Skip to comments.Do the Fedís Really Own the Land in Nevada? Nope!
Posted on 04/20/2014 2:14:01 PM PDT by foundedonpurpose
Do the Feds Really Own the Land in Nevada? Nope! Posted on April 19, 2014 by Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: Is it true that nearly 80% of Nevada is still owned by the Federal Government who then pays no tax to the State of Nevada? This seems very strange if true as a backdrop to this entire Bundy affair.
You seem to be the only person to tell the truth without getting crazy.
Thank you so much
REPLY: The truth behind Nevada is of course just a quagmire of politics. Nevada was a key pawn in getting Abraham Lincoln reelected in 1864 during the middle of the Civil War. Back on March 21st, 1864, the US Congress enacted the Nevada Statehood statute that authorized the residents of Nevada Territory to elect representatives to a convention for the purpose of having Nevada join the Union. This is where we find the origin of the fight going on in Nevada that the left-wing TV commenters (pretend-journalists) today call a right-wing uprising that should be put down at all costs. The current land conflict in Nevada extends back to this event in 1864 and how the territory of Nevada became a state in order to push through a political agenda to create a majority vote. I have said numerous times, if you want the truth, just follow the money.
The law at the time in 1864 required that for a territory to become a state, the population had to be at least 60,000. At that time, Nevada had only about 40,000 people. So why was Nevada rushed into statehood in violation of the law of the day? When the 1864 Presidential election approached, there were special interests who were seeking to manipulate the elections to ensure Lincoln would win reelection. They needed another Republican congressional delegation that could provide additional votes for the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery. Previously, the attempt failed by a very narrow margin that required two-thirds support of both houses of Congress.
The fear rising for the 1864 election was that there might arise three major candidates running. There was Abraham Lincoln of the National Union Party, George B. McClellan of the Democratic Party, and John Charles Frémont (18131890) of the Radical Democracy Party. It was actually Frémont who was the first anti-slavery Republican nominee back in the 1940s. During the Civil War, he held a military command and was the first to issue an emancipation edict that freed slaves in his district. Lincoln maybe credited for his stand, but he was a politician first. Lincoln relieved Frémont of his command for insubordination. Therefore, the Radical Democracy Party was the one demanding emancipation of all slaves.
With the Republicans splitting over how far to go with some supporting complete equal rights and others questioning going that far, the Democrats were pounding their chests and hoped to use the split in the Republicans to their advantage. The New York World was a newspaper published in New York City from 1860 until 1931 that was the mouth-piece for the Democrats. From 1883 to 1911 it was under the notorious publisher Joseph Pulitzer (18471911), who started the Spanish-American war by publishing false information just to sell his newspapers. Nonetheless, it was the New World that was desperately trying to ensure the defeat of Lincoln. It was perhaps their bravado that led to the Republicans state of panic that led to the maneuver to get Nevada into a voting position.
The greatest fear, thanks to the New York World, became what would happen if the vote was fragmented (which we could see in 2016) and no party could achieve a majority of electoral votes. Consequently, the election would then be thrown into the House of Representatives, where each state would have only one vote. Consequently, the Republicans believed they needed Nevada on their side for this would give them an equal vote with every other state despite the tiny amount of people actually living there. Moreover, the Republicans needed two more loyal Unionist votes in the U.S. Senate to also ensure that the Thirteenth Amendment would be passed. Nevadas entry would secure both the election and the three-fourths majority needed for the Thirteenth Amendment enactment.
The votes at the end of the day demonstrate that they never needed Nevada. Nonetheless, within the provisions of the Statehood Act of March 21, 1864 that brought Nevada into the voting fold, we see the source of the problem today. This Statehood Act retained the ownership of the land as a territory for the federal government. In return for the Statehood that was really against the law, the new state surrendered any right, title, or claim to the unappropriated public lands lying within Nevada. Moreover, this cannot be altered without the consent of the Feds. Hence, the people of Nevada cannot claim any land whatsoever because politicians needed Nevada for the 1864 election but did not want to hand-over anything in return. This was a typical political one-sided deal.
Republican Ronald Reagan had argued for the turnover of the control of such lands to the state and local authorities back in 1980. Clearly, the surrender of all claims to any land for statehood was illegal under the Constitution. This is no different from Russia seizing Crimea. The Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in Pollards Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) when Alabama became a state in 1845. The question presented was concerning a clause where it was stated that all navigable waters within the said State shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said State, and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said State. The Supreme Court held that this clause was constitutional because it conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.
The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states:
The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.
So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.
Sorry, but to all the left-wing commentators who call Bundy a tax-cheat and an outlaw, be careful of what you speak for the Supreme Court has made it clear in 1845 that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with for the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minimum, it became state land not federal.
The next blog post on the site is on Reid calling Americans domestic terrorists. A very good read as well!
Blessings Freepers, and share, share, share!!
Did the Nevada Statehood statute "break the law."
Nope, it changed the law. The Nevada law was passed in exactly the same way as the previous law more generally authorizing territories to become states. The Constitution gave Congress complete power over the territories.
One might argue that it was sleazy or improper, but not that it was illegal.
Obviously Nevada is owned by the REID FAMILY TRUST.
Civics lesson Ping!
Obviously Nevada is owned by the REID FAMILY TRUST.
Perhaps another reason to make Nevada a state was
the Comstock Silver strike, which eventually
financed much of the North’s economy at the beginning
of the war.
Ping for later...
That’s actually not what the Pollard case was about or the SC was addressing. At question was whether newly admitted states, in order to maintain equal footing with the original states, held the rights to the navigable waterways, and the land beneath them, within their boundaries. The decision was that yes, they were to retain those same rights as part of the commitment to equal footing among the states.
Here’s an explanation:
One fact in this needs correcting. Alabama became a state on Dec. 14, 1819. We were the 22nd state admitted to the Union.
Bundy doesn't think so. It'd be nice if he could get a court to agree with him but so far he's batting zero.
This article implies there was something unique about the federal government retaining title to much of the land when Nevada became a state.
I’m not so sure this is true. There are massive amounts of BLM land (and of course, Forest Service land) in every western state, including CA and OR, both of which became states before NV.
This land, with some exceptions, remained in federal title because there were no buyers. Unlike the more generally usable land in the East, South and Midwest, mostly nobody wanted to buy this land unless there were valuable minerals on it, it could be irrigated, or there was some other use.
Even today, the land in dispute in this case would be unlikely to attract buyers. It’s remote, inaccessible, and there’s no way at all to buy the land, fence it, and make money running cattle.
So were other western states given the same deal as NV with regard to public lands, and was the reason for this because of a federal power grab, or because the small populations of the new states didn’t want to be bogged down by responsibility for so much useless land?
Excellent article. Could it be that the Federal Government, ULTIMATELY, will lose the rights it thinks it has had largely due to a handful of cowboys in Bunkerville ably led back in 2014 by Cliven Bundy and his sons and daughter.
I hope so.
Sherman Logan: Did the Nevada Statehood statute "break the law." Nope, it changed the law. The Nevada law was passed in exactly the same way as the previous law more generally authorizing territories to become states. The Constitution gave Congress complete power over the territories. One might argue that it was sleazy or improper, but not that it was illegal.
Two different jurisdictions. Lessee v. Hagan took place in 1845, and so did not reference the US corporate jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment, which was passed in 1868. Nevada was made a State in 1864, and so was not made under the corporate auspices of the 14th Amendment. However there are two "Nevadas" - the original sovereign State called "Nevada," and the federal corporate "State of Nevada."
That latter Nevada - the "State of," comes under federal jurisdiction, as it is incorporated. And thus any rulings pertaining to its authorities have to come AFTER 1868, because that's when the 14th Amendment extended federal incorporation to "individual" corproate "persons" throughout the country. So Lessee v. Hagan doesn't apply to the "State of Nevada," and either does the sovereign unincorporated powers of "Nevada."
Statutes in every State reference this difference of State identities by addressing the "external limits" of the State - i.e. the part of the State controlled by federal incorporation status (State of) versus the original State sovereignty. Another indication of this jurisdictional difference, as applied to the country as a whole, is shown by the two different authority signatures on a dollar bill.
Now, I presume Bundy has incorporated his ranch. That means he put himself under the corporate authority of the "State of" Nevada, which is actually the federally incorporated State. And the BLM is an administrative agency of that federal corporation, authorized and empowered to enforce statutes pertaining to federally incorporated jurisdictions. So unfortunately, we have an incorporated business operating on incorporated State land with incorporated federal land agreements that were made under federal incorporation authority. That's a linked incorporated train of authorization, from the ranch, to Carson City, and right up to Washington DC.
And that's why the Feds are declaring that they have jurisdictional powers in this issue.
The story is mostly true, but the parts that are not make all the difference. The federal government owned all of the land comprising the the Nevada Territory excepting that in private hands through Spanish grants and those lands disposed of by the federal government prior to statehood.
Most of the states, particularly those in the West ceded some of the land within their boundaries to the Federal government as a condition of joining the union. They did this to avoid debts that would have been incurred as a condition of statehood. In turn, the Federal government ceded back to the states certain land to support schools and state level institutions like prisons, colleges, and the state capital.
Nevada was no different in this regard excepting that so little of the state was in private hands. As pointed out in the article, the population was only 40,000 and very little of the land had been apportioned through Spanish grants.
The policy of the federal government was to dispose of this public lands to raise funds against the public debt and to reward soldiers for their service. After the Civil War, they needed to do both. Unfortunately, Nevada land was not primie quality and the laws limited the size of grants and sales. The land didn’t move and the federal government was stuck with it.
What they did was legal and it is how the federal government came to hold title to so much land. Certainly, the federal government could have fixed that, but in 1976, with the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the official policy of the federal government was changed to cease disposing of public property and to begin to manage the land for “multi-use+. Multi-use has turned out to favor the enviro wackos and the corrupt friends of Democrats.
The notion that the land is owned by someone else is sheer nonsense.
There is more to the ruling than the link you referenced.
I just found this, “ That by these articles of the compact, the land under the navigable waters, and the public domain above high water, were alike reserved to the United States, and alike subject to be sold by them; and to give any other construction to these compacts, would be to yield up to Alabama, and the other new states, all the public lands within their limits.” and am not done. Link:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Pollard_v._Hagan/Opinion_of_the_Court
Not that I would question google’s version of the case, but revisionist history is prevalent in our society, for the good of the people of course.
Martin Armstrong is pretty solid on history, not that anyone is perfect. I would love to see some Lawyers dive into this.
Have to do more research at a later date. Gotta go finish a roof before the rain comes.
Hope everyone had a great Easter or First Fruits depending on your belief.
I think it’s pretty clear that the “public lands” there are referring to the sort of public lands addressed in the case. That is, those that are public by nature of their function (e.g., involving waterways).
And, I didn’t link to “Google’s version of the case”, the source is a constitutional law book that Google has scanned.
I don’t think you really need to put too much time into digging too much deeper, given that the SC has clearly upheld the federal ownership of such lands in case after case.
Which is a legal fallacy because
1)the provision that enumerates federal jurisdiction was never repealed.
2) The 14th Amendment's intent was to Naturalize the freed slaves (just as the Founders did for themselves with the grandfather clause), and
3)Any legal and political disabilities that MAY have imposed by the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States SHOULD it have had the authority to operate in such a manner have already been removed according to multiple bills.
December 9, 1872
There are citizens of the United States...... then there are Citizens of some one of them.
You are right....there are reasons so much of the land in western states are owned by the feds.
That map totally freaked me out,
then I saw that North is at about 10 o’clock!
That does not get around Art 1 section 8 para 17, which controls as its both specific over the general and Nevada is a state not a territory.
Please remember that the Supreme Court has reversed more than 150 of earlier Supreme Court decisions on natural law. Is that what you would consider as someone being consistent and reliable in interpreting the Constitution?
The Resolution of 1780, "the federal trust respecting public lands obligated the united States to extinguish both their governmental jurisdiction and their title to land that achieved statehood."
In the Constitutional Convention of 1787, The Charter of Liberty contained these words, "The new Federal Government is an agent serving the states.", "The delegated powers are few and defined", "All powers not listed are retained by the states or the people", "The Resolution of 1780 formed the basis upon which Congress was required to dispose of territorial and public lands", "All laws shall be made by the Congress of the United States". (not agency bureaucrats!)
That should be sufficient for you to determine who all public lands belong to, hint - NOT the Federal Government!
"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, it's meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted. it means now". So said the Supreme Court in South Carolina v United States in 1905
Articles of Confederation, Article VI, clause 1 All engagements entered into before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. In Article IX "... no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States."
Formation of a "more perfect union" does not absolve that union of prior engagements, including those obligations establish by the resolution of 1780 and the Articles of Confederation.
Our government system is established by compact, not between the Government and the State Governments but between the States as Sovereign Communities. By James Madison 1821 (This is what make the County Sheriffs the highest law enforcement officer in that County and gives him/her the authority to tell the BLM, the FBI or any other Federal Agency to get out of the County or they will be arrested and jailed.)
What I have written here is but a short piece of the process that the Founder went through to establish our Constitution and system of government.
Please view these videos and see if they don't change your mind about whether or not Cliven Bundy is in the wrong by defying the BLM.
Here's one that shows why the Sheriff of Clark County is duty bound to keep the BLM and all Federal agents from arresting Cliven Bundy.
Check out this interview from the ranch... it’s great...
>>given that the SC has clearly upheld the federal ownership of such lands in case after case.<<
What other adjudication would you expect from them?
This entire thread is premised on the SC supposedly at some point having said otherwise. I merely pointed out that
a) that wasn’t the case in this case, and
b) that wasn’t the case in other SC cases either.
Great article. I never knew the history of Nevada, but I’m going to get more information now.
Fremont was the first Republican presidential nominee in 1856.
So if the feds retained all the lands in the state, how could a city like Las Vegas or Reno get built up and thrive the way they have? Surely a lot of free enterprise there that could mot thrive unless private interests were allowed to own and control the real estate.
For some reason they are afraid to go for the truth. Maybe they like their lifetime appointment a little too much.
That’s the way they did it for TV. It’s one of those things that raised some eyebrows (like Sgt. Saunders’ non-ETO camo helmet cover).
* The EPA assigns one million acres to previous owners in Wyoming.
* The BLM Rustles cattle in Nevada.
* Now the USFS Rustles Cattle in New Mexico.
What will Speaker Boehner do now to punish these lawless Federal Bureaus?
BTW, have yall noticed that Obama is very effectively using these lawless events by his Bureaus to distract from the NSA, Benghazi, IRS and Obamacare Scandals?
Is the modern day equivalent of the KKK the Bureau of Feudal Land Management, (BFLM) ?
If so, then Feudal Lord Reid would then be The Grand Dragon of the BFLM.
Feudal Lord Reids Rustlers are hired guns, who are furious but not fast, which also applies to their multimillionaire Leader: Feudal Lord Reid.
With the past Democrat-based KKK, and now the present Democrat-controlled BFLM, ethics be damned, as abject fear is the main goal of both of these Medieval Outlaw Gangs, past and present.
Ethics will be justified later by Liberals who will write the revised PC History of these times, past and present; of powerful men with outlaw hatred toward free people in America, Black or White, poor or rich.
The Jackboot Heel of Democat Tyranny is now upon us, again !
This is a decidedly odd, even bizarre, interpretation of the 14th, and is most assuredly wrong, and profoundly so.
There is no such thing as a "federal corporate state" established under the 14th amendment, whether applied distinctly to the Nevada, or to any other State, as would have to be the case if your view were correct.
If I may, I believe Talisker is speaking of the way the federal government has prostituted contract law by using the 14th Amendment as a vehicle to create an extra-Constitutional corporate 'citizen of the United States' outside its areas of enumerated jurisdiction. Of course, the People have been educated for generations now that's what they are. They no longer understand their Birthright lies in the Citizenship of their State.
QUICK! In before the "she's off her rocker!" posts
These 2 cases:
Quoting United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other.
Colgate v. Harvey , 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)
...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship.
Madden v. Kentucky , 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)
Say the same thing Story said when writing of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17...or the federal enclave
§ 1218. The inhabitants enjoy all their civil, religious, and political rights. They live substantially under the same laws, as at the time of the cession, such changes only having been made, as have been devised, and sought by themselves. They are not indeed citizens of any state, entitled to the privileges of such; but they are citizens of the United States. They have no immediate representatives in congress.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
Natural Rights lie in Natural law, and out Natural Allegiance belongs to our respective States.
Not meaning to snark at you, Mr. Valentine. It's just that, as wild as it sounds, it's the only logical conclusion that fits...everything. Occam's Razor, and all that.
That is just so sleazy and unethical. But, it is another reminder of how broken we are as a whole.
You are all forgeting something profoundly important - the government does not have to prove that a human being is acting in official corporate capacity before treating them as if they are, and it does not have to notify them that they are being so treated when it does.
I am NOT saying that the 14th Amendment imposes corporate personhood, nor that it actually creates a corporate state. What I am saying is that the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can act as if these things are true unless and until it is specifically refuted on these presumptions. And therefore, it makes every effort not to admit that these are the presumptions under which it is operating.
Because in fact, it IS operating as if these presumptions of corporate authority and corporate status are true. And it DOES use very specific terms of art linked to these definitions of corporate status when it files against people in court. These are just operational facts of the legal system.
The problem is not corporations or corporate law. The problem is the allowance of the SECRET PRESUMPTION of this status against people. If that way denied, if the government had to PROVE corporate status before it inviked its corporate statutes and regulations, ALL of this abuse would stop immediately, because IT DOESN’T APPLY.
But you have to know WHAT doesn’t apply, before you can stop it from being applied.
Yep, and thank you very much for the citations. As well, remember that these definitions are allwoed to be "presumed" against people without first being proven, and then as if that's not bad enough, this presumption is allowed to be kept secret from those against whom it is presumed. So people are completely in the dark about what is going on legallly against them.
It is as if the plumbing code was being used against a person, and they were being evicted from their home for not wearing a hard hat at the dinner table, because the plumbing code specified that hard hats must be worn anywhere seated work involving knives took place, and the regulations mandated a shut-down and eviction from the premises if those rules were not followed.
In fact, is is EXACTLY like that. And all someone has to do is say, "wait a minute, I'm not a freaking incorporated plumber doing plumbing work in my home at my dinner table, so this doesn't apply to me" - but they CAN'T, because they don't know that that is what is being applied to them. And for those who DO figure it out, the court says, "well, you SHOWED UP in "plumbing court" to make your protest, so therefore, by BEING HERE you're admitting to being a plumber, because that's the only people in plumbing court, and so you are LYING about not being a plumber and I'm citing you for contempt and seizing your home in penalties and interest."
THAT is not only tax court, but almost any other court these days. FOR REAL.
Since the population of Oregon in 1860 was only about 52,500 and it became a state in 1859 then I assume that "law" is in quotes because there really was no such law?
Not only does silence imply consent, so does compliance.
Your quite welcome for the citations, BTW. I'll admit I was hesitant to respond to the poster simply because so few people 'get' this, much less how thoroughly they've been indoctrinated to DISbelieve it.
I am heartily glad, however, to discover that we're on the same page.
Do you see such a limitation in the language of that Section? Neither did the court when it decided Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan - 44 U.S. 212 (1845).
The Constitution Limits the Federal Government and should always be read as such.