Bundy declared himself a citizen of Nevada and NOT the USA:
“Bundy appears to argue in his Motion to Dismiss (#4) that the Complaint (#1) should be dismissed because this Court lacks jurisdiction since Article IV of the Constitution cannot be imposed upon him. Bundy claims that he is a citizen of Nevada and not a citizen of a territory of the United States, and he also quotes religious texts. [*6] Bundy also brings in the Property Clause, the Commerce Clause and International Treaty laws. None of these statutes, laws or other citations is relevant to the jurisdictional issue...”
He also claims the federal government cannot own land, although the US Constitution says it CAN own land, and that Congress makes the rules on what to do with that land.
“Bundy claims this “decision concerning the Desert Tortoise, if fully implemented, would lead to the end of ranching in Clark County,” and his ranching days would be over. Reply (#7), p. 5. The decision from the BLM does not inform [*8] Bundy he can no longer graze livestock due to the protection of the Desert Tortoise, but instead reminds Bundy that his grazing permit would end at the end of the next month, February 1993, and the new permit application was attached to the decision.”
One of my closest friends is a rancher who buys grazing permits in 3 states to keep his cattle and sheep on. He pays for his grazing, but then, he considers himself to be a US citizen...
/johnny
“...US Constitution says it CAN own land.”
Be a little more specific. What kind of land does the constitution say the feds can own?
Yes, the fedguv can own land. I always wondered about what kind of needful buildings were located on vast wastelands. Yes, we really needed 100,000 acres for ranger stations that are needed...because now we have 100,000 acres of land. Maybe someone has a different take on that clause :)
The BLM is engaging in intimidation tactics against Clive Bundy. There is no need for a small-scale, armed invasion to remove cows from public land.
That said, Cliven Bundy does not share the views of conservative FReepers who value the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land and are fighting tooth-and-nail to restore it as such.
Not a citizen of the United States? That should be anathema to any conservative.
Go to hell!!!
Bundy owns the water and forage rights on those lands and owned them long before BLM ever took over management.
http://danaloeschradio.com/the-real-story-of-the-bundy-ranch/
The BLM is in this solely to drive the Bundys off their land.
.
There are limits and definitions for land which the gubmint may own.
A turtle habitat isn’t an expressly defined constitutional purpose.
Crappy sentence. typing fast on muh phone.
The word here is “Enumerated”
The federal government is right and the rancher is wrong?
FReepers should neither support nor sympathize with the rancher? Or what? Or else?
Spit it out, clarify your meaning for us.