Posted on 04/10/2014 10:48:03 PM PDT by ponygirl
Amen.
Hope someone gets private drones in there.
The land in question belongs to Clark county, NV.......
There are unconfirmed reports that some of the militia members anticipated this and have satellite phones available. I sure hope so.
No, the land in question belongs to the federal government. Nevada & Clark County agree.
There was no such statement.....
Cliven Bundy stopped paying his fees when the BLM stopped performing the duties they were paid to do which ultimately resulted in Bundy having to perform those tasks himself.
The reason the BLM stopped their paid duties was because they were trying to drive him out of business.......
At that point Bundy then offered to pay those respective fees to the REAL owners of the land, Clark County, Nevada.
They declined the payments and thus the current situation.
Mr. Bundy is on record stating that he will be more than willing to pay what he owes but only to Clark County............
Sounds like Mr. Bundy is a believer in STATE'S RIGHTS.............
Cool. Sounds like a government that's got nothing to hide. /s
Tyranny in our time.
Of course, now that we know their response to the peasantry when it comes to free communication, we can take steps in the future to bypass the censorship of the lawless govthugs.
So says another "revolutionary" who has other plans for that weekend...........LOL!
Ah what the hell, hang him.........
Actually Article 1 section 8 specifically enumerates the powers of Congress with regards to owning land.
Ummm no. The Taylor Grazing Act that established grazing fees under the Department of the Interior was passed in 1934. That would be the administration of FDR.
Nope, the U. S. Constitution, Art 1 sec 8, does NOT refer to this at all. You are wrong.
Bundy not paying his grazing fees has nothing to do with tortoises.
Yes it is usable for grazing and the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 establishes the fees and means of collecting those fees for the ranchers that want to graze on US Government land.
There is nothing in the Constitution about limiting the governments ownership at all.
What states rights. The State Constitution of Nevada specifically states that they have no claim on that land. How can there be any states rights in this case?
You assert that Article 1 section 8 does not apply to this case. So lets look at it in detail:
A break down of Article 1 section 8 by clauses:
1) To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,
2) over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,
3) and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
In #1 we see the primary clause of this section - Exclusive jurisdiction
In #2 we see the provision for the District of Columbia
In #3 we see that Congress has “like authority” referring back to #1 and then it states over what ... “all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be”.
During the creation of the state of Nevada, Congress, who already owned much of the lands of the territory of Nevada from the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, made the stipulation that certain ordinances were required in order for Nevada to be accepted as a state. One of these was that the state would give up control of lands owned by the US Government. This can be seen in the state constitution:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst.html
Under the section entitled “Ordinance”, first paragraph, clause #3 which reads:
Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they 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, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.
“Yes it is usable for grazing and the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 establishes the fees and means of collecting those fees for the ranchers that want to graze on US Government land.”
For years the guy paid the grazing fees then the govt said had to get off because the cattle were threatening the tortoises. They cancelled his contract. I would stop paying the fees too. The only thing the land is good for is subsistence grazing but apparently now Harry Reid has found a new use; leasing it to the Chi Coms for a solar farm so much for th tortoise ruse.
Regulations also say that the US govt cannot allow more than 300 wild horse to occupy that 600,000 acres but they now have 2,000 plus. No roundups by contract cowboys for the excess horses.
Wake up this isn’t about grazing rights or fees.
Sorry, you are incorrect.
Clark County, NV has never owned the land in question. Since the US Mexico war and the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848), the land has belonged to the US Government. This was before Nevada was a state (1864) and before Clark County existed (formed 1909).
Oh, taxcontrol is VERY awake - just not in a way you or I would be familiar with...
You're a good little Horatio, taxcontrol. Best start working your "magic" on Sean Hannity. Your side lost him, it sounds like.
He just shut down a quibbler that was reading from your playbook.
The grazing leases are renewable every 10 years. In 1993 Bundy of his own will stopped paying his required grazing fees. This LONG before the government prohibited the land use for the tortoises.
No, they did not cancel his contract. Bundy refused to pay for the new lease that was up for renewal.
Actually there are wild horse round ups: http://www.8newsnow.com/story/5431816/nevada-wild-horses-face-massive-round-up
Clark County, NV has never owned the land in question. Since the US Mexico war and the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848), the land has belonged to the US Government. This was before Nevada was a state (1864) and before Clark County existed (formed 1909).
Yet, oddly, grazing cattle on the land didn't become a problem until Big Bill "Felonius Perjury Boy" Clinton became president in 1993...
Laws are for the little people, Hot. They're what I call "peasant law", and dot govers like Bill Clinton, Lois Lerner, Eric Holder, Jon Corzine, Charlie Rangel, etc., etc., etc. are not subject to them.
Yeh, Harry Reid is proud. LOL!!!! Now he can let his son move forward with the Chi Com solar farm on that grazing land.
Kiryandil, you keep resorting to name calling and have yet to provide a single comment or source to refute any of the facts of this case. So I will make this easy for you. Lets see if you will either refute or accept the facts as they stand.
Fact #1 - The US Government owns the land in question.
If you disagree with that statement, start with the word “no” and then explain why and site your sources to support your position.
If you agree with that statement, then say “agreed” and we can move on.
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.