Posted on 04/14/2014 1:25:37 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Glenn will give additional analysis on this interview on tonight’s Glenn Beck Program on TheBlaze TV.
Over the weekend, the ongoing conflict between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), a federal agency that administers public land, came to a seeming conclusion when the BLM stood down and released Bundy’s cattle over safety concerns for their people on the ground. Some fringe media sites had been promoting the conflict as the possible beginning of a second American Revolution or the start of the “American Spring”. Glenn, however, has refused to do more than report the facts as he understood them until he could speak with Bundy. He did, however, author a letter denouncing any supporters of Bundy who were calling for armed conflict and violence, imploring people to follow the example of Martin Luther King and Gandhi and protest peacefully.
This morning on radio, Glenn spoke with Bundy about the escalating conflict and why Bundy has refused to pay grazing fees associated with his use of the public land.
“The story of Cliven Bundy, and his ranch in Nevada, is one that I think is captivating many Americans. And it may indeed go down in American history as more than just a quick footnote. I hope that it would go down in history as a positive footnote. But it is one of those situations where we could face another Waco or another really bad situation, a Ruby Ridge,” Glenn said.
During the interview, Glenn tried to understand Bundy’s perspective on the dispute. Was this conflict over ranching and grazing fees? Or was it over an issue of state sovereignty or disarming the BLM?
Glenn said, “I have people that graze on my land. And there is national land behind my ranch as well. And I know if anybody runs cattle on that, they also have to pay for grazing fees. Grazing fees are normal. And you stopped paying them. Your daughter said you did pay them for a while and then you stopped paying them. There are some people that would say that you are, if I may quote, a ‘welfare rancher’ because you’re not paying the fees that other ranchers do have to pay.”
“Let’s make sure we get this straight. I would pay my grazing fees to the proper government and I did try to pay my grazing fees to the proper government. I do not have a contract with the United States because I will not sign that contract with the United States,” Bundy explained. “I have no contract. I did not graze my cattle on the United States property. And I would pay my grazing fees to the proper government.”
Glenn asked him to clarify since in the Nevada State Constitution that land Bundy’s cattle are grazing on was given over to the federal government.
Below is a transcript of Bundy’s explanation:
CLIVEN: Let’s talk about the — Glenn, I really want to talk about that because that’s very important. You’re talking about the Enabling Act of the people of the territory of the state of Nevada. And remember, in the — section of the Constitution, we’re talking about territories of Nevada. Let me see if I can get that straight. What it says, it says the United States Congress will have power to dispose of all rules and regulations within the territory. Now, let’s think what we’re doing. We’re talking about the territory of Nevada. People of the territory of Nevada. As they — they do not have the Constitution. They’re within the territory and Congress had an unlimited power to make all the rules and regulations. Okay. The people of the territory petitioned the United States Congress to make this a state. And they have a clouded title. So in order to clear their title, they give up their public domain — forever. It sounds terrible. Forever? But let me tell what you they had to do. They had to give it up forever so Congress would have a clear title.And what did Congress do? It made a state of Nevada. Which [indiscernible] a lot of them — quote Ed Presley here. Here’s what Ed Presley said. It doesn’t matter what happened before statehood. What matters is what has happened at the moment of statehood. Now, if you think about that in the second. At the moment of statehood. What happened? At the moment of statehood the people of the territory become people of the United States with the Constitution with equal footing to the original 13 states. They had boundaries around them, a state line. And that boundary was divided into 17 subdivisions, which were county. I live in one of those counties: Clark County, Nevada. And in that county, Clark County, Nevada, we elect our county commissioners, which is the closest to we the peoplend we elect the county sheriff and we pay him to do what? Protect our life, liberty and property.I’m a citizen of that county. I abide by all the state laws.
Essentially, Bundy is saying this conflict isn’t inherently about grazing fees or water rights, but that he ultimately does not recognize the lands to be federal and the United States government or the BLM do not have jurisdiction on the land.
“So I think this is very clarifying to people,” Glenn said.
“It’s not BLM land. It’s Nevada land,” Bundy said.
“That is a different point of view than everybody else that is a rancher that I know,” Glenn said.
Based on the conversation on the radio show, Bundy’s fundamental issue isn’t with an out of control government taking control of his personal land, but that he disagrees with how that land became federal land when Nevada was founded in 1864.
Cliven did say that while he believes that Nevada is a sovereign state within the United States, he does not identify with the sovereign states movement.
So everybody can do whatever they want regardless of court orders? Don’t complain about anarchists, then.
“Left behind were trailers, generators, personal equipment scattered all over the ground and internal BLM documents left on the table where they had been branding the cattle.”
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/04/so-much-for-slow-day-just-got-off-phone.html
Regulations and contracts written in disappearing ink, with new rules made up on the spot depending on whose cash flow was being tapped for the moment.
Golden Rule - them who has the gold makes the rules. Keeping them enforced, however, may take more gold than is easily available.
An evolving arrangement, mutating as we look at it.
By the way, the desert tortoise was never for a moment in any danger from cattle grazing. However, there may be considerable natural gas and petroleum beneath the surface lands, in a formation that can be opened up by hydraulic fracturing, “Fracking”. This alone is enough to set the enviro-weenies and greenies over the edge, that somebody might be able to extract huge supplies of energy and thus make this area into a boom growth location.
LOL, the statue is clearly not in Clark County. Maybe it’s at the Mustang Ranch.
Bingo.
Or lotsa Pb, W & depleted U.
The fact the BLM tried to impair the obligation of this contract by stepping in the middle and demanding payment for the land based on a contract it was NOT a party to, is, itself, Unconstitutional.
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1:
.......or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts
Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.
James Madison, Federalist #44
Thank You!
No?
Why should any other American be treated differently?
I say we should cite Bammy's actions as precedence.
You are most heartily welcome!
The 'issue' is quite the opposite.
The BLM does not want cattle on the land. There are environmental laws that have to do with live cattle and exposure to certain hazards on federal land WHEN the government sells or leases that land to foreign investors who want to use it for Solar Power, Water rights/control,Mining, or Drilling.
These cows are holding up the 'deal' that the Reid family is making with foreign investors. Harry himself went overseas to 'recruit' such deals (all legal and planned, and was his 'job' to perform). Our government is trading use or ownership of land in the US to China for all the money we borrowed from them.
Uncontrolled cows on the land requires an extensive Environmental Impact Statement and could halt the 'sale'.
No cows, no problem, Harry Reid's kid makes a fortune.
Lol. Statute.
Sorry.
I was also surprised that some peeps manage to live out there (out of the bottom lands, unlike Cliven).
Let the peeps be. Washington, D.C. needs to be corralled and sold off.
Let me see if I have my facts straight:
1. BLM got this land to preserve and protect it for we, the people.
2. BLM is selling OUR land to the Chinese Communists to build a solar farm and a manufacturing plant.
3. Harry Reid and his son stand to make millions.
4. BLM wants the grazing to stop to protect the desert tortoise.
5. Grazing improves the habitat for the desert tortoise. So much, that the BLM is shooting the tortoises.
6. This ain’t over, folks. And it’s not going to end pretty.
Is that about it?
The Chinese foothold won’t just be for a solar plant.
They’ll bring in intelligence workers and MRAPs of their own, with the muscle to back up their ownership.
I think Clive Bundndy’s family grazing rights were administered by Clark County before the BLM. Clive doesn’t set up the background very coherently.
Lady, there are some real smart people on here, and you are one.
I go at it this way. Since Art 1 Sec 8 the 17th, states specifically what the federal government is allowed to do, and if the state of Nevada passed in its constitution violating that clause-being the 17th enumerated power, then the states constitution is in, that part, unconstitutional. They must amend it.
So, your point, is another way to go at them.
We now have our constitutional crisis. Where the hell is Kevin Gutzman? He is the only one I might refer to in this matter.
“Let’s make sure we get this straight. I would pay my grazing fees to the proper government and I did try to pay my grazing fees to the proper government. I do not have a contract with the United States because I will not sign that contract with the United States,” Bundy explained. “I have no contract. I did not graze my cattle on the United States property. And I would pay my grazing fees to the proper government.”This one sentence tells it all: he's a "freeman on the land" sovereign citizen type. He does not recognize the Constitution of the United States. He doesn't recognize the federal government. He thinks he has to have a "contract" before paying for grazing fees on federal land, which is patent nonsense.
-----
Since Art 1 Sec 8 the 17th, states specifically what the federal government is allowed to do, and if the state of Nevada passed in its constitution violating that clause-being the 17th enumerated power, then the states constitution is in, that part, unconstitutional. They must amend it.
True, but the federal government also violated the Constitution when they accepted such land when it was for a purpose other than specified....i.e. for the purpose of buildings to provide for the common defense.
Joseph Story quotes Madison's Federalist #43 quite closely when he said§ 1219. The other part of the power, giving exclusive legislation over places ceded for the erection of forts, magazines, &c., seems still more necessary for the public convenience and safety. The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, and the nature of the military duties, which may be required there, all demand, that they should be exempted from state authority
Nowhere is there authorization for federal public lands for any other purpose.
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.