Posted on 04/10/2014 10:35:30 AM PDT by bimboeruption
"In obedience to the requirements of an act of the Congress of the United States, approved March twenty-first, A.D. eighteen hundred and sixty-four, to enable the people of Nevada to form a constitution and state government, this convention, elected and convened in obedience to said enabling act, do ordain as follows, and this ordinance shall be irrevocable, without the consent of the United States and the people of the State of Nevada:
. . .
Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they 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; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.
I've conducted a minimal search and have found no statehood document requiring the feds to give more of the land to the state.
Can we find a Presidential candidate with the guts to run on that platform?
"In obedience to the requirements of an act of the Congress of the United States, approved March twenty-first, A.D. eighteen hundred and sixty-four, to enable the people of Nevada to form a constitution and state government, this convention, elected and convened in obedience to said enabling act, do ordain as follows, and this ordinance shall be irrevocable, without the consent of the United States and the people of the State of Nevada:
. . .
Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they 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; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.
I've conducted a minimal search and have found no statehood document requiring the feds to give more of the land to the state.
Can we find a Presidential candidate with the guts to run on that platform?
Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) working with the Chinese gov’t to take land from hard-working Americans.
Hmmmm...
Maybe I wasn't too far off the mark.
Jeff, God is already in charge of this. How many of us have asked on our knees for His help. I pray that no one gets hurt, but I also pray that America wakes up to what is happening.
Agree .....lots of martial law fodder / low hanging fruit events available to Precedent Erkel Mugabe ......
... Stay safe !
Actually, in 1993 - notice the time frame - the Nevada Legislature passed an amendment eliminating the phrase: “[they 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; and that]”
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Statutes/67th/Stats1993R01.html#FIz189_zSJRz27
How valid it is to amend the document you entered the Union under, in which you DID “forever disclaim all right and title”, is open to question. Generally speaking, a contract between two parties cannot be changed without the consent of both parties.
Just saw this footnote - the amendment becomes “effective on the date Congress consents to amendment or a legal determination is made that such consent is not necessary.”
Article 1, Section 8 very specifically lays out what land the federal government can legally own.
10 square miles for seat of federal government (Wash DC), and plots or sites necessary for forts, arsenals, dry-docks and needful BUILDINGS.
There is not one thing in The Constitution which gives the fed gov legal authority to own large tracts of land just to own them.
Also, the deal between Nevada and the fed gov at the time of statehood is completely non op and non legit by any reasonable reading of Art 1, Sec 8.
Lets not forget that corrupt politics and bad judgements from courts isn’t a recent invention.
That complies with the prefix to the Nevada State Constitution, which requires Congressional consent to amendment of the provision forever ceding federal public lands in Nevada to the United States.
What was your take? I recall at the time it was a big deal on this forum. I would be interested in your input on how the “law” was acting at ground zero (so to speak)..
I spent a Saturday there. There were about six Marshalls there. They were just sitting around. Nobody was afraid on either side, it was peacful. There was a fence and a canal between the two sides, about 25yards apart.
And just to mention the fact that the US Government has “given” promises to China for land ownership in exchange for debts.
So in my view this is ultimately a war against the Chinese, as its them who are awaiting down the road to take possession of property in America.
I for one do not like the idea anything i own is being taken away and given to a foreign power.
Jeff I miss your wisdom. I am so blessed by your impact on my life Sir.
God guided those at the Bundy Ranch last weekend...and I pray He continues to support them and confound these enemies we have running the country.
But, when you have a criminal mobster like Reid in control, where his chosen man at the BLM was just embarrassed, there is no telling how far he will push it or when.
We (and they) must remain ever vigilant.
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.