From a Nevada Rancher ~ First Amendment Area and Im using it for TRUTH AND FACTS If you dont like political stuff, stop reading now and go to the next post in your news feed. If you believe that the states own all land within their borders and cant be swayed -- move on as well UNLESS you can provide verifiable contradictions to what is below. Well if you are still here and ready . . . . lets get underway. Most of you know about Cliven Bundy and his dispute with the Federal Government over grazing permits and fees. So heres a history lesson for you on Federal Land in the Western States. Land that now makes up Nevada (and most of the rest of the South West United States belonged to Mexico up until the end of the U.S. Mexican war with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. As we all know, the US constitution allows for treaties to be signed by the president and ratified by the Senate. That did occur in 1848, and the United States also paid Mexico the sum of $15 million. Under the treaty Mexican citizens (Including native Americans) were given one year to decide if they would remain Mexican Citizens and move out of the new US Territory, or if they would automatically become US Citizens. Any land that was transferred to the US Government under the treaty that was in private ownership, or owned by an Indian tribe remained with the individual or tribe. There were NO states in the new territory, and the land was owned by the federal government. This was accomplished just as the constitution allows. In 1864, the Nevada Enabling act was passed creating the state of Nevada. The enabling act set the boundaries of the new state, and GAVE the state of Nevada certain lands for specific reasons. Land that was not turned over to the new state remained with the Federal Government. This to is constitutional under article IV section 3 number 1. Now how do we know that the Federal Government retained land? Because of the law that created the state of Nevada. Along with giving land to the new state, the enabling act contains this statement: 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 The Nevada enabling act gives all unappropriated public land to the federal government. Not the state of Nevada, and not to the individual counties. Next we look at article IV section 3 number 2 of the US constitution. Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; Some will clam the federal government can only own land for forts, dockyards and needful buildings. But looking closely at that portion, it covers only land PURCHASED by consent from the legislature of a state. The two sections of the constitution deal with two separate types of land. One specifically referring to purchased land. In 1862, congress passed the homestead act. Under the act, anyone could homestead on 160 acres of FEDERAL land in US territory or its states. After living upon the land for 5 years, they were granted full title to the land. (Mr. Bundy has said his family has own the 160 acre ranch he lives on since the 1870s so it could be safe to assume it was land that was homesteaded) If land in the new states WAS turned over to the state, the federal government would have no authority to let people homestead and gain title to the land. In a Federal court opinion I read last night (hey you have your hobbies, I have mine), up until the Taylor Grazing Act was passed, Each state was in charge of who was allowed to graze livestock upon state and federal public lands. As such, any purchase of grazing rights up until 1934 would have been purchased from the state. The opinion said the state of Nevada relinquished all rights to permits due to the supremacy clause in the constitution. So anytime after 1934, those grazing on Federal land had to obtain permits from the federal government to have livestock graze on public (federal) land. One other thing to consider, congress pass the Payment In lieu of taxes act in 1976. That act paid counties that had federal property because federal land can not be taxed. In 1993, Mr. Bundys grazing permit expired for 150,000 acres of land he ran cattle on. He refused to acknowledge the BLM as administrator of the land. Again, we go to article IV section 3:2 that specifically gives the federal government authority to makes rules and regulations for federal property. Congress created the BLM, Forest service, and Parks Service to make the rules and regulation according to laws passed by congress and signed by the president. As such there was a dispute about the law. The constitution give the Supreme court jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit courts are an extension of the Supreme court (If you would like I can give you a short history lesson on that another time). From what I have been able to gather, Mr. Bundy chose to represent himself in court against the BLM. The court ruled in favor of the BLM. Under federal law Mr Bundy could have appealed (just like the state of Utah has) to a panel of judges for the circuit court (the opinion I read last night was issued last summer and is from a court case around the same time, mid 1990s.) Under the court order, Mr. Bundy was to remove his cattle from the federal grazing land for non payment. I 1998 again in court, the federal government obtained a court order to remove the cattle. Then again in July 2013 another trespass and removal order was issued. Because of technicality in the wording of the court order, another new trespass and removal order was issued in October 2013. Apparently Mr. Bundy did NOT appeal those court orders as he had the authority to do. So that brings us to today. I see that the land for the state of Nevada was obtained as the constitution allows through treaty. The state of Nevada was created as the constitution allows. Lands in the new state remained under federal control by law, and by the authority of the constitution. The states have further accepted that the Federal government is the rightful owner of the lands by accepting PILT payments each year since 1976. Clark County, where Mr Bundy lives, and where the land is question is -- has received $3.1 million dollars in PILT payments in each of the last three Fiscal years. Mr. Bundy has broken the law. He continues to break the law by turning his cattle back onto land that he admits he does not own, and does not have a permit to graze on. Those who support Mr. Bundy are supporting a man who has broken the law. Those who support Mr. Bundy are supporting someone who is thumbing his nose at the citizens of the United States and thumbing his nose at the constitution as well.. And now my little rant is over.
Posted on: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:23:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015