Posted on 04/16/2014 10:09:55 AM PDT by Duke C.
[snip]“I asked why you didn’t put a lien against the cattle?” Devlin asked the BLM. “They hadn’t thought about that but they are considering it now”
(Excerpt) Read more at benswann.com ...
Bundys defense is that the federal government has no authority to hold those lands.
They dont, but they tried to get around the 17th clause of art 1 sec 8 by claiming to “manage” those lands under a “trust” for the people. The question in my mind is..is it managed as a trust for the people of the state of Nevada who have rightful claim to that land? Or do they consider it “their” land?
If they manage it as a trust, for whatever purposes, then I suspect eminent domain comes into play, as Bundy can claim that they violated that trust and were no longer fit to manage since they gave preference to another entity.
All he has to do is prove that they mismanaged that land and gave that special preference to an outside group..no matter for what means.
The state of Nevada had better get and change their constitution and claim that land. If they do, then all this ends. ALL STATES should do that.
Bundy needs to get a constitutional lawyer, and a contract lawyer and shut up. I know for a fact I would donate to a legal fund for him to do that IF he hires such.
I think the problem is how it is administered (specifically, how environmental law is administered), not who owns it. We’ve seen loggers driven out of business over environmental issues, same with ranchers. Even farmers in central California are being driven to reduce acreage due to environmental law.
Better accommodation of human and business interests is certainly possible and should be established as a high priority by Congress.
In the meantime, the President should recognize the inhumanity of current environmental law by signing an executive order exempting Bundy from further persecution pending review of the law by Congress. He has set aside ACA law due to its inadequacies. Why not this one?
They can try to lien the cattle, but it is a little late now. Since they have caused damage to such.
See the Sagebrush Rebellion. Hage et al, against the BLM and USFS.
Per Article 1 Section 8 one of the enumerated powers of Congress is to have exclusive jurisdiction over Washington DC and any lands the US Government owns.
As such, no State law has authority on federal lands without the federal government or its agents formally recognizing that law as policy. For example, the reason you have to obey state driving laws is the BLM has a policy that says the state traffic/driving laws have to be obeyed.
The Taylor Grazing Act was passed in 1934 which started the charging of fees for grazing access. Bundy and his family have previously paid those fees until 1993 when his lease came up for renewal.
No taxes have been paid on the lands in question as the state of Nevada ceded not only the lands to the US Government but the right to tax those lands as well. It is included in the State of Nevada constitution under the section “ordinance”
In this case, the government owns the land per the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago 1844 which was signed at the end of the US Mexico war.
Actually, ownership of the land passed to the US government via Article II section 2 - the treaties clause. In the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1844 the US Government took possession of the lands in question.
Secondly, Article I section 8 allows for the Government to own lands for the building of ... forts arsenals, magazines dock-yards and other needful buildings. The 600,000 acres in question are part of the lands of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area and includes docks, repair facilities, marinas, a coast guard auxiliary, Hoover dam, and several other buildings.
Thus the ownership of these lands has been tested in court by Bundy’s defense and found that they are invalid and that US government ownership of these lands is constitutional.
You haven't answered that. I don't think you know. I think you are reacting emotionally out of sympathy with the Bundy's.
Bubba Ho-Tep says that land was available for homesteading and nobody wanted it. If true, then why didn't Bundy's claim the land when they could have?
You haven't answered that. I don't think you know. I think you are reacting emotionally out of sympathy with the Bundy's.
Bubba Ho-Tep says that land was available for homesteading and nobody wanted it. If true, then why didn't Bundy's claim the land when they could have?
I don't claim to be an expert but 20 years ago, before there was an internet, I read a book titled "The Great Plains", written by Walter Prescott Webb, a historian, professor, and writer, which was about settling the west. It was published in 1932 but is still considered to be the bible on that subject, and is still in publication because it is used by numerous western colleges as a textbook, required reading.
The book explains why these western lands were not fully disbursed.
The policies, as set by Congress worked very well back to the east, in the wet zone. 360 acres or 180 acres were available for cheap or often for homestead. And a settler could make a good living off of that.
Congress wanted to keep the same policies in the west, even though they were advised that no one could make a living off that in the west.
Some say it was for egalitarian reasons, Congress did not want to be giving large areas of land to benefit a few. Some say that Congress(controlled by the east) didn't want powerful land owners in the west, especially after the railroad grants. Texas disbursed her land differently and many large ranches were established, but the only one that still exists is the King ranch because it was passed down using primogeniture.
Grazing commons led to conflicts so grazing leases were used, and since they have become semi-perpetual, the problem is even worse. After dams, lakes, and irrigation systems were built by the feds, a settler could make a good living off of the smaller acres with the irrigation water, where the water was available.
As some have pointed out, these western land were still available into the 1970s. But, Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 ended homesteading. That act and numerous others define policy today.
Webb's book was great, explaining grazing lands and timber lands, the significance of the invention of the Colt revolver, windmills, and barb wire to fence out the range. His explanations of riparian and prior appropriation water rights were invaluable. But that was 1932 so it didn't say anything about Reserved water rights, which didn't come til later.
If you want to blame someone blame Congress. And of course, Congress today is screwing things up like they did back then
You are one smart cookie. If people like you ran our government we would not be in the mess we are in.
Yep, they've pretty much made an art form out of it.
Thanks for the tip on the book, BTW. I love reading the older ones. They always seem more factual than fictional, donchaknow. :-)
Goodness. I honestly couldn’t think of much higher praise. Thank you!
Obama is taking lessons from Putin's actions in Ukraine............
The feds, though, are being accused of taking the court orders way too far.
On a Friday night conference call, BLM officials told reporters that “illegal structures” on Bundy’s ranch — water tanks, water lines and corrals — had to be removed to “restore” the land to its natural state and prevent the rancher from restarting his illegal cattle operation.
However, the court order used to justify the operation appears only to give the agency the authority to “seize and impound” Bundy’s cattle.
“Nowhere in the court order that I saw does it say that they can destroy infrastructure, destroy corrals, tanks ... desert environment, shoot cattle,” Houston said.
They also claim he now owes them $640 Million.
At the least he owned his own property, which I understand from the various articles to be 600 acres. Beyond that, he had, at least until 1993, grazing rights for a large surrounding area of land. Part of the issue is whether those rights, which can be inherited and sold separate from the land itself, can be unilaterally taken back or altered - such as the BLM altering the terms to what amounted to one cow/calf pair per 1.3 square miles of range.
I believe a legal action tolls the time for AP. May actually reset the clock.
*So what if it wasn’t the Federal government that owned the land, but rather Citizen B, let’s say Rush Limbaugh owned the land.*
I believe Rush would lose his land to Bundy.
http://ngdlaw.com/articles/adverse-possession.htm
In Arizona, a person is entitled to legal ownership of property if his occupation of the property is hostile, actual, open and notorious, exclusive and continuous for a period of 10 years.
there is also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Revision_Act_of_1891
which amened this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemption_Act_of_1841
And the land encompassed in that treaty is probably subsequently ensconced into some type of trust structure. I’m sure there is more of a Title document to the whole and or subparts of the acreage acquired then than just the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
I suppose it is possible that it is in a trust though I have to admit that this is the first time I have heard of the possibility. Any recommendations for further reading on national land trusts?
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.