Sage Brush Rebellion - Getting Back to the Constitution

The Lyin King

Public Lands Advocate
Feb 7, 2009
630
17
0
Give us back our land!!!



Get it Right: Nevada’s Cattle and the Federal Government

By April 22, 2014 12:00 am • Pamela Openshaw

Cliven Bundy’s Nevada cattle are part of a crisis that unites western lands, the county sheriff and a governor’s power to nullify federal abuse.

These three issues have grown into a standoff with national implications.

At issue is the question, who owns the land — the federal government, or the people who form the government?

If the federal government owns America, Bundy is an obstinate, stubborn trespasser. If the people own America, they have the right to use it. No federal bureaucracy should own 84 percent of Nevada, or any other state.

America’s Northwest Ordinance of 1787 set the policy that all states entering the Union came in under the same terms. Land within a newly admitted state would be sold to those who then became its residents. Minimal federal lands for postal roads, arsenals and such were purchased from each state.

The vast majority of a state’s land would be privately owned under state administration.

Eastern states were admitted under this policy. It was ignored for western states, the poor stepsisters of the American Union. The federal government refused to sell western lands, and held vast portions of it, which were rich with natural resources. This was unethical and illegal. The federal government now unlawfully owns 35 percent of the United States, mostly in the West.

Though this illegality occurred well over a century ago, time has not rendered it less illegal. Impervious to its misconduct, the federal bully now runs states and individuals off the land it dishonestly withheld from them.

Cliven Bundy knows this history. For two decades he has grazed cattle on “federal†lands that should be state owned. He has refused to pay what he terms illegal federal grazing fees.

The issue has become explosive.

Another problem ricochets through this incendiary conflict: that of environmentalists and the endangered desert tortoise.

Bundy’s grazing areas are near, but not on, the desert tortoise’s designated natural habitat. In a process known as “sue and settle,†attorney Judson Phillips of the Tea Party Nation explains that environmental groups work quietly with the Environmental Protection Agency to take control of state lands.

They bring a lawsuit, and the EPA mounts a tame defense.

When the environmentalists win, the EPA is justified to launch new regulations that effectively strip the land from state jurisdiction.

These are the “tricks of the trade†to escalate federal authority.

Cliven Bundy and his cattle inhabit both issues — land ownership and EPA excess.

There comes a time when those who uphold the law must stand against those who trespass it. The stand against illegal federal ownership of state lands should have been waged and won more than 100 years ago.

After Ronald Reagan’s election in the early 1980s, the Sagebrush Rebellion lit the West to demand that the feds back off.

Those driving the “rebellion†could better have demanded that the feds move off.

Cliven Bundy may have decided to do just that — move the feds off. There is a western movement building under Rep. Ken Ivory (R-West Jordan) and the Utah-based American Lands Council to give misappropriated lands to their rightful state owners.

If Bundy works peacefully and within the law, he could earn public support.

Will Bundy have the support and authority of his governor and county sheriff to protect him against the federal bully? Clark County sheriff Doug Gillespie can protect him. Governor Brian Sandoval can stand with him and begin the process to nullify unconstitutional federal authority. Will either accept the challenge?

It is a major step to stand against the federal government. That action would not be easy, swift, cheap, placid, or simple. It is, however, necessary.

The only way to stop a bully is to push back, and stick with it. Without that, the bullying continues and results in more confiscations of state authority and lands.

Someone has to start the ball rolling and stand against unfairness. Cliven Bundy may be that person.

Western states need not be Cinderella step-sisters; they have the rights to their territories, just as do eastern states. Bundy deserves the support of his governor, county sheriff, and Utah, as well.

SOURCE


Does the Federal Government own Nevada?

By Harold Pease, Ph. D- The most important question with respect to the Bundy Ranch Standoff remains unanswered. Why does the federal government own Nevada? It does not own New York or Virginia or Massachusetts. Cliven Bundy says that the state of Nevada owns the contested land. The Bureau of Land Management clearly considers the property the federal government’s, hence the 200 snipers posted on the property and the tasing of the Bundys for resisting when the feds confiscated their cattle. Who is right?

But the problem isn’t Nevada’s alone. The percentage of land owned by government exceeds fifty percent in Alaska (98.5), Idaho (63.8), Oregon (52.6), and Utah (63.6). Indeed, the federal government claims to own a third of all the landmass in the United States (Inventory Report on Real Property Owned by the United States Throughout the World, published by the General Services Administration, page 10). Government owns almost half of California (47.5). Basically the federal government did not give western states all their land when they qualified for statehood. States were so excited to get coveted statehood that they went along with the conditions despite the confiscation of, for most in the West, at least a third of their land.

States wanting their confiscated land returned, so as to be on equal footing as with 19 sister states who actually own their land, call their long-term bid to do so the Sage Brush Rebellion. Equality between states was established by giving them equal representation in the U.S. Senate, thus the assumption of the Founders was that property would follow. Without it they are not on equal footing and instead may be more servile to the federal government than states that own themselves. This could negatively affect our system of government known as federalism as states collectively serve as a check on federal overreach. This check is impaired when the federal government owns part or most of their land.

But this is not the most serious violation of the Constitution. The Founders understood that the size of land holding was proportionally related to the perceived size of the federal government and they intentionally wanted that perception small. The Federal government was permitted to have but 10 square miles for a federal capital. The only other land that they could acquire had to be for military purposes as specified in the common defense clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 which reads: “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.â€

Any new acquisition, outside the capital, had (1) to be purchased, (2) have the consent of the State Legislature where the land exists, (3) and be for military purposes. None of these constitutional requirements were met with respect to any of the states cited above although some military bases do exist in most of them. Nor have there been any additional amendments to the Constitution authorizing additional federal ownership of land as required for any additional federal power. Constitutionally there exists no federal land or Bureau of Land Management or even public land.

Again, in the case of the Bundys, the land in dispute was not purchased by the federal government, did not receive the consent of the Nevada State Legislature for sale to the feds and is not for military purposes. The fact that the federal government acquired it fraudulently in the first place, or that both political parties have ignored this part of the Constitution for over a hundred years, does not make federal confiscation now constitutional. Constitutionally Bundy has more right to be there than does the Bureau of Land Management. Still, his stand is not practical given our long-term departure from the document and to get back to the Constitution some may do jail time, as have others like Martin Luther King, Jr. Freedom has never been cheap.

Sage Brush Rebellion states now, having someone willing to stand, should seize this moment to remind the federal government that they too want their land back. If they stand together now it is more probable than ever that it will happen. One suggestion for Governor Brian Sandoval of Nevada is to declare the contested property Nevada’s and have Bundy begin paying Nevada for grazing rights. That would diffuse the standoff between citizen and federal government moving it to the state instead where it belongs, and give strength to the intended objective—getting back to the Constitution.

Dr Harold Pease is a History and Political Science Teacher at Taft College, CA

SOURCE
 

dkiewicz

Space Cadet - UTVUnderground's La Familia
Nov 28, 2009
1,582
58
48
62
Hesperia Ca
Cleven Bundy is a lunitic and a racist trespacer..!!!
Are you going to feel the same when the Marines decide that they don't have enough land in Johnson Valley after this last go around and declare eminent domain on your property and offer you 10 cents on the dollar for it? I think not.

Same goes here. The Bundy's have used this non-Federally owned land for a good many years. Now there's an issue? Why, because the Sierra club says there is? As it stated, the ruse they used to disallow the grazing, Turtle Habitat, wasn't true at all as the turtles aren't even there.

So let me dream up a reason as to why you should leave your property and I'll get Col. Cook to submit legislation kicking you out. That's about what this amounts to. Traitor? I think not. Hard headed and determined to stand up for what he believes in, yep that's it.

I really wish more folks in this country would, we wouldn't be in a world of $hit right now.

But go ahead and sit back, take the non-confrontational path, and we'll put up the signs that say "Welcome to the Socialist United States of America".

That seems to be what everyone wants. Entitlements to what isn't their's and don't bother me, just do what ever the hell you want.

Sad...:(
 

The Lyin King

Public Lands Advocate
Feb 7, 2009
630
17
0
Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan - 44 U.S. 212 (1845)


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.â€

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 the Supreme Court made it clear in 1845 that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with, the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty.

At the very minimum, it became state land – not federal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

brevndeb

Your Mom
May 5, 2010
911
5
18
43
Beaumont CA-B-Town
Cleven Bundy is a lunitic and a racist trespacer..!!!

Question have you met any of the Bundy family? I have, hard working true red white and blue Americans! You just take in count what the far left wing media tells you like A little sheep. What would you do if the feds kicked you off the land that your family has grazed and rasied family's since the mid 1800's. Also I am bad at spelling but you my friend suck at it, so I would learn how to spell then you can talk politics.


Have A great Day!

Breven
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
17,135
Messages
179,148
Members
11,936
Latest member
Roaddell