This is all well and good, but does not pertain to the land in question in Bundy’s case.
The lands that were in use by private interests were protected by the treaty that ceded them to the U.S. and there was no provision in the treaty for reverting them to the government.
Even if Bundy’s claim were somehow defective (which I do not believe is true) the Fed Gov still would have no claim to it.
The tenth amendment limits the Treaty Clause. The government cannot enforce a treaty against a state or the citizens that is in violation of the bill of rights. Further the treaty was with Mexico. While it gave the land to the Feds, it did not give the Feds the right to continue to maintain ownership after Nevada was granted statehood. Any document that purports to do that is void as being in violation of both the property clause and the Bill of Rights.
Is Nevada still a territory of the United States, or is it a sovereign State on equal footing with states like Texas that are only 1% or less owned by the Feds?
It does pertain in that Nevada has been a state for 150 years plus or minus a bit. In that time, one would think the Fed would have found a way to divest themselves of this property.
I’m thinking that the truth is that the FED did identify it for a particular purpose....as “open range”. At that point in time that act identified that land’s intended purpose, and it should then have come under Nevada’s control.