Do the Fed’s Really Own the Land in Nevada? Nope!

Armstrong Economics Blog ^ | April 19, 2014 | Martin Armstrong

[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.

[BreezyDog]

Reference

[John Valentine]

...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."

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.

[MamaTexan]

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.

[ronnyquest]

That is just so sleazy and unethical. But, it is another reminder of how broken we are as a whole.

[Talisker]

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.

[Talisker]

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.

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.

[DoodleDawg]

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.

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?

[MamaTexan]

So people are completely in the dark about what is going on legally against them.

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.

Best Regards!
MamaTexan

[Political Junkie Too]

I thought that only authorized Washington DC and any forts, etc. only from the same states that granted the land for DC.

-PJ

[Mechanicos]

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.

[Political Junkie Too]

Absolutely I do.

---

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

---

What do you think the phrase "of the State in which the Same shall be" means? Doesn't mean the same states which gave up the land for the district, so that the federal government can also build forts, arsenals, etc., for the protection of the new seat of government?

This was meant to only allow the federal government to own additional lands in the state in which the seat of federak government shall be. It was not a general power for the federal government to acquire lands anywhere it felt it "needful."

-PJ

[Mechanicos]

Thats an absurd reading and already rejected in the case cited.

[Hot Tabasco]

Ping for prosperity

[freekitty]

Figures. Try tracing a deed or title. Some just disappear off the face of the earth in NV.