Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $21,294
25%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 25% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Mr Rogers

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Breaking Scandal: BLM Rounding Up Wild Horses, Sending To Slaugherhouse…In Canada

    04/18/2014 4:41:31 PM PDT · 33 of 36
    Mr Rogers to LaRueLaDue

    I have no objection to horses as food. I probably won’t eat my horses when they die, but neither do I see anything immoral about eating a horse.

    Horses who are slaughter can be checked for diseases, just as cattle are.

    There isn’t a horse breeding problem. The problem is that horses live 30 years, and the market goes up and down several times in 30 years. My mare was a well-bred Arabian. In 2001, there was an excellent market. She comes from good CMK lines. But by 2012, I could not have sold her for over $1000. Of course, 5 years from now the market might be back...it probably would already have come back, if we didn’t have an Obama market and Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader.

    Heck, a few years ago, beef cattle were being slaughtered due to drought. Now the market for cattle is great.

    In any case, the feral mustangs are not being bred for ANY market. There are few natural predators, they are very fertile, and they will reproduce and destroy the range. Once you destroy a desert range, it takes a long time to come back. Therefor, I support either killing them here, or capturing them and sending them off for food. If I can eat a deer, I can eat a horse.

    They are not pets.

  • Breaking Scandal: BLM Rounding Up Wild Horses, Sending To Slaugherhouse…In Canada

    04/18/2014 2:43:54 PM PDT · 25 of 36
    Mr Rogers to Jim Robinson

    I’d like for the states to take possession of all BLM/USFS/USPS land, but I can’t imagine either of my REPUBLICAN senators - John McCain and Jeff McFlake - supporting such a move. Goodness knows, they don’t give a rat’s rear for ANY of my opinions...

    However, when wild horses and cattle are competing for the same forage, I come down on the side of the cattle.

    I like my little BLM mustang, but he has gone thru at least 6 owners before me. His previous owner reached the point of either shipping him off to auction (probably for slaughter in Mexico, which is an obscene option) or giving him away. After several months of offering him for free to anyone, I took him.

    He’s a very sensible little fellow on the trail. A horse who has lived wild knows that running in panic gets you killed, so he watches his footing. He stays within sight of the other two horses and takes care of himself (and thus his rider). If I was in the market for another horse, I’d consider a mustang in a heartbeat, but 3 horses combined with the price of hay in southern Arizona has me maxed out. That is the problem - feral horses breed a lot more than the land can support, so either someone removes them or they destroy the land and then starve. The ‘humane’ folks generally won’t back their good feelings up with money, hay, etc. With hay here running $17/100 lb bale, there aren’t many takers for horses.

  • Breaking Scandal: BLM Rounding Up Wild Horses, Sending To Slaugherhouse…In Canada

    04/18/2014 1:47:27 PM PDT · 10 of 36
    Mr Rogers to Jim Robinson
    I own three horses, including a BLM mustang pony. However, I would much rather see feral horses shot or shipped to Canada for slaughter - since we don't seem to be able to open a slaughterhouse for horses in the USA - than see them competing with cattle and sheep for grazing. At a guess, I'd say about 75% of the horse people I know also support slaughtering horses for food.

    My little BLM guy, who is likely to live out his days being ridden 5-6 times a year whether he needs it or not. The white mark on his neck is the freeze brand. He gets scared riding in an arena, but is quite happy to go out on a trail with the big horses:

  • Lawyer who defended Calif. gay marriage ban plans daughter’s gay wedding

    04/18/2014 10:12:37 AM PDT · 19 of 24
    Mr Rogers to GIdget2004

    I remember when my oldest daughter told me I had to accept her right to have premarital sex. I told her I did not.

    “Then you’ll never see your grandkids”, she replied.

    “Then I won’t see them until they are adults”, I replied, “because I won’t be blackmailed!”

    Some years later, we get along fine and she agrees marriage ought to come before pregnancy, and she tells her kids the same thing. Her ability to sin doesn’t mean I have to approve of it any more than she needs to approve of any of my sins.

    If you care about someone’s happiness, you rebuke sin. Can you imagine her Dad saying, “My daughter Ashley’s path in life has led her to happiness with a lovely young goat named Jack...”?

  • P&G bets on new, expensive razor to attract consumers - WSJ

    04/18/2014 9:22:39 AM PDT · 40 of 71
    Mr Rogers to Red in Blue PA

    I read that Gillette’s patent on their older double blades ran out in the USA. Personally, I get just as good a shave with 2 blades as with 20, so I bought these from Amazon:

    http://www.amazon.com/Heavyweight-Chrome-Compatible-Personna-Blades/dp/B004SDOBTQ/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1397837740&sr=8-3&keywords=gillette+atra+razor

    http://www.amazon.com/Personna-Pivot-Blades-Replaces-Razors/dp/B008N3GTDS/ref=pd_sim_hpc_6?ie=UTF8&refRID=1KRK9BEC8916MH4W6R4Q

    Actually, I bought the 100 blade package a few months back at $11...so 11 cents/shaving head, including shipping.

    Another very good alternative is something like this:

    http://www.amazon.com/Merkur-Classic-Safety-Razor-Straight/dp/B002A8JO48/ref=sr_1_69?s=hpc&ie=UTF8&qid=1397838001&sr=1-69&keywords=single+blade+razor

    http://www.amazon.com/Astra-Superior-Premium-Platinum-Double/dp/B001QY8QXM/ref=sr_1_7?s=hpc&ie=UTF8&qid=1397838050&sr=1-7&keywords=single+blade+razor

    I find the single blades harder to get a good shave in spots like the chin and jaw, but they give a very good shave everywhere else. Again - at 11 cents a blade, it is obscene to pay $3+ for a single cartridge with a zillion blades!

  • Miley Cyrus faces long recovery from 'extreme allergic reaction'

    04/18/2014 8:57:20 AM PDT · 11 of 57
    Mr Rogers to Usagi_yo

    Saw this in one of the comments: “ Hope her drug rehab works and she then joins a convent and is never heard from again.”

  • 'Hobbit 3' Changing Name Before Release Date?

    04/17/2014 8:42:47 PM PDT · 21 of 23
    Mr Rogers to Sicon

    I suggest: “The Hobbit: Laughing All the Way to the Bank”.

  • 'Hobbit 3' Changing Name Before Release Date?

    04/17/2014 8:41:30 PM PDT · 20 of 23
    Mr Rogers to Mr. Jeeves

    My daughter gave me the second installment on DVD as a birthday present. Halfway thru, I kept looking at my watch and wondering why they didn’t have time for the good parts of the book, but had time...and time, and time, and time...for nonsense fillers that had nothing to do with the plot. By the end, I concluded Jackson was just pissing on the audience and waiting to see if they caught on.

    The guy just does not have a clue about plotting or story. And long before the end, I was utterly sick of the Matrix Elves. If one elf can kill 150 orcs without getting a scratch, then they had no excuse for not ridding Middle Earth of orcs forever.

    Its a shame, but the TV movie “The Hobbit” from years ago was much closer to the spirit of the book.

  • Cop beats up model Air Force captain in his own home, issues arrest weeks later

    04/17/2014 9:40:31 AM PDT · 62 of 85
    Mr Rogers to andyk

    A couple of former cops said I needed to remember that the cop has control, because the cop gets to write up the report and the courts will believe him. I think that is why they get so upset if someone starts recording them...their ability to ‘convict’ you of anything they want goes away. It is a shame. When I was young, I trusted cops. Now I see shaved headed fat guys covered in paramilitary gear, and I wonder what Sheriff Andy Taylor would think.

    When I see a cop with a shaved head, I think, “Golly, I didn’t need to shave my head even when in the field as a liaison officer working with the Army. So if I didn’t need it to keep clean or wear a helmet 24/7, then why does Mr Wannabee shave his noggin?”

  • Teen caught urinating in reservoir (Portland Ore)

    04/17/2014 7:21:55 AM PDT · 82 of 86
    Mr Rogers to CharlesWayneCT

    According to the articles I read, they know wild animals poop & pee in it. The difference this time is that someone did it INTENTIONALLY. As everyone knows, intentional urine is much nastier than unintentional urine.

    Of course, the wild animals are intentionally peeing, so perhaps “wild urine”, or “free range urine”, is better than nasty “domesticated urine”, with “human urine” at the top of the scale in nastiness.

  • Does Cliven Bundy Have Something Called “Prescriptive Rights”

    04/16/2014 3:09:52 PM PDT · 69 of 73
    Mr Rogers to Duke C.

    From the article:

    “In most states, if a trespass or use of land occurs regularly for at least 5 years without the “owner” of the land taking legal action, prescriptive rights come into play. Because Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees to the BLM in 1993 but continued to use the land for over 20 years, it is possible he now has prescriptive rights to the land.”

    Since the BLM has been fighting him in court since the mid-90s, his refusal to obey a court order in 1998 does not give him the right to own the land. There is a reason the court ruled against him in 2013.

  • Does Cliven Bundy Have Something Called “Prescriptive Rights”

    04/16/2014 3:06:46 PM PDT · 68 of 73
    Mr Rogers to lepton

    “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.”

    It is normal for grazing rights on federal land to stipulate that the feds can change the numbers at any time, and that any improvements the rancher makes become property of the US government. They cannot be arbitrary in changing the numbers, but that is a low standard for the BLM to meet. Under federal law, if the land has an “endangered species” on it, then that becomes a big factor in managing the land - IAW the rules the US Congress has set up.

    I would love to see the Endangered Species act revoked, but I’m not going to hold my breath while waiting...

  • Why Cliven Bundy Stands for the Constitution

    04/15/2014 7:22:21 PM PDT · 30 of 35
    Mr Rogers to Buchal

    I would argue, along with what seems to be every court in the last 200 years, that it is NOT improper for the federal government to buy land, own it and use it. The land owned by the US never automatically transferred to the states upon statehood, and a number of states were created with the agreement that they would NOT EVER lay claim to the US land.

    I fail to see how a state that agreed to the conditions of a contract can then completely reverse the terms of that contract unilaterally.

    “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

    As far back as 1819 the courts were saying, “If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may constitutionally be employed to carry it into effect.”

    It seems to me that “make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States” is pretty clear, and establishing a regulatory body to oversee land owned by the US is well within the scope of the US Constitution.

    It further is obvious that much of the land in Nevada and Utah was NOT WANTED for a hundred years, and even now sustains such limited grazing as to be commercially nonviable. The US tried to give the land away, and no one wanted it. Nor did open grazing work well. It was destroying what limited value the land had for anyone, so the idea was abandoned.

    For Bundy to decide in 1993 that the US government has no authority in Nevada to make laws or to regulate anything makes Bundy a nut. We are not a confederacy of sovereign states with a government as limited as it was under the Articles of Confederation. Those articles were replaced by the Constitution.

  • Why Cliven Bundy Stands for the Constitution

    04/15/2014 5:18:37 PM PDT · 28 of 35
    Mr Rogers to Buchal

    “Once one conceives of the United States as a full sovereign, with numerous powers inherent to sovereignty (how we wound up with printing press money, by they way), then one takes a different view.”

    That kind of sounds like the US Constitution, as opposed to the confederacy that existed before the Constitution.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

  • Why Cliven Bundy Stands for the Constitution

    04/15/2014 3:50:05 PM PDT · 24 of 35
    Mr Rogers to Buchal

    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....”

  • The Tuesday List (Top 10 Greatest Handgun Cartridges of All Time)

    04/15/2014 9:08:07 AM PDT · 35 of 59
    Mr Rogers to Vaquero

    “xcept Ruger is coming out with the GP 100 in this caliber...it will be a 5 shot revolver and I cant wait to try one...”

    I hadn’t heard that, but it is great news. I’d hate to fire full power 44 mags thru it, but a 240 grain bullet going at 1000 fps shouldn’t be too bad.

  • Cliven Bundy is not a righteous man, but there's more to the BLM story

    04/15/2014 9:04:13 AM PDT · 50 of 69
    Mr Rogers to lifeofgrace

    “What we must consider, as policy, is how the Federal government manages its considerable land holdings. Remember, Constitutional authority to own, dispose and regulate land is vested in the Congress, not the Executive Branch. Our Congress, throughout the years, has ceded regulatory authority to an ever-growing bureaucracy of departments, agencies, bureaus, and offices, each with its own (and some overlapping) fiefdom.”

    I think it is time for Nevada, Utah, Idaho & Arizona to band together and sue the BLM for refusing to obey public law requiring “multiple use” instead of “no humans allowed”.

  • Cliven Bundy is not a righteous man, but there's more to the BLM story

    04/15/2014 8:59:42 AM PDT · 49 of 69
    Mr Rogers to Texas Fossil

    “That the Fed Gov is prohibited from owning land which belongs to the state at the time of admission.”

    That is simply inaccurate. Courts going back at least as far as the 1840s have rejected your interpretation of the Constitution. With nearly 200 years of settled case law all ruling the same way, you’ve got a tough sale ahead of you...

  • Nevada Showdown: All Hat, No Cattle (Hurl Alert applicable?)

    04/15/2014 8:56:12 AM PDT · 39 of 114
    Mr Rogers to wideawake

    A fellow named Hage has fought things in court for as long as Bundy. The court ruled:

    “In the present case, the Government’s actions over the past two decades shocks the conscience of the Court, and the burden on the Government of taking a few minutes to realize that the reference to the UCC on the Estate’s application was nonsensical and would not affect the terms of the permit was minuscule compared to the private interest affected. The risk of erroneous deprivation is great in such a case, because unless the Government analyzes such a note in the margin, it cannot know if the note would affect the terms of the permit such that the acceptance is in fact a counteroffer.

    The Government revoked E. Wayne Hage’s grazing permit, despite his signature on a renewal application form, because he had added a reference to the UCC to his signature indicating that he was not waiving any rights thereby. Based upon E. Wayne Hage’s declaration that he refused to waive his rights—a declaration that did not purport to change the substance of the grazing permit renewal for which he was applying, and which had no plausible legal effect other than to superfluously assert non-waiver of rights—the Government denied him a renewal grazing permit based upon its frankly nonsensical position that such an assertion of rights meant that the application had not been properly completed....

    ...The Government has sufficiently proved an ongoing trespass to warrant a permanent injunction, although not so broad an injunction as the Government desires. Defendants are also entitled to an injunction, as outlined, infra. There is a great probability that the Government will continue to cite Defendants and potentially impound Defendants’ cattle in the future in derogation of their water rights and those statutory privileges of which the Government has arbitrarily and vindictively stripped them. There is also a probability that Defendants will continue to permit their cattle to graze in excess of the incidental grazing permitted during stock watering that cannot reasonably be prevented. The Court will therefore enjoin all parties in certain respects and will require Hage to apply for a permit and the Government to grant it...

    ...THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the denial of E. Wayne [*192] Hage’s renewal grazing application for the years 1993—2003 was an abuse of discretion, as well as a violation of due process, as the only reason given for the denial was that the applicant noted near his signature that he did not thereby relinquish certain unidentified rights under the UCC, a superfluous condition that cannot possibly have affected the terms of the permit. It is this violation that has led to all of the allegedly un-permitted grazing to date and the BLM’s refusal to offer any permit to Hage himself.

    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Government is enjoined from unreasonably interfering with the ability of Defendants Wayne N. Hage and the Estate of E. Wayne Hage to bring cattle to those water sources and attendant ditches in which these Defendants have vested rights to water their cattle as identified herein. The Government may impose reasonable regulations upon access to these water sources, such as specifying which routes shall be used for ingress and egress, if it is necessary to impose such restrictions for legitimate purposes. Reasonable regulations are those that neither prohibit access to the water nor restrict access to the water in a way that unreasonably burdens the ability to access and use the water.”


    A more productive course of action might be for the state of Nevada to sue the BLM, arguing the BLM is violating public law by trying to eliminate grazing on public land in violation of federal law.

  • Beck Warns Americans Against Falling in With ‘Right’s Version of Occupy Wall Street’ (Bundy)

    04/15/2014 8:39:41 AM PDT · 103 of 201
    Mr Rogers to Lou Budvis

    “Just when did he come to this brilliant legal conclusion that the land really belonged to Nevada?”

    Probably around 1990-1993. There were folks going around telling folks that. One of them, Hage - a guy with more smarts than Bundy IMHO - lost his legal arguments in court last year (his estate, since he died), but the court also said the behavior of the BLM “shocks the conscience of the court”. It pointed out that the BLM went looking for a fight and created a problem where there did not need to be one. Another, Gardner, appealed to the 9th Circuit covering Nevada, and lost his appeal. For all its faults, the 9th Circuit actually wrote a decent opinion which can be read here:

    http://openjurist.org/107/f3d/1314/united-states-v-gardner

  • Nevada Rancher: “I did not graze my cattle on United States property”

    04/14/2014 8:44:37 PM PDT · 59 of 61
    Mr Rogers to centurion316

    As passed, there was nothing wrong with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. It mandated multiple use of public lands, similar to what I worked on in 79-80 supporting things like timber sales and recreational campgrounds.

    Unfortunately, government has increasingly twisted it beyond recognition, finding excuses to turn “multiple use” into “preservation”, and even “no humans allowed”. And Congress, including the Republican House, is failing to ride herd on these out of control agencies.

  • Nevada Rancher: “I did not graze my cattle on United States property”

    04/14/2014 7:14:14 PM PDT · 54 of 61
    Mr Rogers to centurion316

    Ed Presley is wrong, as is Bundy, and as was Gardner:

    ““II. The Equal Footing Doctrine

    19 Gardners argue that, under the Equal Footing Doctrine, a new state must possess the same powers of sovereignty and jurisdiction as did the original thirteen states upon admission to the Union. Because the federal government owns over eighty percent of the land in the state of Nevada, Gardners argue, Nevada is not on an equal footing with the original thirteen states.3 Gardners claim that Nevada must have “paramount title and eminent domain of all lands within its boundaries” to satisfy the Equal Footing Doctrine.

    20 The meaning of the Equal Footing Doctrine is discussed in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212, 11 L.Ed. 565 (1845). In that case, the Supreme Court held that the shores of and land beneath navigable waters were reserved to the states, and were not granted by the Constitution to the federal government. Id. 44 U.S. (3 How.) at 229. New states, the Court reasoned, have the same “rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction” over the shores of and land beneath navigable waters as do the original states. Id.4

    21 However, the Supreme Court has declined to extend the Equal Footing Doctrine to lands other than those underneath navigable waters or waters affected by the ebb and flow of the tides. In Scott v. Lattig, 227 U.S. 229, 244, 33 S.Ct. 242, 244, 57 L.Ed. 490 (1913), the Supreme Court held that title to an island within a stream did not pass to the state of Idaho, but instead was retained by the United States. The Court stated that because the island “was not part of the bed of the stream or land under the water ... its ownership did not pass to the State or come within the disposing influence of its laws.” Id. The Court went on to note that the island was “fast dry land, and therefore remained the property of the United States and subject to disposal under its laws....” Id. Sixty years later, the Supreme Court characterized its decision in Scott as holding that the rule in Pollard’s Lessee “does not reach islands or fast lands located within such waters. Title to islands remains in the United States, unless expressly granted along with the stream bed or otherwise.” Texas v. Louisiana, 410 U.S. 702, 713, 93 S.Ct. 1215, 1221, 35 L.Ed.2d 646 (1973). The Equal Footing Doctrine, then, does not operate to reserve title to fast dry lands to individual states.

    22 Moreover, Supreme Court has long held that the Equal Footing Doctrine refers to “those attributes essential to [a state’s] equality in dignity and power with other States.” Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559, 568, 31 S.Ct. 688, 690, 55 L.Ed. 853 (1911). The Court has noted that a new state enters the Union “in full equality with all the others,” and that this equality may forbid a compact between a new state and the United States “limiting or qualifying political rights and obligations.” Stearns v. Minnesota, 179 U.S. 223, 245, 21 S.Ct. 73, 81, 45 L.Ed. 162 (1900). However, “a mere agreement in reference to property involves no question of equality of status.” Id. The Court has observed that “[s]ome States when they entered the Union had within their boundaries tracts of land belonging to the Federal Government; others were sovereigns of their soil.” United States v. Texas, 339 U.S. 707, 716, 70 S.Ct. 918, 922, 94 L.Ed. 1221 (1950). While these disparities may cause economic differences between the states, the purpose of the Equal Footing Doctrine is not to eradicate all diversity among states but rather to establish equality among the states with regards to political standing and sovereignty. Id.

    23 The Equal Footing Doctrine, then, applies to political rights and sovereignty, not to economic or physical characteristics of the states. Moreover, the Equal Footing Doctrine applies primarily to the shores of and lands beneath navigable waters, not to fast dry lands. Therefore, the Equal Footing Doctrine would not operate, as Gardners argue, to give Nevada title to the public lands within its boundaries.

    III. The Validity of Nevada’s “Disclaimer Clause”

    25 When Congress invited Nevada to join the Union in 1864, it mandated that the Nevada constitutional convention pass an act promising that Nevada would “forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States....” Nevada Statehood Act of March 21, 1864, 13 Stat. 30, 31 § 4. The state constitutional convention did so. Ordinance of the Nevada Constitution.5

    26 Gardners claim that this clause is invalid and unconstitutional as an attempt to divest Nevada of its title to the unappropriated lands within its boundaries. Gardners cite to Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U.S. 151, 167, 6 S.Ct. 670, 679, 29 L.Ed. 845 (1886) for the premise that such disclaimer clauses “are but declaratory, and confer no new right or power upon the United States.” Therefore, Gardners argue, Nevada could not have given the United States title to the public lands within its boundaries through the disclaimer clause.

    27 Gardners are correct in their argument that the disclaimer is declaratory. However, the United States did not need the disclaimer clause to gain title to the public lands in Nevada. The United States already had title to those lands through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and the disclaimer clause was merely a recognition of the preexisting United States title, as opposed to a grant of title from Nevada to the United States.

    28 As aforementioned, Congress’ power under the Property Clause to administer its own property is virtually unlimited. See, e.g., Kleppe, 426 U.S. at 539, 96 S.Ct. at 2291-92. Indeed, the United States retains title to the public lands within states such as Nevada not due to “any agreement or compact with the proposed new State,” but rather “solely because the power of Congress extend[s] to the subject.” Coyle, 221 U.S. at 574, 31 S.Ct. at 693. The disclaimer clause, then, is declaratory of the right already held by the United States under the Constitution to administer its property, and as such is valid under the United States Constitution. Van Brocklin, 117 U.S. at 167, 6 S.Ct. at 679.”

    US V. Gardner, 107 F.3d 1314 (1997)

    Notice many of the court cases cited go back to the early 1900s and 1800s. This is not some new legal theory pushed by liberal judges in the 1990s. This has been established law for well over 100 years.

    Scott v. Lattig, 227 U.S. 229 (1913) said:

    “But the island, which we have seen was in existence when Idaho became a state, was not part of the bed of the stream or land under the water, and therefore its ownership did not pass to the state, or come within the disposing influence of its laws. On the contrary, although surrounded by the waters of the river and widely separated from the shore, it was fast dry land, and therefore remained the property of the United States and subject to disposal under its laws, as did the island which was in controversy in Mission Rock Co. v. United States, 109 F. 763, 769-770, and United States v. Mission Rock Co., 189 U. S. 391.”

    US title to dry land remained in effect when Nevada became a state, just as it does with every other state.

  • Bundy Boots the BLM – Is This a Significant Moment?

  • Bundy Boots the BLM – Is This a Significant Moment?

    04/14/2014 7:55:21 AM PDT · 32 of 70
    Mr Rogers to B4Ranch

    The ‘legislative findings’ don’t have much legal validity. For example, they cite Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845). That case dealt with “The shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively, and the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States.”

    That has nothing to do with public land in Nevada that the state Constitution specifically agreed did NOT belong to the state of Nevada.

    This analysis is probably more accurate, and is almost certain to prevail in court:

    “II. The Equal Footing Doctrine
    19

    Gardners argue that, under the Equal Footing Doctrine, a new state must possess the same powers of sovereignty and jurisdiction as did the original thirteen states upon admission to the Union. Because the federal government owns over eighty percent of the land in the state of Nevada, Gardners argue, Nevada is not on an equal footing with the original thirteen states.3 Gardners claim that Nevada must have “paramount title and eminent domain of all lands within its boundaries” to satisfy the Equal Footing Doctrine.
    20

    The meaning of the Equal Footing Doctrine is discussed in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212, 11 L.Ed. 565 (1845). In that case, the Supreme Court held that the shores of and land beneath navigable waters were reserved to the states, and were not granted by the Constitution to the federal government. Id. 44 U.S. (3 How.) at 229. New states, the Court reasoned, have the same “rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction” over the shores of and land beneath navigable waters as do the original states. Id.4
    21

    However, the Supreme Court has declined to extend the Equal Footing Doctrine to lands other than those underneath navigable waters or waters affected by the ebb and flow of the tides. In Scott v. Lattig, 227 U.S. 229, 244, 33 S.Ct. 242, 244, 57 L.Ed. 490 (1913), the Supreme Court held that title to an island within a stream did not pass to the state of Idaho, but instead was retained by the United States. The Court stated that because the island “was not part of the bed of the stream or land under the water ... its ownership did not pass to the State or come within the disposing influence of its laws.” Id. The Court went on to note that the island was “fast dry land, and therefore remained the property of the United States and subject to disposal under its laws....” Id. Sixty years later, the Supreme Court characterized its decision in Scott as holding that the rule in Pollard’s Lessee “does not reach islands or fast lands located within such waters. Title to islands remains in the United States, unless expressly granted along with the stream bed or otherwise.” Texas v. Louisiana, 410 U.S. 702, 713, 93 S.Ct. 1215, 1221, 35 L.Ed.2d 646 (1973). The Equal Footing Doctrine, then, does not operate to reserve title to fast dry lands to individual states.
    22

    Moreover, Supreme Court has long held that the Equal Footing Doctrine refers to “those attributes essential to [a state’s] equality in dignity and power with other States.” Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559, 568, 31 S.Ct. 688, 690, 55 L.Ed. 853 (1911). The Court has noted that a new state enters the Union “in full equality with all the others,” and that this equality may forbid a compact between a new state and the United States “limiting or qualifying political rights and obligations.” Stearns v. Minnesota, 179 U.S. 223, 245, 21 S.Ct. 73, 81, 45 L.Ed. 162 (1900). However, “a mere agreement in reference to property involves no question of equality of status.” Id. The Court has observed that “[s]ome States when they entered the Union had within their boundaries tracts of land belonging to the Federal Government; others were sovereigns of their soil.” United States v. Texas, 339 U.S. 707, 716, 70 S.Ct. 918, 922, 94 L.Ed. 1221 (1950). While these disparities may cause economic differences between the states, the purpose of the Equal Footing Doctrine is not to eradicate all diversity among states but rather to establish equality among the states with regards to political standing and sovereignty. Id.
    23

    The Equal Footing Doctrine, then, applies to political rights and sovereignty, not to economic or physical characteristics of the states. Moreover, the Equal Footing Doctrine applies primarily to the shores of and lands beneath navigable waters, not to fast dry lands. Therefore, the Equal Footing Doctrine would not operate, as Gardners argue, to give Nevada title to the public lands within its boundaries.
    24

    III. The Validity of Nevada’s “Disclaimer Clause”
    25

    When Congress invited Nevada to join the Union in 1864, it mandated that the Nevada constitutional convention pass an act promising that Nevada would “forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States....” Nevada Statehood Act of March 21, 1864, 13 Stat. 30, 31 § 4. The state constitutional convention did so. Ordinance of the Nevada Constitution.5
    26

    Gardners claim that this clause is invalid and unconstitutional as an attempt to divest Nevada of its title to the unappropriated lands within its boundaries. Gardners cite to Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U.S. 151, 167, 6 S.Ct. 670, 679, 29 L.Ed. 845 (1886) for the premise that such disclaimer clauses “are but declaratory, and confer no new right or power upon the United States.” Therefore, Gardners argue, Nevada could not have given the United States title to the public lands within its boundaries through the disclaimer clause.
    27

    Gardners are correct in their argument that the disclaimer is declaratory. However, the United States did not need the disclaimer clause to gain title to the public lands in Nevada. The United States already had title to those lands through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and the disclaimer clause was merely a recognition of the preexisting United States title, as opposed to a grant of title from Nevada to the United States.
    28

    As aforementioned, Congress’ power under the Property Clause to administer its own property is virtually unlimited. See, e.g., Kleppe, 426 U.S. at 539, 96 S.Ct. at 2291-92. Indeed, the United States retains title to the public lands within states such as Nevada not due to “any agreement or compact with the proposed new State,” but rather “solely because the power of Congress extend[s] to the subject.” Coyle, 221 U.S. at 574, 31 S.Ct. at 693. The disclaimer clause, then, is declaratory of the right already held by the United States under the Constitution to administer its property, and as such is valid under the United States Constitution. Van Brocklin, 117 U.S. at 167, 6 S.Ct. at 679.

    IV. The Tenth Amendment
    29

    Gardners argue that federal ownership of the public lands in Nevada is unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment. Such ownership, they argue, invades “core state powers reserved to Nevada,” such as the police power.6
    30

    Federal ownership of the public lands within a state does not completely divest the state from the ability to exercise its own sovereignty over that land. The state government and the federal government exercise concurrent jurisdiction over the land. In Kleppe v. New Mexico, the Supreme Court held that the Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act was not an impermissible intrusion on the sovereignty of New Mexico. 426 U.S. 529, 96 S.Ct. 2285, 49 L.Ed.2d 34 (1976). In so doing, the Court noted:
    31

    Absent consent or cession a State undoubtedly retains jurisdiction over federal lands within its territory, but Congress equally surely retains the power to enact legislation respecting those lands pursuant to the Property Clause. [citations omitted] And when Congress so acts, the federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause.
    32

    Id. at 543, 96 S.Ct. at 2293 (emphasis added). Indeed, a state may enforce its criminal and civil laws on federal land “so long as those laws do not conflict with federal law.” California Coastal Comm’n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572, 580, 107 S.Ct. 1419, 1425, 94 L.Ed.2d 577. The state of Nevada, then, is not being unconstitutionally deprived of the ability to govern the land within its borders. The state may exercise its civil and criminal jurisdiction over federal lands within its borders as long as it exercises its power in a manner that does not conflict with federal law.
    33

    V. Guarantee Clause, Equal Protection, and Political Accountability Claims
    34

    Gardners argue that the retention by the United States of the unappropriated public lands within the state of Nevada violates the Guarantee Clause of the United States Constitution. Gardners also contend that federal ownership of the public lands in Nevada denies them equal protection of the laws under the Fifth Amendment and fails the “political accountability test.” As it does not appear that these issues were raised before the district court, this court will not consider them. See, e.g., Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2877, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976) (”It is the general rule ... that a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below.”).

    Conclusion
    35

    We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.”

    http://openjurist.org/107/f3d/1314/united-states-v-gardner

  • Bundy Boots the BLM – Is This a Significant Moment?

    04/14/2014 7:22:38 AM PDT · 13 of 70
    Mr Rogers to Revelation 911

    My bet is that the get a court to place liens against his bank accounts and any future sale of cattle. The banks (FDIC) will transfer money with their computers.

  • BLM ends Bundy cattle roundup, citing safety issues

    04/13/2014 7:07:58 PM PDT · 150 of 165
    Mr Rogers to combat_boots

    Hage didn’t get his money. His legal theories sucked. However, the BLM has been ordered to give his heirs a grazing permit and access to water.

    We do all own the public land, but we also elect Congress to administer it for us, per the Constitution. Unhappily, we have elected Congresses and even a Republican House that won’t lift a finger to stop the environmental radicals.

  • BLM ends Bundy cattle roundup, citing safety issues

    04/13/2014 5:48:54 PM PDT · 147 of 165
    Mr Rogers to combat_boots

    Actually, some courts do get it right. In this case, Hage lost on his “no such thing as federal land” stance, but the BLM behavior “shocked the conscience of the court” by creating a fight for no reason.

    ““In the present case, the Government’s actions over the past two decades shocks the conscience of the Court, and the burden on the Government of taking a few minutes to realize that the reference to the UCC on the Estate’s application was nonsensical and would not affect the terms of the permit was minuscule compared to the private interest affected. ..Based upon E. Wayne Hage’s declaration that he refused to waive his rights—a declaration that did not purport to change the substance of the grazing permit renewal for which he was applying, and which had no plausible legal effect other than to superfluously assert non-waiver of rights—the Government denied him a renewal grazing permit based upon its frankly nonsensical position that such an assertion of rights meant that the application had not been properly completed.”

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/144609491/United-States-v-Estate-of-Hage-No-2-07-cv-01154-RCJ-VCF-Findings-of-Fact-Conclusions-of-Law-and-Injunction-D-Nev-May-24-2013

  • Nevada GOP removes social issues from platform

    04/13/2014 5:43:59 PM PDT · 27 of 46
    Mr Rogers to Extremely Extreme Extremist

    “Any Republican that disregards social issues are dead to me. “

    Amen.

    I want reduced spending and reduced taxes, but those mean nothing if I am not allowed to say homosexuality is sin in public or am required to disobey God for business. And besides - I have yet to meet a social liberal who actually DOES anything on the fiscal side when push comes to shove.

  • The Real Story Behind The Bundy Ranch Harassment

    04/13/2014 10:31:14 AM PDT · 88 of 90
    Mr Rogers to ohioman

    I’ll add this:

    “As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America.”

    I agree with every one of those. That does not mean I want all laws to be repealed, or that I agree with someone who lives in America but who says he is not a citizen of America.

  • The Real Story Behind The Bundy Ranch Harassment

    04/13/2014 10:28:17 AM PDT · 87 of 90
    Mr Rogers to ohioman

    “If you side with the BLM do not expect any support from FR.”

    I don’t side with either. The BLM & USFS are anti-grazing, while I am pro-grazing. They are anti-logging, and I’m pro-logging. They love the Endangered Species Act and Wilderness Act, and I think both should be repealed ASAP.

    However, Bundy rejects being a US citizen. He paid grazing fees for years, and then decided the federal government isn’t allowed to own land - a view not shared by the Founders or the states that ratified the Constitution, since those states turned around a deeded large amounts of land to the federal government, and the Constitution gives Congress the right to make all the rules for administering federal lands.

    As a legal matter, Bundy has lost and will continue to lose. His arguments have been rejected at least since the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. As I’ve pointed out, the federal government took away over 30,000 sq miles from Utah and Arizona and placed it in the state of Nevada by a simple act of Congress in 1866.

    A person can loathe an overreaching federal government and also believe in SOME government. After all, the US Constitution gives us a federal government, and I spent 25 years in the US Air Force. When I was shot at, I was being shot at as an American, not as a citizen of Arizona. One can loathe Obama and respect Ronald Reagan, and understand that both served terms as President. I hate the Pima County zoning regulators, but I also believe in SOME zoning.

    It is the abuse of government I hate, not the existence of a government. If that makes me a freak, then I’m a freak. I want good & honest government, not anarchy and the absolute rule of the weak by the strong.

  • Federal agency vows to continue legal action after ending Nevada ranch standoff [BLM v Bundy]

    04/13/2014 8:48:27 AM PDT · 77 of 174
    Mr Rogers to Jack Hammer

    “After this brouhaha, every conservative legal eagle and constitutional scholar in the United States willl be lining up to represent Bundy.”

    I doubt it. The legal arguments he uses have never won in court. My guess is the government will ask a court for liens against his bank accounts and against any future sale of cattle. Banks (FDIC) will turn over money and protestors cannot stop it.

    “He [Bundy] says he doesn’t recognize federal authority over state land...Arizona state Rep. Bob Thorpe of Flagstaff said he and state legislators weren’t arguing whether Bundy broke laws or violated grazing agreements.”

    If the feds don’t have authority over the land, then Arizona needs to take back 11,000 sq miles Congress took from Arizona and gave to Nevada by an act of Congress in 1866...and Utah needs to take back 21,000 sq miles given to Nevada at the same time.

  • BLM ends Bundy cattle roundup, citing safety issues

    04/13/2014 8:30:04 AM PDT · 98 of 165
    Mr Rogers to blueplum

    “...in 1866 northern Arizona territory was shaved south down to the Colorado River and given to Nevada...wouldn’t Nevada then own Clark County and not the feds...”

    Since the US Congress had authority over the land, I assume that authority transferred with the land. The act itself protected mining rights of individuals in the land, but doesn’t mention anything else. I doubt the Arizonans who owned property in that area lost their ownership, or that Nevada took title to all 32,000 sq miles.

    If Congress did NOT have the authority to take land from Arizona and give it to Nevada, then the land would still be part of Arizona, not Clark County. If anything, I think that strengthens the case that the federal government and US Congress owned and controlled the land, to the extent that a simple act of Congress could take away 11,000 square miles from Arizona (and 21,000 from Utah) and make it part of Nevada.

    There are probably court cases somewhere that deal with it, but I’m not sure how to do a search for them.

    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=014/llsl014.db&recNum=74

    http://www.nevadaobserver.com/Boundaries%20of%20Nevada%20%281881%29.htm

  • The Real Story Behind The Bundy Ranch Harassment

    04/13/2014 8:05:29 AM PDT · 82 of 90
    Mr Rogers to lepton

    “If they’d been occupied and in use at the time of statehood, that would not seem to apply. There are other treaty provisions requiring the U.S. government to recognize U.S. citizenship and property title for Mexican owners in the territories at the time of the Treaty of Hildago.”

    Very true. In the Hage case, which asserted many of the same things Bundy claims, the judge wrote:

    “If Defendants’ predecessors-in-interest had vested grazing rights in the disputed areas prior to the TGH [Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo], the United States may be bound to respect these rights. The TGH required the United States to honor the property rights of Mexicans in the ceded territories, and Indians were apparently viewed by the Mexican government to be full Mexican citizens under the Mexican Constitution of 1824 in effect when the TGH was signed. If there had been some right to graze upon land owned by the Mexican government vested in the owners of the lands constituting the Pine Creek Ranch under Mexican private property law, such rights would potentially be protected even in succession as against the United States under the TGH. However, because there was no evidence presented that any of Defendants’ predecessors-in-interest engaged in ranching operations on the lands that eventually became the Pine Creek Ranch prior to the signing of the TGH, there is no need to determine whether any such predecessors were “Mexicans” under the TGH and Ritchie, or whether as Indians such predecessors inherently lacked the property rights protections of the TGH under Sandoval regardless of whether the Mexican government considered them to be Mexicans.

    The Court concludes that Defendants do not have a general right to graze their cattle on federal lands without a permit...”

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/144609491/United-States-v-Estate-of-Hage-No-2-07-cv-01154-RCJ-VCF-Findings-of-Fact-Conclusions-of-Law-and-Injunction-D-Nev-May-24-2013

  • Wild horses targeted for roundup in Utah rangeland clash

    04/12/2014 8:08:28 PM PDT · 31 of 34
    Mr Rogers to ops33
    Our little mustang is a whopping 13 hands high. He isn't fond of arena work, possibly because of how previous owners used him. He is great for heading out on a trail ride with the other horses. We generally use him for our least experienced rider. He tags along with the other horses and doesn't do stupid things because stupid in the desert gets you hurt...

  • Deal reached; BLM will release confiscated cattle to rancher

    04/12/2014 7:58:12 PM PDT · 166 of 189
    Mr Rogers to pgyanke

    “As I understand the issue, his family has grazed the cattle on this land for well over a century. They have always paid a grazing fee to the county. The Feds came in with the Bureau of Land Management in 1993 and demanded payment instead... the land was never officially transferred in ownership, just in management. Bundy attempted repeatedly to pay the county as he always had but was rebuffed. He refuses to pay the Feds for the “privilege” of grazing on land they don’t own.”

    There is almost no truth to this paragraph. They never paid a fee to the county, and instead worked with the BLM from 1954 thru 1993. The federal government has always claimed title to the land. In the early 90s, Bundy believed the theory going around at the time that the federal government could not own the land and could not regulate grazing. In every case I know of, the courts have rejected that theory.

    The most recent area of grazing is land he did not graze on prior to 1998.

  • BLM ends Bundy cattle roundup, citing safety issues

    04/12/2014 6:32:10 PM PDT · 95 of 165
    Mr Rogers to Sequoyah101

    “You make it sound like the courts are charged to uphold the policy of the current power regime and not the law.”

    I’ve reviewed a lot of decisions. Many are based almost entirely on the whim of the judge. Not all are. Some judges, thankfully, DO take time to apply the law fairly and rationally. The 2013 Hage decision seemed like one of those where the judge tried to honestly apply the law to the facts of the case. The previous appeals court ruling that threw out the judgment seemed to be making excuses for the government.

    In theory, the right of the federal government to regulate grazing on public land is straightforward and beneficial. The problem comes when the individuals who are hired to administer things fairly are, in their hearts, crooked power-loving people.

    I think it really comes down to democracy only being suitable for moral people, and it fails when the majority of people reject morality and God. I’ve concluded the only hope for America is religious revival. We’re past the point of being saved by ‘good politicians’. We need good, moral people who fear God and who therefor obey laws and act justly because it is the right thing to do. Government reflects the morality of the people. It does not instill it.

  • BLM ends Bundy cattle roundup, citing safety issues

    04/12/2014 6:20:29 PM PDT · 93 of 165
    Mr Rogers to xzins

    “What we’re dealing with here and in the info you gave is a sense that the government thinks it is an overlord.”

    Exactly. It reminds me of when I went to my local county to get a permit to build a corral for our horses. It took me 4 hours of arguing to get permission to build a corral that met all county codes from the beginning. They kept demanding I provide a survey of my land (all 2 acres) and “engineering drawings” for a corral made out of standard, above ground interlocking panels. The survey would have cost me more money than the corral parts!

    After 4 hours of fighting, a guy came out of his office, looked at the county regulator, and said, “It’s just a damn corral! What is the problem?” The regulator then shut up and signed off on my application.

    I don’t think that is how life in America was supposed to work.

    My old college roommate said he had spent his entire adult life working the allotment system, and had been able to make it work for him personally, but that he was tired of fighting every year. He also said that each year for over 30 years, there has been less and less grazing allowed.

    In the past, it never seemed to bother him much. He’s a few years older than I am, and I think he is now looking at what kind of ranch and business his sons will inherit. I think it scares him...and he doesn’t scare easily.

  • BLM ends Bundy cattle roundup, citing safety issues

    04/12/2014 6:08:26 PM PDT · 90 of 165
    Mr Rogers to Sequoyah101

    Hage first sued in 1991 - after 2 terms of Ronald Reagan and during the term of Bush Sr. At that point, Republican Presidents had been in charge of the BLM & USFS for 10 full years without interruption.

    As the judge noted, the whole thing started when Hage added a note to his application saying he was not surrendering any rights he was entitled to, and the government used that EXCUSE to deny him a grazing permit that was in all other ways reasonable.

    It is depressing to think that after 10 straight years of Republican administrations, the federal government was acting in a way that “shocks the conscience of the Court”!

  • BLM ends Bundy cattle roundup, citing safety issues

    04/12/2014 5:56:00 PM PDT · 86 of 165
    Mr Rogers to xzins; P-Marlowe; centurion316; Jim Robinson

    I’m not a lawyer. My rancher friend mentioned this case last night, and I finally found it. It involves the estate of Wayne Hage, who wrote “Storm Over Rangelands” and whose second wife was congressman Helen Chenoweth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Chenoweth-Hage).

    “”No thief who has to pay for what he steals will steal for long.”

    — Nevada rancher Wayne Hage, explaining to High Country News in 1995 why he had filed a lawsuit against the federal government over restrictions on his livestock grazing.

    That landmark Sagebrush Rebellion lawsuit, hailed as protecting the rights of Western ranchers on public land, ground through the courts for 21 years. Early victories, including a multimillion-dollar award, caused anti-government advocates to hail Hage as a hero. But Hage died in 2006, and in late July this year, a three-judge federal appeals court panel overturned the award. “The court case is over,” says Karen Budd-Falen, a prominent Wyoming property-rights attorney. “But the conversation will go on. What (the Hage case) did was make people in the West, and in the federal land agencies, think about what kinds of rights they have and what kinds of responsibilities.”

    http://www.hcn.org/issues/44.16/one-sagebrush-rebellion-flickers-out-or-does-it

    More background at:

    http://watchdog.org/56194/nv-wayne-hage-and-the-rout-of-property-rights-an-american-tragedy/

    http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/09/local/me-hage9

    “Grant and Hage’s family now advocates not for “rebellion” but “cooperation,” a theory that the federal government is compelled by law to work more closely with states and counties when revising public lands policy.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/central-sagebrush-rebellion-case-suffers-defeat-172420051.html

    The decision [United States v. Estate of Hage, No. 2:07-cv-01154-RCJ-VCF, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Injunction (D. Nev. May 24, 2013)] in 2013 runs over 100 pages. While it rejects Hage’s legal theories on grazing rights, making improvements, etc, it also found:

    “In the present case, the Government’s actions over the past two decades shocks the conscience of the Court, and the burden on the Government of taking a few minutes to realize that the reference to the UCC on the Estate’s application was nonsensical and would not affect the terms of the permit was minuscule compared to the private interest affected. The risk of erroneous deprivation is great in such a case, because unless the Government analyzes such a note in the margin, it cannot know if the note would affect the terms of the permit such that the acceptance is in fact a counteroffer.

    The Government revoked E. Wayne Hage’s grazing permit, despite his signature on a renewal application form, because he had added a reference to the UCC to his signature indicating that he was not waiving any rights thereby. Based upon E. Wayne Hage’s declaration that he refused to waive his rights—a declaration that did not purport to change the substance of the grazing permit renewal for which he was applying, and which had no plausible legal effect other than to superfluously assert non-waiver of rights—the Government denied him a renewal grazing permit based upon its frankly nonsensical position that such an assertion of rights meant that the application had not been properly completed....

    ...The Government has sufficiently proved an ongoing trespass to warrant a permanent injunction, although not so broad an injunction as the Government desires. Defendants are also entitled to an injunction, as outlined, infra. There is a great probability that the Government will continue to cite Defendants and potentially impound Defendants’ cattle in the future in derogation of their water rights and those statutory privileges of which the Government has arbitrarily and vindictively stripped them. There is also a probability that Defendants will continue to permit their cattle to graze in excess of the incidental grazing permitted during stock watering that cannot reasonably be prevented. The Court will therefore enjoin all parties in certain respects and will require Hage to apply for a permit and the Government to grant it...

    ...THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the denial of E. Wayne [*192] Hage’s renewal grazing application for the years 1993—2003 was an abuse of discretion, as well as a violation of due process, as the only reason given for the denial was that the applicant noted near his signature that he did not thereby relinquish certain unidentified rights under the UCC, a superfluous condition that cannot possibly have affected the terms of the permit. It is this violation that has led to all of the allegedly un-permitted grazing to date and the BLM’s refusal to offer any permit to Hage himself.

    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Government is enjoined from unreasonably interfering with the ability of Defendants Wayne N. Hage and the Estate of E. Wayne Hage to bring cattle to those water sources and attendant ditches in which these Defendants have vested rights to water their cattle as identified herein. The Government may impose reasonable regulations upon access to these water sources, such as specifying which routes shall be used for ingress and egress, if it is necessary to impose such restrictions for legitimate purposes. Reasonable regulations are those that neither prohibit access to the water nor restrict access to the water in a way that unreasonably burdens the ability to access and use the water.”

    The full case is available online here. I think it covers, in a sensible fashion, a lot of the legal issues on how the USFS & BLM manage land. I think it correctly blames the federal agencies for outrageous behavior while also saying the rancher’s legal theories are inaccurate. I haven’t read the whole thing, but I plan to over the next few days:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/144609491/United-States-v-Estate-of-Hage-No-2-07-cv-01154-RCJ-VCF-Findings-of-Fact-Conclusions-of-Law-and-Injunction-D-Nev-May-24-2013

  • BLM ends Bundy cattle roundup, citing safety issues

    04/12/2014 5:26:51 PM PDT · 84 of 165
    Mr Rogers to blueplum

    “what if Nevada (and Wyoming, Arizona, etc) decide to reclaim the “public” land within their state? it’s not like the gum’ment is gonna evict a state.”

    What they do is go to court, and the court would then ignore the state because those issues have already been before the courts - going back into the 1800s - and the courts have consistently handled them the same way. It would take an appeal to the US Supreme Court, which would have to overturn nearly 200 years of precedence in favor of giving the states much stronger rights than they have been held to have for the last 200 years.

    Is that going to happen? Nope. The state would lose.

  • Deal reached; BLM will release confiscated cattle to rancher

    04/12/2014 3:37:48 PM PDT · 89 of 189
    Mr Rogers to xzins

    “Now that they’ve had the roundup, Bundy should just go to market. :>)”

    If so, he’d better keep it in cash. I’d bet the BLM will be in court soon to place a $1 million lien on his property and bank accounts. And the banks will turn over anything the court says to turn over, with the click of a computer.

  • BLM ends Bundy cattle roundup, citing safety issues

    04/12/2014 1:52:49 PM PDT · 67 of 165
    Mr Rogers to centurion316

    During the months that I spent working for the Forest service in 79-80, the USFS lived by the rule of “multiple use”. I worked supporting timber sales and building campgrounds. We were looking at using timber sales to create fire breaks and open up land for grazing.

    Those days are long gone. The USFS has gone preservationist, as has the BLM. The Park Service has always been that way. About 30 miles from where I’m sitting, they dug up paved roads that had been there for 50 years so they could call the land a ‘wilderness area’. It was completely and totally dishonest.

    My concern is that I don’t know what one does when a society has become as dishonest as ours now is. What good does it do to pass a law if the President is free to ignore it or change it on his whims, and the GOP does nothing to stop him? If the GOP House won’t even hold his feet to the fire on changing Obamacare daily, what hope do we have? The Jr Senator from Arizona ran as a supposed Tea Party type conservative, then turned hard left immediately after winning - Jeff McFlake, buttboy to John McCain. If we cannot even get an honest conservative in Arizona, what hope is there?

  • BLM ends Bundy cattle roundup, citing safety issues

    04/12/2014 1:43:20 PM PDT · 65 of 165
    Mr Rogers to xzins; P-Marlowe; Jim Robinson

    xzins, I had a long talk last night with my rancher friend, who was my college roommate in the 70s. He has lost 2 allotments outright in the last 6 months and is scrambling to find grazing anywhere. He said he was very sympathetic to Bundy because he’s tired of needing to kiss butt each year with the BLM and is beginning to think his sons will have nothing to inherit.

    However, he also said that around 1990, there was a guy who went around telling ranchers that they didn’t need to pay grazing fees, and that the federal government could not own land and that people were citizens of states, but not of America. One of his close friends bought off on it and has spent 20 years refusing to pay income taxes, get a drivers license, etc.He’s sympathetic to his friend as well, but admits it sounds pretty crazy to most people.

    Regardless of what one thinks about a law, I think it is important to at least be clear what the law currently is. Under current law, the US could sell much of the BLM land in Nevada to a Chinese investor to build whatever. The Chinese investor would probably soon learn what many settlers learned in the 1800s - that in the mountain west, land without water rights isn’t worth squat. That is why land was not given away during the 1800s: No one wanted it because it has no steady water. No water, no life. You cannot run a factory or a farm without water.

    Water rights law might have made it possible for Bundy to make a case. But as it stands, his case is based on his not being an American. That won’t get him or us far in political debate. It will not get him anywhere in court.

    It is completely reasonable to argue that the federal government should turn over most of its land to the states. I’d love to see that in Arizona. But I shouldn’t go around telling people that the feds have no authority in Arizona. If I drive to the north of Tucson and hike in the Catalina Mtns, and park along the road without paying, my car will get a ticket and they can collect that ticket in court. I’ll lose, and so will anyone who follows my example.

  • BLM ends Bundy cattle roundup, citing safety issues

    04/12/2014 12:57:44 PM PDT · 53 of 165
    Mr Rogers to Monorprise

    In the 1845 case, the US had not retained ownership as part of Alabama entering the union. The decision noted, “They might have reserved it in the compact with the state. The third article of the treaty with Spain (1 Land Laws, 57,) contains such a reservation. But as it is, the United States have nothing in Alabama but proprietary rights.”

    “The real issue however is not the Opinion of the Federal Employees in Black robes but the political opinion of the people and opportunity for the People of Nevada”

    It is simple - convince Congress to agree to cede title to the land to Nevada. Good luck! And I’m sincere in wishing you that, since I’d like to see all BLM & USFS land in Arizona get turned over to the state of Arizona. However, I hope you will forgive me if I do not hold my breath while waiting for Congress....

    It might be more productive to pressure the GOP House to hold oversight hearings, and pressure the BLM & USFS to be less anti-grazing...perhaps set goals for each state to allow X amount of grazing each year. But I honestly think the GOP is just the right wing of the DC Buzzard, and I don’t think we can even get something like that passed in the House, let alone the Senate.

    I would also be glad if Congress would just eliminate the “Wilderness land” designation. It has been dishonest from the start. They also need to revise the Endangered Species Act to make it agree with reality - that being that some species need to go extinct.

    But again, I will not hold my breath. I see no sign that anyone in Congress will touch those with a 10 foot pole. I’m certain both of my US Senators, John McCain and Jeff McFlake, Republicans from Arizona, would strongly condemn such action...but then, I voted against McCain in the last election, and I will never cast a vote for either of them again in my life.

    I guess this is my real bitterness. I see no sign either party gives a rat’s rear about anything I believe in. I’m not sure how a monarchy is any less representative than our current state.

  • BLM ends Bundy cattle roundup, citing safety issues

    04/12/2014 12:16:00 PM PDT · 41 of 165
    Mr Rogers to Monorprise

    “If Such an agreement were made as a precondition toward statehood it would be null & void upon obtaining statehood because All States must have an EQUAL footing.”

    “The meaning of the Equal Footing Doctrine is discussed in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212, 11 L.Ed. 565 (1845). In that case, the Supreme Court held that the shores of and land beneath navigable waters were reserved to the states, and were not granted by the Constitution to the federal government. Id. 44 U.S. (3 How.) at 229. New states, the Court reasoned, have the same “rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction” over the shores of and land beneath navigable waters as do the original states. Id.4
    21

    However, the Supreme Court has declined to extend the Equal Footing Doctrine to lands other than those underneath navigable waters or waters affected by the ebb and flow of the tides. In Scott v. Lattig, 227 U.S. 229, 244, 33 S.Ct. 242, 244, 57 L.Ed. 490 (1913), the Supreme Court held that title to an island within a stream did not pass to the state of Idaho, but instead was retained by the United States. The Court stated that because the island “was not part of the bed of the stream or land under the water ... its ownership did not pass to the State or come within the disposing influence of its laws.” Id. The Court went on to note that the island was “fast dry land, and therefore remained the property of the United States and subject to disposal under its laws....” Id. Sixty years later, the Supreme Court characterized its decision in Scott as holding that the rule in Pollard’s Lessee “does not reach islands or fast lands located within such waters. Title to islands remains in the United States, unless expressly granted along with the stream bed or otherwise.” Texas v. Louisiana, 410 U.S. 702, 713, 93 S.Ct. 1215, 1221, 35 L.Ed.2d 646 (1973). The Equal Footing Doctrine, then, does not operate to reserve title to fast dry lands to individual states.

    Moreover, Supreme Court has long held that the Equal Footing Doctrine refers to “those attributes essential to [a state’s] equality in dignity and power with other States.” Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559, 568, 31 S.Ct. 688, 690, 55 L.Ed. 853 (1911). The Court has noted that a new state enters the Union “in full equality with all the others,” and that this equality may forbid a compact between a new state and the United States “limiting or qualifying political rights and obligations.” Stearns v. Minnesota, 179 U.S. 223, 245, 21 S.Ct. 73, 81, 45 L.Ed. 162 (1900). However, “a mere agreement in reference to property involves no question of equality of status.” Id. The Court has observed that “[s]ome States when they entered the Union had within their boundaries tracts of land belonging to the Federal Government; others were sovereigns of their soil.” United States v. Texas, 339 U.S. 707, 716, 70 S.Ct. 918, 922, 94 L.Ed. 1221 (1950). While these disparities may cause economic differences between the states, the purpose of the Equal Footing Doctrine is not to eradicate all diversity among states but rather to establish equality among the states with regards to political standing and sovereignty. Id.
    23

    The Equal Footing Doctrine, then, applies to political rights and sovereignty, not to economic or physical characteristics of the states. Moreover, the Equal Footing Doctrine applies primarily to the shores of and lands beneath navigable waters, not to fast dry lands. Therefore, the Equal Footing Doctrine would not operate, as Gardners argue, to give Nevada title to the public lands within its boundaries.”

    http://openjurist.org/107/f3d/1314/united-states-v-gardner

    The 1845 case actually went further than the 9th Circuit said it did, writing:

    “There can be no distinction between those states which acquired their independence by force of arms and those which acquired it by the peaceful consent of older states. The Constitution says, the latter must be admitted into the union on an equal footing with the rest. The dissenting opinion of Judge Thompson (page 419) is not inconsistent with this.

    If these positions are right, the United States had nothing below high water-mark. They might have reserved it in the compact with the state. The third article of the treaty with Spain (1 Land Laws, 57,) contains such a reservation. But as it is, the United States have nothing in Alabama but proprietary rights. They cannot put their foot in a state to claim jurisdiction without its consent. No principle is more familiar than this, that whilst a state has granted a portion of its sovereign power to the United States, it remains in the enjoyment of all the sovereignty which it has not voluntarily parted with.”

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=44&page=212

    IOW, the 1845 case said it is acceptable for Congress to put conditions on a prospective state than wants to join the union. They ruled as they did in part because Alabama had no restriction placed on it that would involve the dispute.

    You may not like the reasoning. I do not. But it HAS been the reasoning since 1845. I see no indication that the current US Supreme Court will reverse precedent and declare all us lands in the west to belong to the states. Do you?

  • Wild horses targeted for roundup in Utah rangeland clash

    04/12/2014 11:51:18 AM PDT · 26 of 34
    Mr Rogers to ops33

    I own a BLM mustang, but I think the truth is that most of the feral horses should be shot.

  • BLM ends Bundy cattle roundup, citing safety issues

    04/12/2014 11:47:22 AM PDT · 27 of 165
    Mr Rogers to xzins

    No, the land does not belong to Nevada. The US government retains the title they have held for over 160 years. Nevada was required by Congress IN 1864 to “forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States”. It was a condition for statehood that Nevada accepted.

    Court cases going back at least as far as 1840 reject your belief that the federal government cannot own property, or that Congress, IAW the explicit direction of the Constitution, cannot make rules to manage that land.

    Pretending otherwise is dishonest.

  • The Real Story Behind The Bundy Ranch Harassment

    04/12/2014 9:58:41 AM PDT · 77 of 90
    Mr Rogers to dsc

    “I think a more fundamental question here is, how did the people of the United States and the United States Government come to be adversaries?”

    That is the real and horrible question. I wasn’t ashamed of my government in the 60s...not too much so, at least.

    Perhaps the Anti-Federalists were right, and the US Constitution put too much power in a central government. It works OK as long as the population is a moral population, which largely self-regulates, but fails when people without morals take over. In today’s America, the federal government looks for excuses to take power over people and rule them.

    I think another part is the increasing urban outlook in the US. A farmer or rancher HAS to be self-sufficient because there isn’t anyone else to do things for him. A rural kid learns early on to do things for himself. It seems to me that city folk want their buses & subways, want their cops, want to be taken care of in everything. If you know a call to the cops means someone MIGHT show up within an hour, you believe in owning guns. If you believe in your stupid city heart that the cops are seconds away, then you might accept the idea that Mr Cop will come to save me.

    I’m very pessimistic about the future of the USA. I think the poor have figured out they can vote themselves other peoples money. I also think they figured out that tribal politics - give X to people like me - works well. The US government seems much more oppressive and unrepresentative today than in was in 1760, and what is the purpose of a Constitution if 9 judges in black robes can add, “Thou must admire homosexuals” to it any time they feel like it?

  • Supporters gather to defend Bundy ranch in Nevada, FAA enacts no-fly zone

    04/12/2014 8:38:34 AM PDT · 50 of 62
    Mr Rogers to Black Agnes

    “How, precisely, did the feds end up with the title to that land? “

    It was acquired from a treaty with Mexico, ending the Mexican War. Most of the west was acquired that way.

    As a condition for allowing Nevada to become a state, Congress required the new state to “forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States”.

    The federal government did try to give the land away for many years, but in Nevada, water is more important than land.

  • Supporters gather to defend Bundy ranch in Nevada, FAA enacts no-fly zone

    04/12/2014 8:18:23 AM PDT · 48 of 62
    Mr Rogers to Mariner

    Working land does not give you title to it. The new area he has been grazing is an area he did not use prior to losing his 1998 court case. From the 50s on, he accepted the BLM’s authority to set grazing limits. If you spend decades paying someone to use their land, it is hard to then claim you own the land because you have been using it!

    And remember, he first rejected paying the BLM after 12 years of Republican Presidents had managed the BLM, including 8 years of Ronald Reagan.

    If he had argued water rights or some other principle, he might have made a case. But arguing that the federal government didn’t own the land, when the Nevada State Constitution specifically says they do, is a tough sale to a court...