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

Skip to comments.

Nevada range war: Western states move to take over federal land
The Christian Science Monitor ^ | 04-20-2014 | Brad Knickerbocker

Posted on 04/23/2014 6:05:25 AM PDT by ReaganÜberAlles

The fight over Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s cows grazing illegally on federal land is a symbol of a much larger issue: control of land in western states, where the federal government is dominant

(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bundy; nevada; west
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

1 posted on 04/23/2014 6:05:25 AM PDT by ReaganÜberAlles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ReaganÃœberAlles

The map reminds me of a distant kingdom (DC) and it’s far flung “colonies”, the West. Why does the federal government need to possess all this land that rightfully belongs to the individual states?


2 posted on 04/23/2014 6:06:27 AM PDT by ReaganÜberAlles (Remember, you can't spell "progressive" without "SS".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReaganÃœberAlles

That’s a telling graphic. Thanks for posting it. Interesting that there’s not one state untouched by FedGov’s grubby fingers.


3 posted on 04/23/2014 6:29:48 AM PDT by upchuck (Support ABLE, the Anybody But Lindsey Effort. Yes, we are the ABLE!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ReaganÃœberAlles
It does not "rightfully belong" to individual states.

It belongs to the federal government, but the federal government should have sold it long ago.

I don't see how giving state governments millions of acres of land for free helps anything.

4 posted on 04/23/2014 6:39:22 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
Should the federal government not have post offices or military bases or court buildings in any state?

This whole topic needs a lot more thinking and a lot less silliness.

5 posted on 04/23/2014 6:40:43 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ReaganÃœberAlles

Greg Abbott, TX Attorney General and candidate for governor, has unfurled the “Come and Take It” flag and promised to be there to defend 90,000 acres of borderland between Texas and Oklahoma. Yesterday, the BLM decided it didn’t need that land after all. It would have been poor “optics” to for slavering BLM dogs to attack a man in a wheel chair.


6 posted on 04/23/2014 6:42:25 AM PDT by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReaganÃœberAlles

Maybe the “penumbras” from the Kelo v. City of New London Supreme Court decision can embolden the states to just take the Federal land.

Good for the goose, etc.


7 posted on 04/23/2014 6:50:27 AM PDT by Zeppo ("Happy Pony is on - and I'm NOT missing Happy Pony")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReaganÃœberAlles

If it spurs (pun intended) the western states into action then this may be the best thing (yet) to come out of the Bundy standoff.


8 posted on 04/23/2014 6:53:29 AM PDT by ThunderSleeps (Stop obarma now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Nevada must have one HUGE Post Office.

APf


9 posted on 04/23/2014 6:56:31 AM PDT by APFel (Regnum Nostrum Crescit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wideawake; ReaganÃœberAlles
The land rightfully belongs to the people - not to the government (state or federal). The Feds were supposed to manage the territory for the benefit of the people (not turtles), until statehood.

Once a state was admitted to the union, the Feds were to sell, offer as homesteads, and otherwise privatize the land, so that the people benefited. Any revenue raised could thus be used to pay Federal debts/contracts.

The current Federal “ownership” is unconstitutional. The Feds tried this with Missouri and several other states, but the states banded together and were successful in forcing the Feds to divest.

10 posted on 04/23/2014 7:05:07 AM PDT by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ThunderSleeps; wideawake; Jim Robinson
"If it(Bundy standoff) spurs the western states into action.

The Bundy issue has been going on for over 20 years. Likewise, the issue the federal lands has been going on since the beginning, but took a increased level with the passage of FLPMA in 1976.

Utah passed the Transfer of Public Lands Act(HB 148) in the spring of 2012 that requires the transfer by the end of 2014, after which, I guess, Utah would sue.

You can find a lot of internet info, pros and cons, and details of which lands

11 posted on 04/23/2014 7:05:19 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ReaganÃœberAlles
The states aren't "taking over" federal land.

They are rescinding their loan of the land to the feral government.

12 posted on 04/23/2014 7:08:51 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The best way to control opposition is to lead it ourselves." -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReaganÃœberAlles

“Why does the federal government need to possess all this land that rightfully belongs to the individual states?”

I see no good reason to agree with your premises.

As far as I can tell, the federal government does not “possess all this land”. The United States possess all this land. The federal government is an agent of the States. Admittedly it’s out of control, but it’s still an agent. The federal government is not the United States.

Why should this land rightfully belong to the individual states? The land was acquired and therefore owned by the United States as a group, so by what process did ownership change when a new state was created? Do we not believe in property rights or do they not apply in this situation for some reason?


13 posted on 04/23/2014 7:10:46 AM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the and breadth of "ignorance. individual be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: Ben Ficklin

BF, you’ve been a great source of thoughtfully presented information on these threads. I appreciate your contributions.


15 posted on 04/23/2014 7:18:25 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: greeneyes

“The land rightfully belongs to the people”

By what right? Did the people buy it or inherit it? Did they conquer it? Of course if by “the people” you mean the people of the United States, not the people of an individual state, the answer to my last two questions is “yes”.

“not to the government (state or federal).”

We agree there.


16 posted on 04/23/2014 7:20:20 AM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the and breadth of "ignorance. individual be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Everybody wants to shoot the messenger.
17 posted on 04/23/2014 7:22:35 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
Interesting that there’s not one state untouched by FedGov’s grubby fingers.

Because every state has a military base, Indian reservation, interstate hightway, or National Park. Among other things.

18 posted on 04/23/2014 7:26:54 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ReaganÃœberAlles
Why does the federal government need to possess all this land that rightfully belongs to the individual states?

Get the federal government to sell the land to them. All it takes is the approval of Congress.

19 posted on 04/23/2014 7:27:55 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

Wow, there are actually people on FRee Republic that do not know that the very definition of a state is those entities that are soveriegn over the lands of USA. The amount of land which DC owns should be almost _none_: the District (DC) and land granted to it by the states for Federal buildings and facilities, e.g., court houses, airports. Those are the only areas DC owns; previous Indian lands not withstanding. Furthermore, Federal land is the only place where Federal law has juristiction. State and local law controls all non-Federal land.


20 posted on 04/23/2014 7:29:46 AM PDT by veracious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

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.

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