Breaking: Bureau of Land Management Won’t Enforce Court Order Against Bundy Cows

PJ Tatler / The Associated Press ^ | April 12, 2014 | Rick Moran

[2ndDivisionVet]

The Bureau of Land Management announced that it would not enforce a court order to round up cows owned by Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, effectively ending the siege at the southern Nevada ranch.

Associated Press:

“Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public,” BLM Director Neil Kornze said.

“We ask that all parties in the area remain peaceful and law-abiding as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service work to end the operation in an orderly manner,” he said....

[pke]

Reid, China and BLM

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/us-usa-china-reid-solar-idUSBRE87U06D20120831

[hoosiermama]

It’s not just NV. Texas and CO also in BLM focus
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/04/129155-forget-cattle-ranch-story-government-trying-take-away-familys-entire-property/

Yesterday a thread on Texas

Has our government used public land as collateral for the Chinese loans and they are preparing them to be foreclosed? How do we find out?

[maxwellsmart_agent]

This is the administration trying to save the November election. Nothing more!

[basil]

It never hurts to show up armed, either.

[GAFreedom]

Before I go any further, have you heard of the Resolution of 1780?

Yes, I have. It's a very interesting resolution which shows (to me) the intent of the Founding Fathers. It's too bad that it was never carried over as a proposed bill in the first session of the federal Congress.

[GAFreedom]

Bundy relies on NRS 321.59 which has not been fully adjudicated

*shakes head* Not a good strategy on his part.

[rolling_stone]

well he’s stuck it out longer than 50 other ranchers who were squeezed off.

If you lived in the south west you might be more sympathetic to his cause and understand where he is coming from.

[Amendment10]

... It's too bad that it was never carried over as a proposed bill in the first session of the federal Congress.

Thank you for your perspective. But the important thing, imo, is what does the Constitution say about the Resolution of 1780? Although the Constitution does not reference the 1780 Resolution per se, I think that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention arguably made the 1780 Resolution a part of the Constitution as evidenced by Clause 1 of Article VI.

Article VI, Clause 1: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation [emphasis added].

In fact, I understand that the Supreme Court reflected on the Resolution of 1780 when it decided Johnson v. McIntosh.

"... and that the vacant soil is to be disposed of by that organ of the government which has the constitutional power to dispose of the national domains, ..." --Johnson v. McIntosh, 1823.

So given Clause 1 of Article VI, the states would arguably have to amend the Constitution to repeal the Resolution of 1780, even though it is not directly indicated in the Constitution, in order for the feds to "manage" land the way that they do.