[P-Marlowe]

It’s not his land. His cattle are grazing on federal land. At the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, Mexico and the U.S. signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which granted title to that land to the U.S., for which the U.S. paid Mexico $15 million.

It is his land and it is OUR land. From California to the New York Islands.

If you want to play real estate law, then since the Treaty with Mexico was signed under duress after a questionably legal war, the land actually belonged to Mexico under the Land Grants from Spain. Since contracts signed under duress are not valid, the title to the land belongs to Mexico. The US Government has no legal right to the land any more than Mr. Bundy. When Mexico finally finishes it's ongoing invasion, the land will eventually revert to Mexico.

My guess is that Obama wants to take back the land so that he can give it freely to Mexico before he leaves office. It's an act of love, you know.

At any rate when the government allows free use of land for over 100 years, the precedent that is set requires that the government show good cause as to why they are rescinding the grazing rights and since Mr. Bundy has been paying for grazing rights for over 100 years, he does have a property interest in the land and the government would have to compensate him for it.

As she said Utah is next. I have ridden ATV's on the open range in Utah and if they close that down, then you can kiss your $10 a pound filet minon steaks goodbye. You'll be paying $10 a pound for cheap ground beef. This whole thing just may be a way to reduce global warming by denying cattle the food the consume to make farts.

[Scoutmaster]

I've never thought of applying the concept of contracts signed under duress to a treaty; I'm certain it would be a case of first impression.

In what manner do you think the questionable legality of the Mexican War affects the enforceability of the Treaty?

[GAFreedom]

If you want to play real estate law, then since the Treaty with Mexico was signed under duress after a questionably legal war, the land actually belonged to Mexico under the Land Grants from Spain. Since contracts signed under duress are not valid

Uh, international law and treaties DO NOT follow contract law at all. Duress is not a problem in a treaty. No consideration is not a problem in a treaty. You might want to read up on that a bit before making claims.

At any rate when the government allows free use of land for over 100 years, the precedent that is set requires that the government show good cause as to why they are rescinding the grazing rights and since Mr. Bundy has been paying for grazing rights for over 100 years, he does have a property interest in the land and the government would have to compensate him for it.

Nope, he stopped paying them in 1993. And his family would have only been paying grazing rights since 1937 or thereabouts. I think two decades of no grazing fees and grazing anyway presents a bit of "gibsmedat" problem, don't you agree?