Posted on 04/13/2014 2:17:43 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
The Bureau of Land Management vowed Saturday that it would continue its legal fight to remove illegal cattle from a rural Nevada range after ending a tense weeklong standoff with a rancher and his supporters.
"After 20 years and multiple court orders to remove the trespass cattle, [rancher Cliven] Bundy owes the American taxpayers in excess of $1 million. The BLM will continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially," a statement from the bureau 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."
The BLM also announced that it was wrapping up its month-long operation to seize the 900 cattle roaming on federally owned land approximately 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas and would release the 400 head of Bundy's cattle it had already seized "in order to avoid violence and help restore order."
"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," the statement read.," the statement read.
Bureau officials had dismantled designated protest areas supporting Bundy, who they say refuses to comply with the "same laws that 16,000 public land ranchers do every year."
A group of about 1,000 supporting Bundy cheered and sang "The Star Spangled Banner" when BLM made its announcement.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
So, basically - what it boils down to is that the BLM (Bloviating Loser Muppets) is trying to steal Cliven Bundy’s water rights, which are worth A LOT more than the piddling “grazing fees”, which they weren’t using to help the ranchers anyway, as was agreed in the beginning of the contract...
——The federal court has already ruled that the land is US Government land-—
And yet, The driving concept in the incident and the consensus body of thought on Free Republic is that the state of Nevada was ceded the land upon statehood and the constitution disallows federal land ownership within the states.
It would seem the State of Nevada must come to the courts to get the decision and that decision will ultimately be decided
by the Supreme Court.
If Nevada does not contest the issue, it stands. It may well be that by controlling the BLM, Nevada controls the land
By definition, public land is land within the general public domain that a government holds in trust for its citizens. The government is the caretaker of public land. Public land is different than a public enclave (which actually IS owned by government).
Unfortunately, only by Wikipedia and Sierra Club definition. By law, the United States holds title to the land without any encumbrances or conditions of trust. This was originally done to facilitate disposal of the land by sale or grant which was the policy of the United States until 1976. In 1976, the Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act which changed that policy to retention and granted management powers to the BLM, NPS, and Forest Service to manage for “multi use”. The Sierra Club and others have invented the “held in trust” meme in order to leverage the FLPMA to kick ranchers, foresters, campsites, and marinas off of public lands.
“US Constitution Article I section 8 and Article II section 2 via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago when ownership of the lands transferred from Mexico to the United States.
Further supported by the State Constitution of Nevada where in the section known as ORDINANCE the state disavows ownership and taxation of federal lands.”
I think we’re getting bogged down in semantics at this point. That treaty transferred portions of the American Southwest, that had been part of Mexico, to the United States. Thus, that land became part of the United States as a territory or a combination of territories before becoming part of a state or states. But that territory was still federal public land until it — in whole or in part — was transferred to individuals, or to states, in which case the former owned their land, and the latter held their portion in trust as state or local public land.
Thus, the rightful owners of public land are the people themselves, collectively, who reside within the appropriate jurisdiction (be it federal, state, or local). However, the general public, by law, is not legally liable for conditions on public lands, as the law holds them immune; whereas in the case of an individual land owner, the law DOES hold them legally liable for conditions in or on their land or property. The public immunity stems from the ancient legal precedent of sovereign immunity, which held that the sovereign could not be held liable, and because in our system of government the people, collectively, are the government, and are the sovereign, the people, collectively, enjoy immunity.
Anyway, that’s how it was set up, though the bureaucratic oligarchs in Washington, and in many state capitols, think they are the sovereign, and not the people.
You raise many valid points. However, the Sierra Club did not originate the idea of public land being held in trust by the government, that was original to the foundation of the country. I had a Constitutional Law class many, many years ago where that specific topic was dealt with at length in discussion of the Tenth Amendment.
I cited a Wiki link because it was quick and easily accessible, kind of like you cited a BLM link (was that you who did that?).
You are correct, but the public trust doctrine has historically only been applied in the United States for seashores and land underneath navigable waters, i.e. the river beds. It has not be applied to unallocated lands, although that is now the claim regarding the FLPMA. That was certainly not the legislative intent of the FLPMA.
The things I posted were not BLM documents, but Congressional Research Service papers. I use Wiki as well, but I have been burned, so I exercise great care.
It’s nice to know the back story, thanks.
Now I know a little about Utah history, thanks.
The trolls that come here don’t seem to realize WE are trolling for them. LOL
Folks are getting bogged down in minutiae. The main point is this and we all know it: We the People have had enough. Progs have run things almost 100 years now and they have really f’d things up. Worse, in the face of just how badly so they refuse to acknowledge same and continue to lie and cheat with no integrity whatsoever meanwhile continuing their corruption as if they were doing such a good job they deserved it. They deserve it, alright and it is high time they got it. We are on the verge of giving it to them. THESE are the facts that matter not chapter and verse of legal minutia.
Senator Reid and a China-Based Energy Company... with Reid relatives on the board and participating in the venture ... want the land upon which the Bundy cattle were grazing. The Reid Family has pulled a classic Utah-type Temple Power Play in Nevada, buying up all the land around BLM lands with a web of companies partially and wholly owned by them, with Reid appointing an old crony as BLM chief in DC, where Reid's sons hold forth as BLM lobbyists, while another attorney-son handles the deals. The Reid Family stands to gain at least $20 Million in exchange for Senator Harry's pull in DC and around the state. That's in the land swindle alone. Reid and the family have gone from '20' to $100 million net worth with at least 80% of that gain coming in the Obama years.
Senator Reid is as dirty as they come. He is a poster child for the campaign to repeal the 17th Amendment and have Senators chosen by the legislatures of the states, rather than by popular vote, which leaves them in lucrative office for life.
As is plain to see here, Senator Reid is not protecting his constituents or his state from the Federal Government, rather he is an ally of the government in a campaign to deprive citizens of their rights and to federalize lands belong to Nevada, and/or its citizens.
Armed agents of Federal Government agencies have no right to military action within a state unless called by the state authorities. This would be as good a place as any to start the shooting. Perhaps before that happens, Nevada County Sheriffs ought to disarm and disperse the Federals. It is their right and obligation to do so.
*This has nothing much to do with religion, ask Mitt Romney. He was well aware of Dirty Harry's tricks.
All land should belong to states or private citizens.
I understand that position. In fact, I support a Constitutional Amendment that would limit the land ownership by the federal government to 20% of any State’s land area. However, that is not the case at the moment.
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.