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.
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.