Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: exit82
How about “adverse possession” of the land as a Bundy defense?

How about people research a little HISTORY instead of squealing "nanner-nanner boo-boo"?

From the Library of Congress
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsb&fileName=040/llsb040.db&recNum=818
(line 12)
Provided, this privilege shall not extend to lands upon which there many be rightful claims under the preemption and homestead laws

-----

Preemptive rights (also called land usage or 'range' rights) were given as an incentive to settle the West. These rights would be enumerated in the Deed held by Bundy's family since the 1800's. These rights are transferable, inherited along with the property, and stipulate WHO the fees would be paid to.

This Deed is a contract, and the federal gov/BLM impairment of the obligation of this contract by insisting Bundy pay them instead of the Original payee is unconstitutional according to Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1: .......or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts

Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.
James Madison, Federalist #44

31 posted on 04/16/2014 11:28:13 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as created by the Laws of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: MamaTexan

You are one smart cookie. If people like you ran our government we would not be in the mess we are in.


51 posted on 04/16/2014 12:47:15 PM PDT by Cats Pajamas (Send your dollar to see the birth certificate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson