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.
You are correct about much of what he has said, but if fact, the BLM requires that he sign an agreement before he can pay is grazing fee. That is why he has not paid, the BLM will not let him pay. He refuses to agree to the terms and conditions which were changed drastically and would have the effect of putting him out of business. He probably has legal recourse to their heavy handed methods, but not with the arguments that he has been making.
Quite alright. I have the book on the ratification debates et al.
So, “Around 1990 or so (the BLM) told him that he could no longer graze more than 150 of his 600 or so head of cattle there.”
If Bundy had agreed, he’d lose water rights...to the rest of his land(?)
Nevada votes in shutting grazing rights down permanently.
How Wouldn’t this force people out of business? For what purpose? A tortoise that feeds on cow manure?
The man needs a constitutional and contract lawyer.
A couple real good ones.
This..is a constitutional crisis in the making.
He needs to shut his mouth also.
Yes
Big federal crime causing liberal outrage.
_________________________________________________________
25 million illegals choking off our social services, jobs, hospitals, jails =
Love and Democratic voters
“A secret administration memo has surfaced revealing plans for the federal government to seize more than 10 million acres from Montana to New Mexico, halting job- creating activities like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development. Worse, this land grab would dry up tax revenue that’s essential for funding schools, firehouses and community centers.
President Obama could enact the plans in this memo with just the stroke of a pen, without any input from the communities affected by it.”
http://linkis.com/wordpress.com/N2EEc
ping
“he was using federal land and abiding by the rules until the federal government changed the rules on him.”
Yeah, that always sucks and can strongly motivate you.
“Why is it not sold at a market price?”
I think Dingy Harry (D-Nev) was trying very hard to do just that.
You have a firm grasp of the facts of this case.
Especially #6.
The Chinese are the number one purchaser of foreclosed homes and real estate in the west. This isn’t just about solar.
FMCDH(BITS)
This is a UN takeover, because in 1999-2002? there was a UN document that surfaced on the internet that the UN planned to take over all the water rights of the USA, so they could put restrictions on water use even with wells. In fact, it was discussed here on FR around 2000 or 2001 I think.
I had just come to FR recommended by a freeper, who has since died. There was a take over by environmental groups in government, who were taking water rights from owners in WVA, then NC and other states by preventing cows and pigs using the creeks and rivers as drinking water, and a new law that animals stay 35-50 foot from creek, or they could take land by fines if violated to the tune of $25,000 a day.
That was a time of seizing land for fines, and owners could not clear their own land in those areas. That was the ‘endangered species’ ploy and a beginning of vast laws that helps them manipulate the system to takeover places they wanted for gain.
This is not new at all, and has become more commonplace in this Administration than the public is aware of. This thing with Bundy is revealing what many of us already have seen in our own states. A contractor here drove some equipment through a creek and lost the land. Cattle and Pig farms have been lost due to those laws here...it’s widespread.
Ed Presley is wrong, as is Bundy, and as was Gardner:
““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.
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.”
US V. Gardner, 107 F.3d 1314 (1997)
Notice many of the court cases cited go back to the early 1900s and 1800s. This is not some new legal theory pushed by liberal judges in the 1990s. This has been established law for well over 100 years.
Scott v. Lattig, 227 U.S. 229 (1913) said:
“But the island, which we have seen was in existence when Idaho became a state, was not part of the bed of the stream or land under the water, and therefore its ownership did not pass to the state, or come within the disposing influence of its laws. On the contrary, although surrounded by the waters of the river and widely separated from the shore, it was fast dry land, and therefore remained the property of the United States and subject to disposal under its laws, as did the island which was in controversy in Mission Rock Co. v. United States, 109 F. 763, 769-770, and United States v. Mission Rock Co., 189 U. S. 391.”
US title to dry land remained in effect when Nevada became a state, just as it does with every other state.
“Nowhere is there authorization for federal public lands for any other purpose.”
Other purposes were contemplated, and provided for. Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a4_3_2.html
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_3_2s8.html
Good summary. One thing that has changed is the policy of the federal government on the so called unallocated lands that they own. Until 1976, the policy was disposal through sale or grant of these public lands. In the arid West, these sales and grants did not proceed as they had done in the East. No one rushed in to scoop up the land, particularly in the acreage prescribed by law. 160 acres in the midwest could sustain a family, but not so in the American deserts.
U.S. policy changed in 1976 from disposal to retention and a new law, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act was put in place to implement that policy. That act, plus the Endangered Species Act and the Environmental Protection Act have been used to throw people off their land, to stop grazing on public lands, and to control every aspect of human behavior on public lands.
Install Ad Block Plus and Ghostery. It makes the Interwebs and entirely different experience.
FMCDH(BITS)
As passed, there was nothing wrong with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. It mandated multiple use of public lands, similar to what I worked on in 79-80 supporting things like timber sales and recreational campgrounds.
Unfortunately, government has increasingly twisted it beyond recognition, finding excuses to turn “multiple use” into “preservation”, and even “no humans allowed”. And Congress, including the Republican House, is failing to ride herd on these out of control agencies.
And the acquisition of territories by the federal government was never meant to be a permanent one.
§ 1320. As if it were not possible to confer a single power upon the national government, which ought not to be a source of jealousy, the present has not been without objection. It has been suggested, that the sale and disposal of the Western territory may become a source of such immense revenue to the national government, as to make it independent of, and formidable to, the people. To amass immense riches (it has been said) to defray the expenses of ambition, when occasion may prompt, without seeming to oppress the people, has uniformly been the policy of tyrants. Should such a policy creep into our government, and the sales of the public lands, instead of being appropriated to the discharge of the public debt, be converted to a treasure in a bank, those, who, at any time, can command it, may be tempted to apply it to the most nefarious purposes. The
George Tucker
-------
Which begs the question- If land acquired as a territory was to be sold for the purpose of reducing the public debt, why do we now have both a HUGE PUBLIC debt AND massive public lands?
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.