Posted on 04/16/2014 9:56:23 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I know that.
Acquaint yourself with Nevada grazing law - as I have stated, the Bundy’s grazing easement, by Nevada law, preceded the federal “ownership” of the land - the right of the federal government to own “claimed” (within state boundaries) land is in question here. It seems clear by the essay cited above that they don’t have that right. An easement is not abolished by a change of ownership - even if the feds are the new owner.
Bundy has the grazing easement on the land, which means the new owners, the feds, cannot fetter his access according to the easement. Charging a fee for access he owns is fettering. Consider - if a landowner has an access easement across another person’s land, and that land sells, the new owner cannot start charging a toll for the first person to use his access easement. The first person is free to use the easement to access his land, at will and free of charge...unless otherwise stated in the easement.
So - Bundy was there first, he owns the easement by Nevada law, the feds cannot restrict his continued use of the easement he owns - either by blockage or fees.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. …If you hate the country so established, by all means depart from it.
Thanks for your support of activist kritocracy over the rule of law.
Unfortunately, they have ceded it to the President. Nullifying their very existence.
The Founding Fathers would have loved to hear your attitude. The rule of force trumps the rule of law, then?
Too many people think they get to be judge for a day whenever they want.
I tried reading up on the issue with Bundy to see how far up the court system it went, but almost everything presented so far on FR is just confusing dreck focusing on ‘the infamous they’, instead of the legal merits of the case from both sides.
Bundy should limit his pictures to the media. 50% of the people are just going to see a whining overweight white man in a cowboy hat.
pflr
Nevada range law is very clear on this point - however, I think Bundy has been arguing jurisdiction, when he should be arguing his easement rights.
The courts are part of the legal system, they are NOT the law.
I love the cowards that hide behind “legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on.”
This assumes ALL laws are just and valid. The left ignores laws they don’t like at will but I don’t see anyone saying they don’t legally have a leg to stand on. No, people like Cooke just look the other way.
So the Feds and courts arbitrarily say some of the land is now “protected” without recourse or compensation to farmers, ranches and miners that have leases. They have LEGAL contracts that the government ignored and then used their muscle to destroy. Criminal!
Remember how those GM and Chrysler bond holders had the law of a contract ignored by Obama? So Obama, legally, didn’t have a leg to stand on. Did that stop him? No.
Instead we got even RINO’s and so-called conservatives (plenty on FR) saying “what, did you want them to go out of business?” Yes, if that’s the result of their bad management. But we have bankruptcy courts that weren’t even used. So many knees jerked it was laughable. If that thinking had prevailed 150 years ago we’d still be subsidizing stagecoaches.
Many people think that if it’s law it can’t be evil.
No rest for the soul can be found in such philosophy.
Every member of those units should be charged for treason.
Really? You think the law is being applied to Holder - or Obama for that matter - the same way it is enFORCED on you and me? Or was that /sarc? Or /how it should be?
I see instead multifarious violations of the Tenth Amendment on the part of the feds.
Why not? The left pick and choose everyday. Another judge just today stayed an Ohio law stating marriage is between one man and one woman.
What’s good for the goose...
But I supposedall this would work out well if we just had tariffs.
Never happened. The land was federal land under the Treaty that ended the Mexican War, which was before Nevada ever became a state. When Nevada was admitted to the Union, it disclaimed any interest in federal lands within its borders.
Yeah, why can’t Obama be a gracious emperor here.
I do not know whether to laugh or cry.
Proven false. Read more.
Well what should those lands then be called? They aren’t Nevada, then. Somebody tell the map makers please!
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.