay our taxes but don’t try to go overboard because if you do we will cease funding governments that we no longer respect.


21 posted on 04/14/2014 7:35:30 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Name your illness, do a Google & YouTube search with "hydrogen peroxide". Do it and be surprised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Portcall24

This is #1 of 75 videos on the subject. It might be an idea to download them all considering what happened at the Bundy Ranch this past week.<

SNIPER 101 Part 1 - Introduction - Rex Reviews

Published on Sep 9, 2012

Snipers, hunters, target shooters, ladies and gentlemen... Finally, Rex Reviews releases this long awaited free online long range shooting / sniper tutorial. TiborasaurusRex will walk you through everything you will need to know about sniper ammunition and cartridge selection, rifle and equipment options, basic and advanced external ballistics, making effective ballistic charts, rangefinders and distance determination, long range marksmanship, shooter / spotter team dynamics and communication, choosing a FFP, making the shot, spotting the shot, and much more.

This course goes far beyond what is covered in the U.S. Army FM23-10. So, if you can't make it to Quantico or the AMTU to learn these long range shooting skills, this video tutorial series will have you covered. We will get you set up to make amazingly accurate first round shots at 1 mile and beyond. Do you want to be able to zap that white tail buck at 1,275 yards and be confident it will be a nice clean kill? Watch this series!

All law abiding men and women in the free world who treasure their rifles MUST have these long range shooting skills for the continuation of our shooting culture and for the future preservation of our wonderful nation! Peace is beautiful, insure it by sharing these marksmanship skills with your friends and families to exponentially increase our nations already robust defense stature against. Stay clean, obey the law, and keep smiling.


22 posted on 04/14/2014 7:37:19 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Name your illness, do a Google & YouTube search with "hydrogen peroxide". Do it and be surprised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Here is a link to an article from Range magazine on “Our Federal Landlord”.

It gives a good overview of the tyrannical Federal landlord. It also details the persecution of the Hage family - another group of Ranchers who have been under attack by the Government for years and years.

http://rangemagazine.com/specialreports/range-wi12-our_federal_landlord.pdf


23 posted on 04/14/2014 7:38:50 AM PDT by agere_contra (I once saw a movie where only the police and military had guns. It was called 'Schindler's List'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Progov

I think the situation has changed into Bundy’s favor because more eyes are on this than ever. I’m hoping an investigation begins of Harry Reid, his son, and the Chi-Coms. I don’t expect much to come of it, but at least it’ll slow them down.


24 posted on 04/14/2014 7:40:24 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (Pubbies = national collectivists; Dems = international collectivists; We need a second party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

However they do it, I predict it will be done in a manner and at a time that does not distract from democrat reelection efforts or create PR issues for Harry Reid.


25 posted on 04/14/2014 7:41:05 AM PDT by bigbob (The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

“...but becoming an actor or inciting others to break the law is not going to help.”

I firmly agree. This is confrontation that should have the interest of the highest level of government focused on individual rights. I also think this would be of intense interest to Governor Sandoval (R).


26 posted on 04/14/2014 7:42:17 AM PDT by Portcall24 (aer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dusty Road; Progov; rolling_stone

Dusty Road, this ain’t over by a long shot.

This here is rolling_stone’s post at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3143996/posts?page=136#136

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bundy relies on NRS 321.59 which has not been fully adjudicated.

NRS 321.596 Legislative findings. 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:

(a) On October 31, 1864, the Territory of Nevada was admitted to statehood on the condition that it forever disclaim all right and title to unappropriated public land within its boundaries;

(b) From 1850 to 1894, newly admitted states received 2 sections of each township for the benefit of common schools, which in Nevada amounted to 3.9 million acres;

(c) In 1880 Nevada agreed to exchange its 3.9-million-acre school grant for 2 million acres of its own selection from public land in Nevada held by the Federal Government;

(d) At the time the exchange was deemed necessary because of an immediate need for public school revenues and because the majority of the original federal land grant for common schools remained unsurveyed and unsold;

(e) Unlike certain other states, such as New Mexico, Nevada received no land grants from the Federal Government when Nevada was a territory;

(f) Nevada received no land grants for insane asylums, schools of mines, schools for the blind and deaf and dumb, normal schools, miners’ hospitals or a governor’s residence as did states such as New Mexico; and

(g) Nevada thus received the least amount of land, 2,572,478 acres, and the smallest percentage of its total area, 3.9 percent, of the land grant states in the Far West admitted after 1864, while states of comparable location and soil, namely Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, received approximately 11 percent of their total area in federal land grants.

2. The State of Nevada has a legal claim to the public land retained by the Federal Government within Nevada’s borders because:

(a) In the case of the State of Alabama, a renunciation of any claim to unappropriated lands similar to that contained in the ordinance adopted by the Nevada constitutional convention was held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be “void and inoperative” because it denied to Alabama “an equal footing with the original states” in Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845);

(b) The State of Texas, when admitted to the Union in 1845, retained ownership of all unappropriated land within its borders, setting a further precedent which inured to the benefit of all states admitted later “on an equal footing”; and

(c) The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, adopted into the Constitution of the United States by the reference of Article VI to prior engagements of the Confederation, first proclaimed the “equal footing” doctrine, and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, by which the territory including Nevada was acquired from Mexico and which is “the supreme law of the land” by virtue of Article VI, affirms it expressly as to the new states to be organized therein.

3. The exercise of broader control by the State of Nevada over the public lands within its borders would be of great public benefit because:

(a) Federal holdings in the State of Nevada constitute 86.7 percent of the area of the State, and in Esmeralda, Lincoln, Mineral, Nye and White Pine counties the Federal Government controls from 97 to 99 percent of the land;

(b) Federal jurisdiction over the public domain is shared among 17 federal agencies or departments which adds to problems of proper management of land and disrupts the normal relationship between a state, its residents and its property;

(c) None of the federal lands in Nevada are taxable and Federal Government activities are extensive and create a tax burden for the private property owners of Nevada who must meet the needs of children of Federal Government employees, as well as provide other public services;

(d) Under general land laws only 2.1 percent of federal lands in Nevada have moved from federal control to private ownership;

(e) Federal administration of the retained public lands, which are vital to the livestock and mining industries of the State and essential to meet the recreational and other various uses of its citizens, has been of uneven quality and sometimes arbitrary and capricious; and

(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.

7. The exercise of such dominion and control of the public lands within the State of Nevada by the United States works a severe, continuous and debilitating hardship upon the people of the State of Nevada.

(Added to NRS by 1979, 1362)

http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2010/title26/chapter321
/nrs321-596.html

136 posted on Sunday, April 13, 2014 8:03:24 PM by rolling_stone


27 posted on 04/14/2014 7:43:58 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Name your illness, do a Google & YouTube search with "hydrogen peroxide". Do it and be surprised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

The BLM and the rest of the JBTs in the government employ are coming back. How we respond to that will be the watershed moment.


28 posted on 04/14/2014 7:46:15 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (When I first read it, " Atlas Shrugged" was fiction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

You would need the legal description of the land and then some way to read through legislation in the State of Nevada. It will take someone from Carson City to do that, IMO. I’ll call my state senator and talk with him about the issue. He’s a smart fella and knows a lot of folks who might step up and help.


29 posted on 04/14/2014 7:48:31 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Name your illness, do a Google & YouTube search with "hydrogen peroxide". Do it and be surprised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MarMema
He said the militias are all linked across the country

And highly infiltrated by the FBI or other representatives of the governmental alphabet soup, I would imagine.

30 posted on 04/14/2014 7:50:44 AM PDT by grobdriver (Where is Wilson Blair when you need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
This operation has targeted everyone involved....if you are to believe this guy, at the advance of martial law.
31 posted on 04/14/2014 7:54:04 AM PDT by Daffynition (I stand with the Bundy Family!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

The ‘legislative findings’ don’t have much legal validity. For example, they cite Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845). That case dealt with “The shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively, and the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States.”

That has nothing to do with public land in Nevada that the state Constitution specifically agreed did NOT belong to the state of Nevada.

This analysis is probably more accurate, and is almost certain to prevail in court:

“II. The Equal Footing Doctrine
19

Gardners argue that, under the Equal Footing Doctrine, a new state must possess the same powers of sovereignty and jurisdiction as did the original thirteen states upon admission to the Union. Because the federal government owns over eighty percent of the land in the state of Nevada, Gardners argue, Nevada is not on an equal footing with the original thirteen states.3 Gardners claim that Nevada must have “paramount title and eminent domain of all lands within its boundaries” to satisfy the Equal Footing Doctrine.
20

The meaning of the Equal Footing Doctrine is discussed in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212, 11 L.Ed. 565 (1845). In that case, the Supreme Court held that the shores of and land beneath navigable waters were reserved to the states, and were not granted by the Constitution to the federal government. Id. 44 U.S. (3 How.) at 229. New states, the Court reasoned, have the same “rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction” over the shores of and land beneath navigable waters as do the original states. Id.4
21

However, the Supreme Court has declined to extend the Equal Footing Doctrine to lands other than those underneath navigable waters or waters affected by the ebb and flow of the tides. In Scott v. Lattig, 227 U.S. 229, 244, 33 S.Ct. 242, 244, 57 L.Ed. 490 (1913), the Supreme Court held that title to an island within a stream did not pass to the state of Idaho, but instead was retained by the United States. The Court stated that because the island “was not part of the bed of the stream or land under the water ... its ownership did not pass to the State or come within the disposing influence of its laws.” Id. The Court went on to note that the island was “fast dry land, and therefore remained the property of the United States and subject to disposal under its laws....” Id. Sixty years later, the Supreme Court characterized its decision in Scott as holding that the rule in Pollard’s Lessee “does not reach islands or fast lands located within such waters. Title to islands remains in the United States, unless expressly granted along with the stream bed or otherwise.” Texas v. Louisiana, 410 U.S. 702, 713, 93 S.Ct. 1215, 1221, 35 L.Ed.2d 646 (1973). The Equal Footing Doctrine, then, does not operate to reserve title to fast dry lands to individual states.
22

Moreover, Supreme Court has long held that the Equal Footing Doctrine refers to “those attributes essential to [a state’s] equality in dignity and power with other States.” Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559, 568, 31 S.Ct. 688, 690, 55 L.Ed. 853 (1911). The Court has noted that a new state enters the Union “in full equality with all the others,” and that this equality may forbid a compact between a new state and the United States “limiting or qualifying political rights and obligations.” Stearns v. Minnesota, 179 U.S. 223, 245, 21 S.Ct. 73, 81, 45 L.Ed. 162 (1900). However, “a mere agreement in reference to property involves no question of equality of status.” Id. The Court has observed that “[s]ome States when they entered the Union had within their boundaries tracts of land belonging to the Federal Government; others were sovereigns of their soil.” United States v. Texas, 339 U.S. 707, 716, 70 S.Ct. 918, 922, 94 L.Ed. 1221 (1950). While these disparities may cause economic differences between the states, the purpose of the Equal Footing Doctrine is not to eradicate all diversity among states but rather to establish equality among the states with regards to political standing and sovereignty. Id.
23

The Equal Footing Doctrine, then, applies to political rights and sovereignty, not to economic or physical characteristics of the states. Moreover, the Equal Footing Doctrine applies primarily to the shores of and lands beneath navigable waters, not to fast dry lands. Therefore, the Equal Footing Doctrine would not operate, as Gardners argue, to give Nevada title to the public lands within its boundaries.
24

III. The Validity of Nevada’s “Disclaimer Clause”
25

When Congress invited Nevada to join the Union in 1864, it mandated that the Nevada constitutional convention pass an act promising that Nevada would “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....” Nevada Statehood Act of March 21, 1864, 13 Stat. 30, 31 § 4. The state constitutional convention did so. Ordinance of the Nevada Constitution.5
26

Gardners claim that this clause is invalid and unconstitutional as an attempt to divest Nevada of its title to the unappropriated lands within its boundaries. Gardners cite to Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U.S. 151, 167, 6 S.Ct. 670, 679, 29 L.Ed. 845 (1886) for the premise that such disclaimer clauses “are but declaratory, and confer no new right or power upon the United States.” Therefore, Gardners argue, Nevada could not have given the United States title to the public lands within its boundaries through the disclaimer clause.
27

Gardners are correct in their argument that the disclaimer is declaratory. However, the United States did not need the disclaimer clause to gain title to the public lands in Nevada. The United States already had title to those lands through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and the disclaimer clause was merely a recognition of the preexisting United States title, as opposed to a grant of title from Nevada to the United States.
28

As aforementioned, Congress’ power under the Property Clause to administer its own property is virtually unlimited. See, e.g., Kleppe, 426 U.S. at 539, 96 S.Ct. at 2291-92. Indeed, the United States retains title to the public lands within states such as Nevada not due to “any agreement or compact with the proposed new State,” but rather “solely because the power of Congress extend[s] to the subject.” Coyle, 221 U.S. at 574, 31 S.Ct. at 693. The disclaimer clause, then, is declaratory of the right already held by the United States under the Constitution to administer its property, and as such is valid under the United States Constitution. Van Brocklin, 117 U.S. at 167, 6 S.Ct. at 679.

IV. The Tenth Amendment
29

Gardners argue that federal ownership of the public lands in Nevada is unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment. Such ownership, they argue, invades “core state powers reserved to Nevada,” such as the police power.6
30

Federal ownership of the public lands within a state does not completely divest the state from the ability to exercise its own sovereignty over that land. The state government and the federal government exercise concurrent jurisdiction over the land. In Kleppe v. New Mexico, the Supreme Court held that the Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act was not an impermissible intrusion on the sovereignty of New Mexico. 426 U.S. 529, 96 S.Ct. 2285, 49 L.Ed.2d 34 (1976). In so doing, the Court noted:
31

Absent consent or cession a State undoubtedly retains jurisdiction over federal lands within its territory, but Congress equally surely retains the power to enact legislation respecting those lands pursuant to the Property Clause. [citations omitted] And when Congress so acts, the federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause.
32

Id. at 543, 96 S.Ct. at 2293 (emphasis added). Indeed, a state may enforce its criminal and civil laws on federal land “so long as those laws do not conflict with federal law.” California Coastal Comm’n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572, 580, 107 S.Ct. 1419, 1425, 94 L.Ed.2d 577. The state of Nevada, then, is not being unconstitutionally deprived of the ability to govern the land within its borders. The state may exercise its civil and criminal jurisdiction over federal lands within its borders as long as it exercises its power in a manner that does not conflict with federal law.
33

V. Guarantee Clause, Equal Protection, and Political Accountability Claims
34

Gardners argue that the retention by the United States of the unappropriated public lands within the state of Nevada violates the Guarantee Clause of the United States Constitution. Gardners also contend that federal ownership of the public lands in Nevada denies them equal protection of the laws under the Fifth Amendment and fails the “political accountability test.” As it does not appear that these issues were raised before the district court, this court will not consider them. See, e.g., Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2877, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976) (”It is the general rule ... that a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below.”).

Conclusion
35

We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.”

http://openjurist.org/107/f3d/1314/united-states-v-gardner


32 posted on 04/14/2014 7:55:21 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

The current status of the Hage case can be found here:

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


33 posted on 04/14/2014 7:58:58 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Thanks in the mean time I’ll plant the question to friendly media
It’s one word GREED


34 posted on 04/14/2014 7:59:21 AM PDT by hoosiermama (Obama: "Born in Kenya" Lying now or then or now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: grobdriver

I heard one prognosticator say that Mr. Bundy could even be a plant, to facilitate the overthrow of the Constitution.

Also a mention that the Bundy family is part of the Illuminati.

The conspiracy promoters are salivating. Hope they’re wrong.


35 posted on 04/14/2014 8:02:08 AM PDT by Daffynition (I stand with the Bundy Family!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

I’ll leave that stuff up to the lawyers.


36 posted on 04/14/2014 8:03:15 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Name your illness, do a Google & YouTube search with "hydrogen peroxide". Do it and be surprised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

Hey, we stopped the Chinese from getting the pier in Long Beach and what was the other situation with a harbor on the East Coast. Something to do with security when Bush was at 1600.


37 posted on 04/14/2014 8:06:02 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Name your illness, do a Google & YouTube search with "hydrogen peroxide". Do it and be surprised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Whoever wrote this is dreaming. What we are seeing is the product of a country that is already breaking down. Decades to go? How about a couple of years to go. We are in a culture war here and its about to go hot.

The State of Nevada has a special task force right now studying turning control of all the public land over to the state. Utah is threatening to take back their land that the US govt keeps grabbing.

If the Bundy Ranch standoff had gone the wrong way we would be in CWII. Right now this country is a tinderbox.


38 posted on 04/14/2014 8:11:16 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

The initiation of martial law would result in an overthrow of the federal government. It works fine for defenseless, unarmed people by when the citizenry is armed they are too self reliant to tolerate total martial law for more than 48 hours. There’s not enough LEO’s and troops to maintain nationwide martial law.


39 posted on 04/14/2014 8:11:58 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Name your illness, do a Google & YouTube search with "hydrogen peroxide". Do it and be surprised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Thanks! Quite a read. I had to skip ahead in the end. It reads like the Battle of El Alamein: I’m still not sure who won.

Perhaps some legally-minded FReeper can confirm: am I right in thinking that the Hage’s had to pay $165 (and 88 cents) for cattle trespass, but had their $14 million+ award reinstated?


40 posted on 04/14/2014 8:20:11 AM PDT by agere_contra (I once saw a movie where only the police and military had guns. It was called 'Schindler's List'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911

>>The govt will not only do this, they will reappear in a massive show of force shutting down roads for miles with a clear delineated perimeter - then, and only then will the govt/contracted (deniability) snipers get the green light....far away from the cameras.<<

I see you have no idea what the countryside is like out in Mesquite. Strangers stand out like forest fires on a mountain side. The locals know everyone in the County.

Just how do you think they would even get into the area undetected? In areas where .50 BMG’s are considered normal varmint rifles and reloading is as common as hardsoled shoes, that is not a choice area to be sniping at the local citizenry.

Highways can be blocked with a single semi. Park it sideways and shoot the tires out. One road blocked in two minutes flat.

I’m afraid this superior force idea has too many major weak points.


41 posted on 04/14/2014 8:22:20 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Name your illness, do a Google & YouTube search with "hydrogen peroxide". Do it and be surprised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

well, lets hope Im wrong....then you can have your I told you so moment


42 posted on 04/14/2014 8:26:38 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

Are you saying in a couple of years that America will no longer exist? Because there’s a few hotspots here and there doesn’t mean the nation is lost. I see the feral Blacks in the major cities as more of a concern than Bundys cattle vs the BLM.


43 posted on 04/14/2014 8:27:06 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Name your illness, do a Google & YouTube search with "hydrogen peroxide". Do it and be surprised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Paine in the Neck

bookmark Bundy background


44 posted on 04/14/2014 8:30:13 AM PDT by Paine in the Neck (Socialism consumes EVERYTHING)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911

I’m praying that everyone maintains a solid control over their trigger fingers. Criminals and illegal aliens kill enough everyday as it is. We don’t need sharpshooters civilian or government sponsored adding to the count.

That’s the reason I have been posting http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3144181/posts?page=22#22 these posts. There’s a lot of good info about long range shooting and ballistic selection in these videos. They can turn a former 300 yard shooter into a 1000 yard expert in a couple of weeks for the price of 200 rounds of ammo.

The better equipped we are the less likely that government employees or mercenaries will decide to have a shoot out with us. I don’t see most LEO’s or three letter agency as wanting to engage in a shootout with American citizens. Not many public service jobs are worth dying for when your only reward is a pension after 30 years.


45 posted on 04/14/2014 8:38:57 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Name your illness, do a Google & YouTube search with "hydrogen peroxide". Do it and be surprised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

No I’m saying its not going to take decades to restore the Constitutional Republic. We are almost at a tipping point. People are furious.


46 posted on 04/14/2014 8:39:22 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Yesterday, in Hartford, CT....it was reported that 200K people turned out for the victory parade for the UCONN teams.

Geez...this is only basketball.

[It was probably a crowd estimate by the same yahoos who *estimate* the number of CCDL pro-gun supporters on the same landscape a few days ago.]

Gun owners need to keep alert during this troubling time, even if we are not in the west.


47 posted on 04/14/2014 8:41:16 AM PDT by Daffynition (I stand with the Bundy Family!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
"Santilli called 911 live on his feed demanding the sheriff show up in person, calling it a “national security emergency” and stuff like that. Citizen Journalism is fine, but becoming an actor or inciting others to break the law is not going to help."

Haha! Talk about leading from behind, that guy takes the cake. I caught a little of that on Saturday. He led all the cars up to the freeway then pulled over and let everyone go ahead. Then he stops short of the scene with the press people and starts to move toward the bridges and all the action. THEN... all of a sudden, his batteries are dying and he starts back to the car going in the opposite direction, as the crowds and the cowboys are showing up, and he proceeds to sit by his car, while his batteries are charging and waves into his camera occasionally as the stand-off unfolds back down the road, out of sight.

C'MON, GUYS, LET'S ROLL!.... uh, you guys go first, I'll be right behind you.

What an embarrassing loser...

48 posted on 04/14/2014 8:43:56 AM PDT by Hatteras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
I see the feral Blacks in the major cities as more of a concern

Agreed, with the caveat that they're *all* a concern.

The easiest way for the Feds to overwhelm opposition is to attack at all points, at once. While you're worrying about some rioter breaking into your house and carting off your daughter, you're not so concerned about a gov't land grab 1/2 a continent away.

Now, is someone orchestrating all this? I doubt it. It's just a matter of putting enough of the "right-thinking" people in the right places. They act as one, as if they're co-ordinated, but it's hardly the case.

Like the current IRS flap. Do I think that BO gave the IRS a list of Tea Party groups to target? Not likely (he's certainly arrogant enough, but not smart or motivated enough....). BUT .... enough Democrat hacks and lackeys are appointed in the bureaucracy, so that someone, somewhere need only to comment "Boy, it sure would be nice if......." and the hacks are off and running.

I've said it a number of times. The problem isn't BO...he's just an opportunist. The problem is the bureaucracy that supports him, and a population who would vote him in.

49 posted on 04/14/2014 8:47:18 AM PDT by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Hatteras
you guys go first

lol.

I was reading the coverage on this - UK newspaper, of course, can't get good info from US MSM. The photos that were published of the patriots who were there were of some seriously hard folks.

They were far from primping for the cameras and making a few speeches. No keyboard commandos, here. It was pretty plain that they were there for a reason and meant business.

Made me wonder what the minutemen at Lexington and Concord looked like.

50 posted on 04/14/2014 8:52:27 AM PDT by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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