Posted on 04/11/2014 5:57:49 PM PDT by george76
You and I both know that all animals will avoid stepping on an obstacle in every instance, even while on the run, if they are able. Sure-footedness demands it. Cattle graze head down for the most part and even when on the move at a walk they watch what’s in front of them. Hunt much? I suppose you simply forgot the “sarc/” tag.
I know they like to bump vehicles trying to drive them to the barnyard in the evening and that they are heavy with relatively small feet. As a kid, when we went into the pasture behind the house to get to more interesting places we avoided them.
I’m sure that cattle try not to step into gopher/prairie dog holes.
Good. The facts include that this dates back to 1993. In his letters to the BLM, Bundy said he would not pay them because he didn’t believe either they or the federal government owned the land.
Could this recent enforcement action be tied to Dingy Harry? Possibly. But the root of the dispute goes back 20 years, and Bundy was very clear about why he stopped paying the BLM.
The problem I have is that someone who claims they are a citizen of Nevada and not a citizen of the USA is NOT someone I want representing conservatives or the Tea Party. This looks like a textbook case in how to discredit the Tea Party movement and conservatives, and promote the idea that conservatives are domestic terrorists.
Someone who fights for the right to be a Nevadan but not an American is not going to resonate with many Americans...
“I gather you dislike facts, and prefer to make your judgments on blind emotion?”
I’d like a fact: when and how did the US government come to own that land?
He tried paying them to Clark County. They wouldn’t accept them.
Seems it goes back quite a bit further. But you have been all over here today framing it that way.
1993 is when Bundy stopped paying the BLM for his grazing permit. He did not object to BLM ownership from the 50s until 1993.
That is not framing. Bundy was paid up on his grazing permit thru February 28, 1993. That is a fact. Period.
All I know here is you always find a way to apologize for jack-boots. Always.
“I’d like a fact: when and how did the US government come to own that land?”
“The United States and Mexico signed the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. In that treaty, Mexico ceded land that includes the present-day state of Nevada to the United States. 9 Stat. 922 (1848); see also Sparrow v. Strong, 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 97, 104, 18 L.Ed. 49 (1865) (”The Territory, of which Nevada is a part, was acquired by Treaty.”). The language of the Treaty itself refers to the land ceded by Mexico to the United States as “territories previously belonging to Mexico, and which remain for the future within the limits of the United States.” 9 Stat. 922, 929 (1848). Courts in the United States have uniformly found that title to the land first passed to the United States through the Treaty. See, e.g., United States v. California, 436 U.S. 32, 34 n. 3, 98 S.Ct. 1662, 1663 n. 3, 56 L.Ed.2d 94 (1978) (stating that, under the Treaty, “all nongranted lands previously held by the Government of Mexico passed into the federal public domain”); Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128, 131, 96 S.Ct. 2062, 2066, 48 L.Ed.2d 523 (1976) (stating that a limestone cavern located in Nevada is “situated on land owned by the United States since the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848”)...
...Thus, as the United States has held title to the unappropriated public lands in Nevada since Mexico ceded the land to the United States in 1848, the land is the property of the United States. The United States Constitution provides in the Property Clause that Congress has the power “to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized the expansiveness of this power, stating that “[t]he power over the public land thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations.” Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 539, 96 S.Ct. 2285, 2291, 49 L.Ed.2d 34 (1976); United States v. San Francisco, 310 U.S. 16, 29, 60 S.Ct. 749, 756, 84 L.Ed. 1050 (1940). See also Alabama v. Texas, 347 U.S. 272, 273, 74 S.Ct. 481, 481-82, 98 L.Ed. 689 (1954); United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19, 27, 67 S.Ct. 1658, 1662-63, 91 L.Ed. 1889 (1947); Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 92, 99, 20 L.Ed. 534 (1871); United States v. Gratiot, 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 526, 537, 10 L.Ed. 573 (1840). Moreover, the Supreme Court has noted that Congress “may deal with [its] lands precisely as an ordinary individual may deal with his farming property. It may sell or withhold them from sale.” Light v. United States, 220 U.S. 523, 536, 31 S.Ct. 485, 488, 55 L.Ed. 570 (1911) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Indeed, the establishment of a forest reserve by Congress is a “right[ ] incident to proprietorship, to say nothing of the power of the United States as a sovereign over the property belonging to it.” Id. at 537, 31 S.Ct. at 488.”
http://openjurist.org/107/f3d/1314/united-states-v-gardner
“The power over the public lands is vested in Congress by the Constitution without limitation, and has been considered the foundation on which the territorial governments rest.”
United States v. Gratiot - 39 U.S. 526 (1840)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/39/526/case.html
Please note that 1840 US Supreme court case. This is not some new legal doctrine pushed by Obama.
“All I know here is you always find a way to apologize for jack-boots. Always. “
Odd. I’ve often been accused of being a cop hater for opposing the murder of Eric Scott in Nevada or the murder of a former Marine in Tucson.
Following the facts wherever they lead you used to be a conservative value. It is a shame to see some reject that and resort to emotional hogwash and name-calling.
Why doesn’t PETA get involved?
Name calling? No, just said you usually side with jack-boots. Law n’ order every time...
Both of those projects will consume about 50 times the land area of a conventional power plant and even larger ratio of the footprint of a nuclear plant of ten or twenty times the 24x7 all-weather generating capacity.
Great use of wildlife habitat. </s>
I think this is the kind/sort of presentation that needs to be in wide spread public discourse because I believe the citizens of the USA are for a large part willing to accept logical and established situations. As to the Bundy’s situation it does seem tied into your presentation. However, I still have questions about the governments actions now. Many years ago we bought some small acreage on the slopes of the Sierra Nevada Range in California. There was some questions raised as to direct access to the property. My recall was that as long as we and/or other parties did not make an issue within so many years our rights for ingress could not be challenged or changed. Now apparently the Feds have a different standard to go by. a very self serving standard to be used at any time for any reason. Should the case be demonstrated that there are plans being made for purposes of housing development(s) especially in concert with a crooked politician like Harry Reid and his family members without regard to the dessert animal of question it is time for unfreezing the hell that has overtaken the USA by such as Reid and Obama with his enablers.
LOL my husband did. Our cow had her head in the grain bucket I was holding and he went around behind her spraying her to keep the flies off. She just shifted her hind legs a bit and he let out a yell and tried to push a 1500 pound cow off his foot. With her head the grain bucket she wasn't moving, couldn't help laughing as he tried to move that cows hind end. He swore at me and I took the bucket away from her so she could move....lucky the floor was not cement, dirt and straw or he would have had a broken foot....
“I sure don’t recall you opposing what happened in Tucson Hell, the cops said dope was involved. That is enough to justify their actions for you isn’t it?”
Then you have me confused with someone else. I opposed it very strongly, as I did the murder of Eric Scott. Over the course of nearly 20,000 posts, I’ve opposed big government and bad cops many times. But then, you REALLY seem to have no interest in facts.
But yes, I do believe in supporting the US Constitution. I believe in limited government, not no government. And for all its faults, I prefer the law to no laws. I reject the rule of the strong over the weak. George Washington would understand. I gather you do not.
Bundy has had his day in court. Twice. He rejects the idea that the US government can own land, and he rejects his citizenship as an American. I see nothing admirable in someone who gives up their citizenship in America.
I figure that if I stay at least 100 ft away, there is no way they can get me.
Sorry.
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.