Replies

A quick background as to why the BLM should not be harassing Cliven Bundy. This issue goes all the way back to the Confederation Papers, prior to the writing of our US Constitution.

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.

1of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference

2of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference

3of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference

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.

Steven Pratt, Bound by Oath to Support THIS Constitution,

Thanx for that explanation and historical perspective.

Here’s what I think occurred.

The congress had the northwest territory surveyed, determined state lines, cleared up some border conflicts from the original 13, and sold off parcels. This model was used in all territories through the 1800s. The sale of the northwest territories retired the debt from the revolutionary war and the start up of the government (DC buildings etc.). If fact it may have kept other taxes down for a century.

It seems that when the territories gave way to states the feds just hung onto the property that was not sold off.

The last part is my conclusion.

Source: The Fabric of America.

Thanks, this is good.

“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!)”

Also equal footing as it relates to why the federal government owns so much property in the western states and almost none in the original 13 states.

http://constitution.findlaw.com/article4/annotation16.html

Specifically, the Pollard’s case in Alabama:
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-4/22-doctrine-of-equality-of-states.html

“Pollard’s Lessee involved conflicting claims by the United States and Alabama of ownership of certain partially inundated lands on the shore of the Gulf of Mexico in Alabama. The enabling act for Alabama had contained both a declaration of equal footing and a reservation to the United States of these lands.264 Rather than an issue of mere land ownership, the Court saw the question as one concerning sovereignty and jurisdiction of the States. Inasmuch as the original States retained sovereignty and jurisdiction over the navigable waters and the soil beneath them within their boundaries, retention by the United States of either title to or jurisdiction over common lands in the new States would bring those States into the Union on less than an equal footing with the original States. This, the Court would not permit. “Alabama is, therefore, entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law, to the same extent that Georgia possessed it, before she ceded it to the United States. To maintain any other doctrine, is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states, the constitution, laws, and compact, to the contrary notwithstanding.... [T]o Alabama belong the navigable waters and soils under them, in controversy in this case, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States; and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.” [Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212, 228-229 (1845) (emphasis supplied). And see id. at 222-223.]

Here’s the actual Resolution of 1780.

“That the unappropriated lands that may be ceded or relinquished to the United States, by any particular states ... shall be disposed of for the common benefit of the United States...

http://www.minnesotalegalhistoryproject.org/assets/1780%20Resolution%20on%20Public%20Lands.pdf

Couple comments, though I don’t claim to be an expert in this area.

“Disposed of for the common benefit of the United States” means, I believe, that the price of this land, when sold into private ownership, goes into the Treasury of the United States. I didn’t see anywhere in the Resolution where it stated that title to these “unappropriated lands” was to be handed over to the new states so they could sell it off. That wouldn’t be “for the common benefit of the United States,” would it? But it’s possible I’m misunderstanding something.

Also, note that the Resolution refers to “lands that may be ceded or relinquished to the United States, by any particular states.” The lands acquired later by the US under the Constitution west of the Mississippi were not “ceded ... by any particular states.” They were acquired by the US through treaties with France, Mexico and Great Britain, and by treaties with the Indian tribes.