Posted on 06/07/2015 10:14:54 AM PDT by redreno
BATTLE MOUNTAIN, Nev. (AP) — Federal land managers say they won't immediately enforce drought-related grazing restrictions in northern Nevada so as to avoid confrontation with ranchers openly defying the order.
Conservationists say it's another example of the government caving in to scofflaw ranchers like Cliven Bundy, who continues to graze his cattle illegally in southern Nevada after the Bureau of Land Management backed down from an armed standoff last year.
Ranchers Dan and Eddyann Filippini have been notified they are violating the closure ordered in 2013 in an area covering more than 150 square miles near Battle Mountain about 200 miles northeast of Reno, Bureau of Land Management spokesman Rudy Evenson said Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at trove.com ...
Here's a quote: " That the unappropriated lands ... shall be disposed of for the common benefit of the United States
That is, not transferred to ownership of the individual new state for its sole benefit. "Disposed of," BTW, means sold into private ownership.
http://www.minnesotalegalhistoryproject.org/assets/1780%20Resolution%20on%20Public%20Lands.pdf
The lands in question were in the NW, with multiple states having overlapping claims. All claims were ceded to the US, to be used for the benefit of the US as a whole, not for any individual state, including newly formed states within those territories.
Thanks for bringing this support for my position to my attention!
As I read, that NV allowed the land to be controlled by the feds. If true, then NV itself defied the constitution. That state was created in haste.
The federal government is not allowed to OWN or control ANY land other than what is listed within article 1 section 8.
Thank you for you patience with this discussion Sherman Logan.
What dictionary defines “disposed of,” the term used in the Resolution of 1780, as being sold into private ownership as it relates to that resolution?
Webster’s Dictionary defines “disposed of” as transferring control to someone else or getting rid of something. So I don’t see where a sale of land to private ownership is an issue when states cede (give up) land to the feds, or the feds dispose of (transfer control) of land to a new state, the spoils of war to a state in the case of Nevada, to a new state.
Again, since I haven’t been shown evidence for either eminent domain or the Constitution’s Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I with respect to the “federal” land in question, I want to know the federal government’s constitutional basis for controlling land in Nevada. And if the land wasn’t disposed of when Nevada became a state in compliance with the Resolution of 1780, then why wasn’t it disposed of?
Noting that the dust has not settled on this issue, it appears that both NV and the feds defied the Constitution.
"That state was created in haste."
I don’t know NV’s history. Why the haste? The wild, wild west?
They took it from Mexico in 1848.
Why?
If they didn't own the land then how could they create states like Nevada and Utah out of it?
more precisely, Mexico, Santa Ana to be specific, lost it in a war in which combined American arms under the Generalship of Winfield Scott captured Mexico City and the US Marines victoriously visited the Halls of Montezuma
Dingy Harry got the snot beat out of him and Obama got the message
That’s why this thread has been discussing the Resolution of 1780. When the feds dispose of agreed on land in a US territory to a new state, people like me and others interpret that resolution as requiring the feds to give up control of everything in the new state.
But possibly as an explanation for the “federal” land in question in Nevada, what may actually be seeing is this. The feds have historically held onto land in several states when they were accepted into the Union, arguably as an unconstitutional way to bypass the Constitution’s Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I, and also the 5th Amendment's eminent domain clause, as opposed to having to later buy property in that state for a constitutionally limited purpose.
Steven Pratt explains his research of this issue in the following video.
Steven Pratt, Bound by Oath to Support THIS Constitution
If the land was grazed by ranchers families for extended
periods of time such as 100 years, then they have a proprietary right to it.
Read the enabling acts.
The feds have historically held onto land in several states when they were accepted into the Union, arguably as an unconstitutional way to bypass the Constitution’s Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I, and also the 5th Amendment's eminent domain clause, as opposed to having to later buy property in that state for a constitutionally limited purpose.
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2.
I'll agree with the earlier poster in that I have better things to do with my time than to spend 30 minutes listening to some guy's personal interpretation of the Constitution. How about a synopsis?
Since all the Founders that were still alive participated in setting up the system by which public land was sold and then later made available for homestead, I think it’s pretty clear that they thought otherwise.
If you can find a single example of all public land within a state, or even most of it being transferred to state ownership, I’ll be glad to change my POV at least to some extent.
Ohio became the first state admitted under the public lands/territory paradigm in 1803. The federal government retained ownership of all land not sold while it was a territory except one section per township granted to the state for purposes of funding schools and roads. AFAIK, nobody even claimed at the time that title to the ownership of unsold public lands should be transferred to the state.
One state with which I’m familiar is MO. Federal public lands were still being sold off and homesteaded in quantity in the 1910s and 20s, and some as late as the 1960s.
Here’s an interesting article about the history of public land disposal.
\http://www.ancestry.com/wiki/index.php?title=Public-Domain_States
IOW, while you may not think the fedgov should be able to own or control land, our entire history contradicts the notion.
I think you’re missing the point. NV land was handled more or less as land in every other state was.
What is your rationale for NV being granted ownership of all public lands at statehood when no other state was?
AFAIK, nobody ever raised these constitutional claims till the last few years. Don’t you think the guys who actually wrote the Constitution and then later passed laws admitting new states and making provision to retain ownership of federal lands till sold had a better idea of what the Constitution meant than you or I do?
I don’t think there would be anything unconstitutional if Congress decided to transfer ownership of all federal lands to the state it’s in. It’s just never been done.
NV was created in haste during the civil war. Lincoln needed the votes.
The Federal government is not allowed to hold, or control ANY land other than what is listed under article 1 Section 8 of the UNITED STATES constitution.
First, they are territories. Then after application and being accepted, become states sovereign, joining the union of states. The federal government relinquishes all such, other than Indian lands. Indian lands are in fact a seperate entity within the federal government.
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.