Replies

Agree 100%. Does Bundy have 2 decades of cashed checks for grazing fees? No. He has court orders telling him he was wrong long before the Chinese thought of getting into the solar energy biz.

I thought conservatism was for rational, objective thought and respect for the rule of law.

To: Lou Budvis; Sir, the following rather long post is from an EXCELLENT and very relevant post by Scoutmaster on 4/11. I give him all the credit and hope I am not violating any rules in using it again in response to your thoughtful post. My only comment starts here. I have spent 43 years litigating. Not one month of those 43 years did I not have at least one litigation going on somewhere. Even today, I have two lingering cases in the court. All Civil. I have paid attorneys on both sides in the millions. So, I know at least a little more about civil law than most and I can tell you that most fundamentally it is all about "the last man standing" or "the man with the deepest pocket" more than anything else. CLEARLY Mr. Bundy's pocket is no match for the Federal Government whose judges are inherently conflicted and get their paycheck from the Feds and all covet higher appointment to appeals courts. So, for those to say in recent days that "well, he lost in the courts the last 20 years" is dismaying to me to say the least for the aforesaid reasons. In any event, please read Scoutmaster' post and see if it persuades you any. Personally, I believe that IF you give Bundy a good well paid law firm (or maybe several like the feds have probably used) the feds don't have a prayer! ********************************************************** To: BuckeyeTexan The support is a reasoned argument the Nevada legislature adopted. It reads: NRS 321.596 Legislative findings. The Legislature finds that: 1. The State of Nevada has a strong moral claim upon the public land retained by the Federal Government within Nevada’s borders because: (a) On October 31, 1864, the Territory of Nevada was admitted to statehood on the condition that it forever disclaim all right and title to unappropriated public land within its boundaries; (b) From 1850 to 1894, newly admitted states received 2 sections of each township for the benefit of common schools, which in Nevada amounted to 3.9 million acres; (c) In 1880 Nevada agreed to exchange its 3.9-million-acre school grant for 2 million acres of its own selection from public land in Nevada held by the Federal Government; (d) At the time the exchange was deemed necessary because of an immediate need for public school revenues and because the majority of the original federal land grant for common schools remained unsurveyed and unsold; (e) Unlike certain other states, such as New Mexico, Nevada received no land grants from the Federal Government when Nevada was a territory; (f) Nevada received no land grants for insane asylums, schools of mines, schools for the blind and deaf and dumb, normal schools, miners’ hospitals or a governor’s residence as did states such as New Mexico; and (g) Nevada thus received the least amount of land, 2,572,478 acres, and the smallest percentage of its total area, 3.9 percent, of the land grant states in the Far West admitted after 1864, while states of comparable location and soil, namely Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, received approximately 11 percent of their total area in federal land grants. 2. The State of Nevada has a legal claim to the public land retained by the Federal Government within Nevada’s borders because: (a) In the case of the State of Alabama, a renunciation of any claim to unappropriated lands similar to that contained in the ordinance adopted by the Nevada constitutional convention was held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be “void and inoperative” because it denied to Alabama “an equal footing with the original states” in Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845); (b) The State of Texas, when admitted to the Union in 1845, retained ownership of all unappropriated land within its borders, setting a further precedent which inured to the benefit of all states admitted later “on an equal footing”; and (c) The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, adopted into the Constitution of the United States by the reference of Article VI to prior engagements of the Confederation, first proclaimed the “equal footing” doctrine, and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, by which the territory including Nevada was acquired from Mexico and which is “the supreme law of the land” by virtue of Article VI, affirms it expressly as to the new states to be organized therein. 3. The exercise of broader control by the State of Nevada over the public lands within its borders would be of great public benefit because: (a) Federal holdings in the State of Nevada constitute 86.7 percent of the area of the State, and in Esmeralda, Lincoln, Mineral, Nye and White Pine counties the Federal Government controls from 97 to 99 percent of the land; (b) Federal jurisdiction over the public domain is shared among 17 federal agencies or departments which adds to problems of proper management of land and disrupts the normal relationship between a state, its residents and its property; (c) None of the federal lands in Nevada are taxable and Federal Government activities are extensive and create a tax burden for the private property owners of Nevada who must meet the needs of children of Federal Government employees, as well as provide other public services; (d) Under general land laws only 2.1 percent of federal lands in Nevada have moved from federal control to private ownership; (e) Federal administration of the retained public lands, which are vital to the livestock and mining industries of the State and essential to meet the recreational and other various uses of its citizens, has been of uneven quality and sometimes arbitrary and capricious; and (f) Federal administration of the retained public lands has not been consistent with the public interest of the people of Nevada because the Federal Government has used those lands for armament and nuclear testing thereby rendering many parts of the land unusable and unsuited for other uses and endangering the public health and welfare. 4. The intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States was to guarantee to each of the states sovereignty over all matters within its boundaries except for those powers specifically granted to the United States as agent of the states. 5. The attempted imposition upon the State of Nevada by the Congress of the United States of a requirement in the enabling act that Nevada “disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory,” as a condition precedent to acceptance of Nevada into the Union, was an act beyond the power of the Congress of the United States and is thus void. 6. The purported right of ownership and control of the public lands within the State of Nevada by the United States is without foundation and violates the clear intent of the Constitution of the United States. 7. The exercise of such dominion and control of the public lands within the State of Nevada by the United States works a severe, continuous and debilitating hardship upon the people of the State of Nevada. * * * * * Some of this is an equitable argument. Some of this was rejected by Gardner, and I need to Shepardize Gardner to see if the USSC passed on it on appeal. Some of this has never been raised before a court, to my knowledge. 367 posted on ‎4‎/‎11‎/‎2014‎ ‎11‎:‎42‎:‎51‎ ‎AM by Scoutmaster (Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

I thought conservatism was for rational, objective thought and respect for the rule of law.

I'm with you! If that law tells me to turn in all gun-owning or Christian neighbors, I better do it! After all, I believe in the rule of law! If that law tells me to give up all my possessions for a communist state, I better do it! After all, I believe in the rule of law! If that law tells me to renounce God and serve Baal, I better do it! After all, I believe in the rule of law!