These videos are for people who don't yet understand why Cliven Bundy broke his agreement with the BLM. They show why the BLM should not even be managing the public lands of Nevada or any other state.
1of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference
2of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference
3of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference
Here's one that shows why the Sheriff of Clark County is duty bound to keep the BLM and all Federal agents from arresting Cliven Bundy.
Steven Pratt, Bound by Oath to Support THIS Constitution,/a>
Today’s federal judges making these unconstitutional rulings are owned lock, stock and barrel by the progressive environmentalists (fascists) and their allies (Marxists) in this war against constitutional liberty.
Bttt.
Cliven Bundy says "I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing" and makes sovereign citizen arguments in court. It's hard to stand for the Constitution of a government you don't even recognize as existing.
As a lawyer, then you understand that the fed. gov’t is not bound to recognize any state law contrary to federal law. Further, US v. Gardner knocks down Bundy’s other arguments. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1061959.html
people are just as appauled over militarization and swat-teamed equipped NFS, BLM and Dept of Interior bullies. And the audacity of our government spending $4 million to collect $1 million ($966,000 of that to the contractor who provided paid rustlers to run cattle to death). Your views?
This is an incomplete, and therefore misleading, statement.
When read with the preceding sentence, you will see that "the state in which the Same shall be" is referring to the land granted for the District of Columbia. The forts, Magazines, etc., are necessary to protect the seat of the federal government, and would necessarily come from the same states that provided the land in the first place.
I don't think that this is a general power of the federal government to take any land anywhere that they find needful, if it is near other land that they already have.
-PJ
The enclaves clause and the takings clause come into play here too.
I now take/pay particular attention to what level(s) of government are involved in such disputes. As a person having quite a few years of public service these situations are most often decided by courts at the level of the question. In other words if there is a dispute at the state level the state judges will rule generally for the state which I believe involves paying the piper. This goes on all the way to the highest court. One only has to see the photo of CJ Roberts in front of the Bank of the Vatican on Malta with a briefcase to easily associate such a sighting with his recent voice in the SC’s ruling on Obamacare. Our founders warned that such perfidy would be a problem under the new Constitution. There have been such warned about events in the past but nothing to the extent and effect as under Obama with his ‘change’ ideas complimented by any number of people who want to be jackboot enablers/enfocers.
Since you’re a lawyer and I’m not, what is your opinion on this ruling and why:
http://openjurist.org/107/f3d/1314/united-states-v-gardner
“The claim by Gardners that it is the duty of the United States to hold public lands in trust for the formation of future states is founded on a case dealing with land acquired by the United States from the thirteen original states. In that case, Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212, 11 L.Ed. 565 (1845), the Supreme Court discussed the extent of the United States’ authority over lands ceded to it from Virginia and Georgia to discharge debt incurred by those states during the Revolutionary War. The Court stated that the United States held this land in trust for the establishment of future states. Id. 44 U.S. (3 How.) at 222. Once those new states were established, the United States’ authority over the land would cease. Id. at 221-23. This decision was based on the terms of the cessions of the land from Virginia and Georgia to the United States. Before becoming a state, however, Nevada had no independent claim to sovereignty, unlike the original thirteen states. Therefore, the same reasoning is not applicable to this case, in which the federal government was the initial owner of the land from which the state of Nevada was later carved.
17
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....”