Photo: WND Facebook
Posted on 04/16/2014 11:38:15 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Many say Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could easily arrange for his home state to get back most of the 84 percent of Nevada territory owned and controlled by the federal government. So does the Democrat represent the interests of Nevada, or does he put the interests of the U.S. government and the Democratic Party over his own state’s needs?
Nevada would get what it deserves if Reid drafted a measure to treat Nevada the same way as other states. The Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives would eagerly vote to treat Nevada like a grown-up. Instead, Reid runs the U.S. Senate with an iron fist, to the detriment of his own voters.
Renegade rancher Cliven Bundy raised a question during the hair-raising show-down between the Bureau of Land Management and the militia supporting the cattle rancher. Bundy says he was paying grazing fees to Clark County, but that the county stopped accepting his payments. Bundy insists that Nevada, not the U.S. government, owns the land where his cattle graze.
According to the ranchers’ argument, the federal government “owned” or controlled every territory before it became a state, but once statehood was reached, the land became the property of the new state.
So how is it that the U.S. government owns 84 percent of Nevada? It certainly looks like Nevada citizens are being treated unfairly. It is almost as if Washington, D.C., is treating Nevada like a child that can’t manage itself.
Photo: WND Facebook
Many Western states were treated unequally when they joined the Union. Unlike Eastern states, Congress reserved vast amounts of federally-owned land in the “Enabling Acts” for statehood in the West. Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution requires an act of Congress to create a state. Keeping the majority of land in federal control seems in conflict with the very concept of statehood. The second paragraph of Section 4 appears to authorize this bizarre practice. But on closer inspection, that is far from clear.
The Nevada Constitution includes an “Ordinance” section that adopts the requirements of the congressional Enabling Act. A second rewrite of the state constitution was approved by voters on Sept. 7, 1864. Nevada became the 36th state on Oct. 31, 1864. Nevada agreed to let the federal government own “unappropriated land” within the state, “unless otherwise provided by the Congress of the United States.”
Las Vegas Review Journal reported in December:
Some Nevadans, particularly from the rural areas of the state, have been pushing the idea of a state takeover of federal lands for years.
Supporters were successful in the 2013 session of the Nevada Legislature in getting a measure passed to allow for a study of the concept.
The group created by Assembly Bill 227, the Nevada Land Management Task Force, has been charged with evaluating whether the state should consider taking over control of some of the public lands now managed by federal agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management, which controls 76 percent of the land in the state.
The task force will submit its findings to the Legislative Committee on Public Lands by Sept. 1.
All these years later, Congress could easily right this discriminatory wrong. As the leader of the U.S. Senate, Reid could propose a change reverting the property to Nevada’s control, and Republicans in the House would enthusiastically agree.
Nevada voters should tell the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House to end the discrimination against Nevada and release the “unappropriated territory” to the management and ownership of their own state government.
Give it back to Mexico?
That’s who they bought it from.
When does the government do anything well?
Harry may be totally corrupt but he isn't crazy...
I have a feeling the land IS sold....to the CHINESE...
“It’s called the Homestead Act.”
You are on to it. The Homestead Act authorized the purchase of 160 acres. Well, in the desert west 160 acres doesn’t support many cattle, maybe 20 or so? Maybe not even that many. Anyway, being that the original settlers were only authorized 160 acres each they would use this acreage to secure water sources. And, being that at that time, there was open and free range for the use of grazing across vast stretches of the west, the issue of ownership wasn’t a big issue. Then, along came the BLM and then later the Eviro-Nazis who saw an opportunity to lock down all this land as they saw fit. And, they did. It’s sort of like the parable of cooking a frog; just put a frog in a pot of water and gradually and slowly increase the heat, that ole frog will just sit there in the pot and allow itself to be cooked.....
Well, no one in DC is denying the connection.
“So does the Democrat represent the interests of Nevada, or does he put the interests of the U.S. government and the Democratic Party over his own state’s needs?”
Easy question to answer:
1. Dingy Harry puts Dingy Harry first!
2. Then Dingy Harry’s family!
3. Then his political cronies and buddies!
4. Then the Democratic Party!
4. Then the US government!
Dingy Harry does not give a shit about Nevada or the USA!
His Senate seat is used solely for the purpose of enriching himself, his family, his cronies, his party and empowering the US government over We the People.
Nobody and nothing else counts!
Sum ting wong?
Article 1 Section 8 Sub 17 of the United States Constitution:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
_________________________
The words by the CONSENT of the legislature of the State is very clear in the above.
Next question, was 84% of Nevada annexed by the USA with the consent of the State legislature of Nevada when Nevada entered statehood?
Perhaps this article will provide some clarity: http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/bundy-ranch-crisis-causes-us-ask-actually-owns-americas-land/
for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings
Doesn't really mention needing 84% of one of the larger states in the Union, now does it?
Unless they were planning for the Groom Lake AFB back in 1864.
RE: and other needful Buildings
Does Solar panel arrays run by private companies (with ties to Harry Reid) constitute needful buildings?
And since Virginia, Connecticut, North Carolina and Georgia all ceded vast lands, basically from the Appalachians to the Mississippi to the federal government in the late 18th Century, it's hard to make a case that the founders never intended to them to control more than some forts, lighthouses and the District of Columbia.
Next question, was 84% of Nevada annexed by the USA with the consent of the State legislature of Nevada when Nevada entered statehood?
No, for the simple reason that the land was US government property before statehood. You can't annex something you already own. Property ownership of federal land no more changed under statehood than did private land. Nevada recognized that ownership when it was granted statehood.
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.