Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Do the Fedís Really Own the Land in Nevada? Nope!
Armstrong Economics Blog ^ | April 19, 2014 | Martin Armstrong

Posted on 04/20/2014 2:14:01 PM PDT by foundedonpurpose

Do the Fed’s Really Own the Land in Nevada? Nope! Posted on April 19, 2014 by Martin Armstrong

Nevada-Protest

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

HF

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.

1864-Elections

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 (1813–1890) 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 (1847–1911), 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. Nevada’s entry would secure both the election and the three-fourths majority needed for the Thirteenth Amendment enactment.

1864-vote

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 Pollard’s 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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Nevada
KEYWORDS: blm; bundy; greatestpresident; land; nevada; skinheadsonfr
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-54 next last
This is a reply by Martin to a subscriber. Priceless! The FED apparently is completely breaking the law by ignoring a supreme court decision.

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!!

1 posted on 04/20/2014 2:14:01 PM PDT by foundedonpurpose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: berdie

later


2 posted on 04/20/2014 2:26:19 PM PDT by berdie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: foundedonpurpose
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. ... 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.

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.

3 posted on 04/20/2014 2:26:59 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: foundedonpurpose

Mark.


4 posted on 04/20/2014 2:27:14 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: berdie

Obviously Nevada is owned by the REID FAMILY TRUST.


5 posted on 04/20/2014 2:27:33 PM PDT by CMailBag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

FYI


6 posted on 04/20/2014 2:28:39 PM PDT by Whenifhow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom; ProgressingAmerica; bamahead; Tired of Taxes

Civics lesson Ping!


7 posted on 04/20/2014 2:29:17 PM PDT by foundedonpurpose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: berdie

Obviously Nevada is owned by the REID FAMILY TRUST.


8 posted on 04/20/2014 2:31:06 PM PDT by CMailBag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CMailBag

Oops sorry


9 posted on 04/20/2014 2:31:44 PM PDT by CMailBag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: foundedonpurpose

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.


10 posted on 04/20/2014 2:32:13 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: berdie

Ping for later...


11 posted on 04/20/2014 2:34:56 PM PDT by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2016; I pray we make it that long.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: foundedonpurpose

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:

http://books.google.com/books?id=bJjxj5gLRaEC&pg=PA925&lpg=PA925&dq=Lessee+v.+Hagan,+44+U.S.+212+(1845)&source=bl&ots=UIhiBJqZcP&sig=MkkqM0s8elDhjJLfXhVRlp5cU3A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ejxUU4mZL7K_sQS-qYGgCg&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Lessee%20v.%20Hagan%2C%2044%20U.S.%20212%20(1845)&f=false


12 posted on 04/20/2014 2:36:39 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: foundedonpurpose

One fact in this needs correcting. Alabama became a state on Dec. 14, 1819. We were the 22nd state admitted to the Union.


13 posted on 04/20/2014 2:41:47 PM PDT by Jemian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: foundedonpurpose

14 posted on 04/20/2014 2:42:34 PM PDT by MUDDOG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: foundedonpurpose
Do the Fed’s Really Own the Land in Nevada?

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.

15 posted on 04/20/2014 2:43:30 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: foundedonpurpose

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?


16 posted on 04/20/2014 2:47:58 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: foundedonpurpose

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.


17 posted on 04/20/2014 2:56:58 PM PDT by Cen-Tejas (it's the debt bomb stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan; foundedonpurpose
foundedonpurpose: 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. ... 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.

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.

18 posted on 04/20/2014 2:59:37 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: foundedonpurpose

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.


19 posted on 04/20/2014 3:01:22 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: foundedonpurpose

For Study.


20 posted on 04/20/2014 3:15:45 PM PDT by grobdriver (Where is Wilson Blair when you need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-54 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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