Posted on 04/14/2014 12:27:02 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
BUNKERVILLE — Cliven Bundy’s fight with the Bureau of Land Management over the federal agency’s roundup of his cattle attracted a diverse group of foot soldiers: fellow ranchers, Las Vegans and militia and patriot groups were among them.
Their battle cry is the U.S. Constitution and liberty. They fear the federal government overstepping its bounds at every turn. This concern, in their view, applies to those from all walks of life, be it a rural Southern Nevada rancher or a militia member from northern Montana.
Ultimately, the Bundy protest — which was defused Saturday when federal land officials agreed to end the weeklong roundup that culminated in a 20-minute standoff between armed protesters and law enforcement officers — became an outlet for those wanting to voice their opinions about government overreach and any perceived infringement of constitutional rights.
Armed militia members wore holstered weapons and mingled with cowboy-hatted ranchers throughout the week. Tents popped up across the landscape and vehicles became temporary bunks as the Bundy ranch, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, turned into a gathering place for traveling pilgrims from across the nation.
“We’re all in this together,” said Rick Lovelien, 50, a militia member from Libby, Mont., with the Montana State Defense Force.
The armed standoff ended, Lovelien said, the way it should have — with the cattle returning to the land.
(Excerpt) Read more at reviewjournal.com ...
I suggest people do some research on Nevada and when and how it became a state, how the US govt got most of the land and how the people of Nevada have been trying to get it back for years. Also see Sagebrush Rebellion. crux of the matter is to become a state Nevada gave up all unused land to the feds and the feds have not given it back as fast as they should (IMO) and BLM has been used by those with money to get it to their cronies who pay off politicians, also hiding behind endangered species..its been abused and subject to corruption and cronyism and the non-powerful people of Nevada are tired of it. As for courts, who do you think federal courts will side with? get a rope.
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.
(Added to NRS by 1979, 1362)
http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2010/title26/chapter321
And it’s made a WHOLE lot of people in Washington very, very nervous.
The Feds treat NV like it’s a Federal district.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Like District 12 in Hunger Games.
I'm wondering if you're perhaps quite young. For people my age, the country we live in today and the country as it was 50 years ago when I just started college are not the same place.
Yep!
Apparently, the Feds didn’t read Machiavelli.
Not a peep on any local news braodcasts about this, scumsuckers!
Indeed.
Art 1 Sec 8 specifically lists those uses to what the FedGov may put it’s “property”. DC, tem miles square, .mil bases, navy docks, office buildings, post roads, and post offices.
86% of a State? To be made off limits to any public use for no real reason whatsoever?
Anathema.
Nobody at my job has heard of this. They were shocked, animated by the photos I showed them, and wanted to know *where did you find out about this!’
So we must deduce zero LSM coverage.
It was necessary to expose this underhanded treatment of ranchers to the rest of the country.
While he may not have a legal leg to stand on, he has a moral justification to right the wrongs committed against other ranchers for years and years.
Had he not done this, I, for one, and many others would have remained in blissful ignorance.
Sometimes it just takes one person making a stand to open people’s eyes to right a wrong. Legal or not.
It’s ironic that the federal government gave away thousands of acres of productive farmland to homesteaders but requires ranchers like Bundy to pay for grazing rights on desert land that requires over 300 acres to support one cow.
I don’t know, but I’ve been receiving unsolicited email direct from their editor almost daily containing news reports. Maybe they want me to post them?
Jarhead9297
Since Feb 6, 2014
The unorganized militia of the United States (the people) did. The BLM left.
But for some (et tu?), Bundy is just a deadbeat cowboy would should pay his feudal duty to King Baraq just because some kangaroo court rubber-stamped the order. Of course. The courts are the "su-preme ar-biter" of all Constitutional questions, right?
Jefferson thought otherwise.
Ralston? What a clown.
Actually, you are correct: I read this theme many times today in the comments on the Politico story on Bundy.
Good point
Also when the JBT's from BLM showed up looking like an invading army ready for warfare, and started pointing guns, threatening to shoot, sicking dogs on people, tazing people repeatedly, throwing pregnant women on the ground, exc.. their was EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THEY INTENDED TO KILL ALL OF THEM , and take the land.
The BLM is the same as the DMV IMO. They have NO RIGHT TO USE THAT KIND OF FORCE AGAINST AMERICAN CITIZENS!
I shudder to think of what would have happened if their weren't people backing the Bundy's up.
The news media, all of them, are ticking me off because they are trying to distort the issue, by only showing the last part of the confrontation.
They need to always show the first video of the JBT's terrorizing and threatening the Bundy's and their supporters, when discussing how it got to the point it did.
The Harry Reid connection needs to be thoroughly investigated too. I have a hard time believing his hands are clean on this. It's classic democrat party thuggery on parade.
Yeah, except they were coal miners. Which District were the cattle ranchers?
“their” = “there” for the grammar police.
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.