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

To: Axenolith
The state of Nevada should by all rights have been encumbered with the vast majority of the states land either through cession to same from the government, or the allowance of general purchase to the state/public (which was done in small increments under 1872 mining law until the Clintoon moratorium on issuance of Patents).

The government will point to the Nevada Disclaimer Clause. When Congress invited Nevada to join the Union in 1864, it mandated that the Nevada constitutional convention pass an act promising that Nevada would "forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States . . ." The Nevada state constitutional convention did so.

Cliven Bundy says the Disclaimer Clause is illegal and unconstitutional. With respect to another Nevada rancher making the same claim, a federal court ruled that the Disclaimer Clause was legal and constitutional. Note I'm only saying what a federal court ruled.

337 posted on 04/11/2014 7:51:09 AM PDT by Scoutmaster (Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies ]


To: Scoutmaster

The Law these days apparently speaks from the mouth of the guns of the Bureaucracies’ SWAT teams.


346 posted on 04/11/2014 8:26:47 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | 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