“I’d like a fact: when and how did the US government come to own that land?”
“The United States and Mexico signed the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. In that treaty, Mexico ceded land that includes the present-day state of Nevada to the United States. 9 Stat. 922 (1848); see also Sparrow v. Strong, 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 97, 104, 18 L.Ed. 49 (1865) (”The Territory, of which Nevada is a part, was acquired by Treaty.”). The language of the Treaty itself refers to the land ceded by Mexico to the United States as “territories previously belonging to Mexico, and which remain for the future within the limits of the United States.” 9 Stat. 922, 929 (1848). Courts in the United States have uniformly found that title to the land first passed to the United States through the Treaty. See, e.g., United States v. California, 436 U.S. 32, 34 n. 3, 98 S.Ct. 1662, 1663 n. 3, 56 L.Ed.2d 94 (1978) (stating that, under the Treaty, “all nongranted lands previously held by the Government of Mexico passed into the federal public domain”); Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128, 131, 96 S.Ct. 2062, 2066, 48 L.Ed.2d 523 (1976) (stating that a limestone cavern located in Nevada is “situated on land owned by the United States since the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848”)...
...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.”
http://openjurist.org/107/f3d/1314/united-states-v-gardner
“The power over the public lands is vested in Congress by the Constitution without limitation, and has been considered the foundation on which the territorial governments rest.”
United States v. Gratiot - 39 U.S. 526 (1840)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/39/526/case.html
Please note that 1840 US Supreme court case. This is not some new legal doctrine pushed by Obama.
I think this is the kind/sort of presentation that needs to be in wide spread public discourse because I believe the citizens of the USA are for a large part willing to accept logical and established situations. As to the Bundy’s situation it does seem tied into your presentation. However, I still have questions about the governments actions now. Many years ago we bought some small acreage on the slopes of the Sierra Nevada Range in California. There was some questions raised as to direct access to the property. My recall was that as long as we and/or other parties did not make an issue within so many years our rights for ingress could not be challenged or changed. Now apparently the Feds have a different standard to go by. a very self serving standard to be used at any time for any reason. Should the case be demonstrated that there are plans being made for purposes of housing development(s) especially in concert with a crooked politician like Harry Reid and his family members without regard to the dessert animal of question it is time for unfreezing the hell that has overtaken the USA by such as Reid and Obama with his enablers.
The US purchased Louisiana years ago also.
Who has the rights to that land? The Feds or the state or the private property owners? Can the Feds or BLM go into any of the Louisiana purchased lands and claim it protected and off limits?
Nevada became a state after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo so your reasoning is preposterous.
Thank you for the information.
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, in turn, leads me to wonder how, given our founding documents, can the US government rightly prevail in any such conflict?