Posted on 04/14/2014 11:30:47 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
MESQUITE, Nev. - A day after blinking in a showdown on the range, federal land managers pledged to pursue efforts to resolve a conflict with a southern Nevada rancher who has refused to pay grazing fees for 20 years.
Bureau of Land Management spokesman Craig Leff said the agency would continue to try to resolve the matter involving rancher Cliven Bundy "administratively and judicially." Bundy owes more than $1 million in grazing fees, according to the bureau.
"The door isn't closed. We'll figure out how to move forward with this," he said Sunday. He declined to comment on possible options.
Bundy did not respond to requests for comment.
The fight between Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management widened into a debate about states' rights and federal land-use policy. Bundy does not recognize federal authority on land he insists belongs to Nevada. The debate over who is right became so heated that a self-described armed local militia has come to his aide.
~~~snip~~~
In April 2012, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a notice of intent to sue the bureau for canceling a planned roundup of Bundy's cattle at the last minute.
The dispute that ultimately triggered last week's roundup dates to 1993, when the bureau cited concern for the federally protected desert tortoise in the region.
The bureau was implementing two federal court orders issued last year to remove Bundy's cattle after making repeated efforts to resolve the matter outside court.
I read something about that. So, basically, the BLM is freeloading, and they're pointing the finger at Bundy for being a "deadbeat"?
Some nerve those water-right-stealing scumbags have got.
And speaking of water rights...
Say, taxcontrol - why did the BLM & its Fedcoat Gear Queers need a backhoe at a "cattle roundup"?
Amazing isn’t it? I don’t think this is about tortoises at all. It surprises me that not many are showing an interest in this guy.
Hmph. You’d think Obama was copying his friend Putin by predicting chaos and then unleashing it in order to justify the forcible annexation of Nevada.
Sorry but you are incorrect. That land has belonged to the US government since the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The closest thing to “open range” was that period of time from the 1850’s till the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934 (before Bundy was born), when the US government did not enforce it’s rights to the land.
Once the grazing act was passed, Congress enforced it’s constitutional authority to determine how that land will be used and what fees were to be collected. Bundy paid those fees until 1993 when he did not like the terms that the land lord (Congress via the BLM) imposed as the legal owners of that land.
You claim the land was appropriated as open range. Show me where Congress appropriated that land as open range. What law or act of congress set aside that land as open range?
I will point out that if there was no appropriation as open range, then they are unappropriated public lands which is exactly what the state constitution says that “they forever disclaim all right and title to”
Read the Enclaves clause. Don’t see anything in there about the Feds owning a whole state.
You simply refuse to understand, so what’s the point in talking to you? Why does the federal government exist? What’s it’s mission statement? It exists to do those things that the states cannot do for themselves. This is prime function mission statement material. Keep your eyes on the prize and you won’t be confused.
You would sound more knowledgeable if you had the name of HOOVER dam correct. As I recall it was named after President Hoover. Just saying.
And neither of the two articles refute the following facts:
The US Government has owned the land since the treaty of Guadalupe Hildago (1848)
The State of Nevada gave up all claim to the US Government lands when it became a state (1864)
The lands in question have never been owned by the State of Nevada or any subdivision thereof
The Taylor Grazing act (1934) created the legal basis for collecting grazing fees for cattle grazing on US government owned lands
Bundy paid those fees until 1993 when he stopped paying
Bundy has continued to allow his cattle to graze on those lands without paying the grazing fees.
Actually as part of the treaty to end the war they paid Mexico $15 Million.
You’re just wrong. The Constitution must be interpreted through the lens of its creation. The context is being a servant for the states. If it is doing something the states can do for themselves it is violating the tenth amendment and the reason for its very existence. This is not just easily proven by doing a little research, it is self-evident by what we are experiencing today.
Please educate yourself by reading the Constitution of Nevada. Nevada never owned the land and gave up all rights to tax the lands.
As for the backhoe, have you ever maintained a dirt road? I have, depending on the situation, there are a lot of reasons why a backhoe might come in handy. Washed out dirt roads need to be repaired before vehicles can use them.
I don't think so either.
“The toothless tortoise is ill equipped to harvest and masticate range forage. The tortoise can harvest only tender vegetation, and it can’t masticate even that. The tortoise can’t process enough bulky, low analysis forage fast enough to meet its nutritional requirements (Nagy & Medica 1986). They solved this problem long ago—they allow other animals to do it for them. Desert tortoises feed primarily on dung. The more animals using the range, the more dung, which makes more food available for tortoises.”
So removing cattle as the BLM is doing on Cliven Bundy’s Nevada ranch is not helping the Desert Tortoise. In fact, it’s killing them off.
Sorry, my dyslexia is showing. Please pardon my poor spelling. To a person with dyslexia, we rely on our spell checkers more than most. “Hover” looks close enough to “Hoover” that our minds tend to process it the same way. In fact, right now I am having to look very closely to see the difference.
+2.
There is a thing called enumerated powers. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution does not alter powers specifically stated (enumerated) in the Constitution.
Article 1 section 8 enumerates the power of Congress to have exclusive jurisdiction in all matters whatsoever for both the District of Columbia and any other lands that the US Government owns. The 10th reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
The first clause of the 10th is met by Article 1 section 8 therefor, does not apply.
All contracts under duress are null and void. Civil War era deals are suspect on their face, and pretending that a state constitution absolves the federal government of its prime directive is foolish. This is an issue because people with common sense recognize the wrongness of a state possessing a mere sliver of its geographic footprint.
I believe you and I know exactly how to deal with this.
Deal with them individually.
Possessing the near entirety of a states geographic footprint
Is NOT a power that was EVER delegated to the United States (federal government). Sorry, you’re wrong on every level and proving yourself to be a tool for federal tyranny at every level.
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.