Bundy Boots the BLM – Is This a Significant Moment?

Nevada Rancher: 'The Citizens Of America' Got My Cattle Back ... After a tense standoff with the Bureau of Land Management, the Nevada Rancher at the center of the disagreement proclaimed that "the citizens of America" got his cattle back. Rancher Cliven Bundy reached a deal with the BLM Saturday allowing the cattle that had been removed from the BLM land to be released back onto the federal lands. But Bundy is still on the hook for the fees he owes for having the animals on the land in the first place. "There is no deal here. The citizens of America and Clark County went and took their cattle. There was no negotiations. They took these cattle. They are in possession of these cattle and I expect them to come home soon," Bundy told KLAS-TV. – CBS

Free-Market Analysis: Some in the alternative media have been celebrating the defeat of the Bureau of Land Management, which unsuccessfully attacked rancher Cliven Bundy for not paying grazing fees. This analysis attempts to ascertain the importance of the Bundy "victory."

After national coverage and the convergence of numerous US citizens on the Bundy ranch to show their support, BLM backed down. They removed the armed enforcers, their trucks and even, reportedly, gave back the cattle that were confiscated.

Alex Jones celebrated at Infowars, and Drudge posted numerous headlines on the affair. The controversy expanded when it was reported that BLM was moving on Bundy in part to open up land for an expanding Chinese solar farm.

The standoff Saturday brought hundreds of protesters who attempted to storm the BLM's cattle gate, but weren't successful. Some protesters were even armed with weapons. I-15 was closed in both directions at one point because protesters were blocking the freeway.

Roughly two dozen police officers and a SWAT unit were at the scene in Mesquite to help keep the peace. "We had a lot of fears. Individuals being shot, trampled. Individuals being run over on the highway. So it took a lot of resources, a lot of resources to associate with this," Assistant Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo said to KLAS-TV.

The fight between Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management widened into a debate about states' rights and federal land-use policy. The dispute that ultimately triggered the roundup dates to 1993, when the bureau cited concern for the federally protected tortoise in the region. The bureau revoked Bundy's grazing rights after he stopped paying grazing fees and disregarded federal court orders to remove his animals.

... The 400 cows gathered during the roundup were short of the BLM's goal of 900 cows that it says have been trespassing on U.S. land without required grazing permits for over 20 years. Bundy, 67, doesn't recognize federal authority on land he insists belongs to Nevada.

His Mormon family has operated a ranch since the 1870s near the small town of Bunkerville and the Utah and Arizona lines. "Good morning America, good morning world, isn't it a beautiful day in Bunkerville?" Bundy told a cheering crowd after his cattle were released, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

The crowd protesting Saturday recited the pledge of allegiance, and many offered prayers. Others waved placards reading, "This land is your land," and "We teach our children not to bully. How do we teach our government not to be big bullies?" according to the newspaper.

It's the latest skirmish since the 1980s when the Sagebrush Rebellion challenged federal ownership of Nevada rangeland ranchers said was rightfully theirs. A federal judge in Las Vegas first ordered Bundy to remove his trespassing cattle in 1998.

Despite the current state of affairs, BLM's decision to disengage may not be as final and decisive as it first appears. Its press release said as much. There are numerous other ranchers who interact regularly with the BLM, and if the Bundy capitulation is seen as precedent-setting then the US federal government might lose control of lands that fedgov has been acquiring for decades.

The US federal government's power is vastly enhanced by land management and the federal government is said to control up to one-third of US lands in the "lower 48." There are at least three reasons why land control is so important.

Every part of the US governmental apparatus is at risk if the Bundys can claim a continued victory. Any single setback of this magnitude threatens to unravel the entire laboriously constructed system of federal legislative, judicial and executive command.

The entire globalist edifice depends on ever-expanding government control of the private sector. If the power elite running Western governments behind the scenes cannot count on expanding and untrammeled government authority then the whole internationalist agenda is put at risk.

So while it was inspiring to see people on horseback facing down BLM enforcers, the chances that significant change will be engendered via these kinds of confrontations is certainly questionable.

One can even argue that top elites are actively hoping for the kind of chaos and civil destruction that such dramatic clashes will inevitably give rise to. One could even ask if the Bundy confrontation itself was manufactured.

We are sure that real change will come as people take individual human action to opt out of the system – psychologically as well as professionally. This, in fact, IS happening as a natural occurrence of the current information revolution. Elite memes are crumbling; dominant social themes such as global warming are increasingly rejected. Even the war on terror has not proven convincing.

Societies usually do not crumble via internal, physical revolution that only provides a justification for a bigger and more invasive police state. Societies DO collapse when people lose their belief that the sociopolitical and economic structure is beneficial to them.

What has been set into motion by the Internet Reformation has decades to go yet. Government authorities have every reason to fight the physical confrontations manifested by the Internet – and no doubt they will. But it is the larger and likely unstoppable shift in citizen sentiment regarding basic building blocks of society that shall create real change.

This change will not happen so dramatically as recent events, and will evolve out of the dissemination of knowledge about the Way the World Really works. One need only consider the sociopolitical and economic conversation today in the West – especially in the US – versus a decade ago. The differences are startling. They will continue even if more visible evidences of resistance are defused.

Conclusion

Dusty Road, this ain’t over by a long shot.

This here is rolling_stone’s post at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3143996/posts?page=136#136

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bundy relies on NRS 321.59 which has not been fully adjudicated.

NRS 321.596 Legislative findings. The Legislature finds that:

1. The State of Nevada has a strong moral claim upon the public land retained by the Federal Government within Nevada’s borders because:

(a) On October 31, 1864, the Territory of Nevada was admitted to statehood on the condition that it forever disclaim all right and title to unappropriated public land within its boundaries;

(b) From 1850 to 1894, newly admitted states received 2 sections of each township for the benefit of common schools, which in Nevada amounted to 3.9 million acres;

(c) In 1880 Nevada agreed to exchange its 3.9-million-acre school grant for 2 million acres of its own selection from public land in Nevada held by the Federal Government;

(d) At the time the exchange was deemed necessary because of an immediate need for public school revenues and because the majority of the original federal land grant for common schools remained unsurveyed and unsold;

(e) Unlike certain other states, such as New Mexico, Nevada received no land grants from the Federal Government when Nevada was a territory;

(f) Nevada received no land grants for insane asylums, schools of mines, schools for the blind and deaf and dumb, normal schools, miners’ hospitals or a governor’s residence as did states such as New Mexico; and

(g) Nevada thus received the least amount of land, 2,572,478 acres, and the smallest percentage of its total area, 3.9 percent, of the land grant states in the Far West admitted after 1864, while states of comparable location and soil, namely Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, received approximately 11 percent of their total area in federal land grants.

2. The State of Nevada has a legal claim to the public land retained by the Federal Government within Nevada’s borders because:

(a) In the case of the State of Alabama, a renunciation of any claim to unappropriated lands similar to that contained in the ordinance adopted by the Nevada constitutional convention was held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be “void and inoperative” because it denied to Alabama “an equal footing with the original states” in Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845);

(b) The State of Texas, when admitted to the Union in 1845, retained ownership of all unappropriated land within its borders, setting a further precedent which inured to the benefit of all states admitted later “on an equal footing”; and

(c) The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, adopted into the Constitution of the United States by the reference of Article VI to prior engagements of the Confederation, first proclaimed the “equal footing” doctrine, and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, by which the territory including Nevada was acquired from Mexico and which is “the supreme law of the land” by virtue of Article VI, affirms it expressly as to the new states to be organized therein.

3. The exercise of broader control by the State of Nevada over the public lands within its borders would be of great public benefit because:

(a) Federal holdings in the State of Nevada constitute 86.7 percent of the area of the State, and in Esmeralda, Lincoln, Mineral, Nye and White Pine counties the Federal Government controls from 97 to 99 percent of the land;

(b) Federal jurisdiction over the public domain is shared among 17 federal agencies or departments which adds to problems of proper management of land and disrupts the normal relationship between a state, its residents and its property;

(c) None of the federal lands in Nevada are taxable and Federal Government activities are extensive and create a tax burden for the private property owners of Nevada who must meet the needs of children of Federal Government employees, as well as provide other public services;

(d) Under general land laws only 2.1 percent of federal lands in Nevada have moved from federal control to private ownership;

(e) Federal administration of the retained public lands, which are vital to the livestock and mining industries of the State and essential to meet the recreational and other various uses of its citizens, has been of uneven quality and sometimes arbitrary and capricious; and

(f) Federal administration of the retained public lands has not been consistent with the public interest of the people of Nevada because the Federal Government has used those lands for armament and nuclear testing thereby rendering many parts of the land unusable and unsuited for other uses and endangering the public health and welfare.

4. The intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States was to guarantee to each of the states sovereignty over all matters within its boundaries except for those powers specifically granted to the United States as agent of the states.
5. The attempted imposition upon the State of Nevada by the Congress of the United States of a requirement in the enabling act that Nevada “disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory,” as a condition precedent to acceptance of Nevada into the Union, was an act beyond the power of the Congress of the United States and is thus void.

6. The purported right of ownership and control of the public lands within the State of Nevada by the United States is without foundation and violates the clear intent of the Constitution of the United States.

7. The exercise of such dominion and control of the public lands within the State of Nevada by the United States works a severe, continuous and debilitating hardship upon the people of the State of Nevada.

(Added to NRS by 1979, 1362)

http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2010/title26/chapter321
/nrs321-596.html

136 posted on Sunday, April 13, 2014 8:03:24 PM by rolling_stone

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

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.