Given that nothing in the U.S. Constitution gives the goverment any legal authority to own said land, I will side with the squatters.
Article 1 section 8 give the authority to Congress and the US Government
Article IV, Section 3: "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."
That establishes that the federal government can own land and other properties. The land became the property of the U.S. when it was taken from Mexico. Nothing required that ownership be transferred to Nevada when it became a state.
I posted the following on another thread. This is ultimately about property rights versus squatters’ rights and not states’ rights.
Its not his land. His cattle are grazing on federal land.
At the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, Mexico and the U.S. signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which granted title to that land to the U.S., for which the U.S. paid Mexico $15 million.
Sixteen years later in 1864, Nevada became a state. A provision of the Nevada Statehood Act of 1864 promised that Nevada would disclaim all rights to the unappropriated public lands lying within its boundaries, and that such land would remain at the sole disposition of the United States.
Cliven Bundy has no legal right to graze his cattle on federal land without permission. When he stopped paying grazing fees, the federal government sold his grazing rights to the Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
In short, the U.S. bought and paid for that land. It owns it. It makes the rules on it.
(Note: I made no assertions about the rightness of armed BLM officers or the 1st Amendment area and none should be inferred.)
You are correct. The feds can not own anything other than 10 square miles and military, ports, et al.
So, now for those who claim that the feds can own land. How come that this land is then managed under a trust?
Some on here like to quote the constitution, but forget the 17th enumerated power under art 1 sec 8. Laughable.
Somewhere on a long ago thread, I read that the feds were supposed to relinquish most of the federal lands when the territories officially became states.
It’s amazing to me, that the feds are allowed to own more than 50% of the land in any state.
Precisely. The Feds are forbidden to own anything beyond “needful” buildings, land, etc. Read your Constitution!