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

To: Scoutmaster
If the land was open range and the livestock of any other ranchers grazed on that land, it wasn't exclusive use. . .

The position of the Feds is so silly, it's actually hard to get your mind around it. There's nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the right to own land in any state except for military installations, arsenals, and the like. Highways, maybe. Parks are a stretch, nice as many of them are. States can own those to the same purpose, if the legislature allocates the money and pays the owners.

But open rangeland? Special spaces for turtles or campaign contributors' Federally funded solar kickback projects? Random tracts of land for putatively endangered species? Forget about it.

Nevada permits open range grazing, and Bundy's cows have been grazing on open range in Nevada. The Feds have no business being there, never mind charging money for it. Bundy is right.

346 posted on 04/24/2014 9:29:02 PM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies ]


To: SamuraiScot
I understand the Constitutional argument regarding federal ownership of land and the Nevada law argument. Federal courts have specifically rejected them, meaning federal judges hearing federal issues being argued by federal attorneys representing federal agencies ruled for the federal government.

We're talking about two different things. You're talking about what the law should be, which is an appropriate discussion. I'm talking about what the law currently is.

359 posted on 04/25/2014 5:05:04 AM PDT by Scoutmaster (I'd rather be at Philmont)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies ]

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