Nevada Cattle Ranch

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Government never bought this land. It should have been placed in the state of Nevada’s hands a hundred years ago. The feds have no business owning 87% of all the land within a state’s borders. What a complete and utter joke.[/quote]

“Should have…” the only bigger word is “if.”

The Federal government, whether you like it or not, has primary rights dating to the Northwest Ordinances. It had no need to “buy” the land–It “owned” the land prior to the establishment of the Territory of Nevada or its statehood.[/quote]

Oh, I understand this completely. But the central government of the United STATES of America was quite the arrogant entity in granting statehood AND “graciously” allowing the fledgling state a whopping 13% of the acreage. Whoop-de-do.[/quote]

Just the opposite.

The Northwest Ordinance was the precedent legislation for public land management and accession to statehood. Clearly it was not written with Nevada in mind, but it had a particular unintended consequence for the desert southwest.

“Over 80% of the Nevada area is owned by the federal government, as homesteads of maximum 640 acres (2.6 km2) in the arid state were generally too little land for a viable farm. Instead, early settlers would homestead land surrounding a water source, and then graze cattle on the adjacent public land, which is useless without access to water. The Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909, the establishment of a state dry-farming experiment station, and private promotional efforts stimulated dry farming within a fifty-mile radius of Wells, Nevada, but a combination of low precipitation, short summers, abundant jackrabbits, mediocre soil, and the faulty judgment of the settlers themselves virtually ended the ill-favored experiment after 1916.”

Prospective landowners–ranchers and farmers–chose not to purchase large tracts of dry land–a truly worthless commodity before 1932. What followed is the logic we see played out here, by Mr Bundy and others: small ranches, dependent on resources held in common by the Federal government (eventually the BLM)–leased grazing land and water access.

226

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Prospective landowners–ranchers and farmers–chose not to purchase large tracts of dry land–a truly worthless commodity before 1932. [/quote]

“Chose?”

Sorry, but this is misleading. The federal government never held massive land sales across the arid West where ranchers just up and failed to bid on prospective tracts of property.

It just wasn’t that way.[/quote]

Uh-huh. And your explanation digs the “settler’s” hole deeper.

227

Madison in federalist no. 46:

‘…should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.’

228

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Madison in federalist no. 46:

‘…should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.’[/quote]

Wishful thinking expressed in Madison’s extended subordinated subjunctive case.
(There are times when the author is a political philosopher; there are times when he is a salesman.)

231

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Madison in federalist no. 46:

‘…should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.’[/quote]

Wishful thinking expressed in Madison’s extended subordinated subjunctive case.
(There are times when the author is a political philosopher; there are times when he is a salesman.)[/quote]

I will certainly have to remember this quote of yours the next time the topic of nullification comes up.
[/quote]

Be my guest. In that arena, always the legal philosopher.

234

The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states:

The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.

So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.

Sorry, but to all the left-wing commentators who call Bundy a tax-cheat and an outlaw, be careful of what you speak for the Supreme Court has made it clear in 1845 that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with for the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minimum, it became state land ? not federal.

And then this - newer

The Federal government is to “purchase” that type of property with the consent of the state legislature. Totally different in nature from a Territory. America's Founding Documents | National Archives

From the US Constitution Article. I. Section. 8.

“…and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And”

235

[quote]Bauber wrote:
The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states:

The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.

So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.

Sorry, but to all the left-wing commentators who call Bundy a tax-cheat and an outlaw, be careful of what you speak for the Supreme Court has made it clear in 1845 that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with for the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minimum, it became state land ? not federal.

And then this - newer

The Federal government is to “purchase” that type of property with the consent of the state legislature. Totally different in nature from a Territory. America's Founding Documents | National Archives

From the US Constitution Article. I. Section. 8.

“…and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And”
[/quote]

Okay, educate us.
I searched the Pollard’s Lessee decision. It is all about littoral claims in Alabama, and references the cession of Georgia (and in context, Virginia) lands to the United States as required by the Constitution, and the subsequent cession by Spain of southern Alabama, and which rights were transferred specifically by Georgia and Spain to the United States.
It dates from 1845, before the Mexican cession of the southwest to the United States (note: Mexico ceded the land, and not a pre-existing state.)

So is Pollard generally applicable, or is it an opinion limited to the case at hand, the reversal of a judgment of the Alabama Supreme Court? (Note that no other order was issued; the decision did not direct the disposition of federal lands outside of Alabama.)
If so, why has it not been used to challenge all the subsequent laws on the management of public lands–and that would include the BLM and Homestead Acts?
If so, why did Bundy’s lawyers not use it in their appeals to the US District Court?

I think you found the Pollard citation on a website, one which has an opinion to make. Care to share it?

Does my skepticism now make me a “left-wing commentator?”

236

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:
The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states:

The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.

So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.

Sorry, but to all the left-wing commentators who call Bundy a tax-cheat and an outlaw, be careful of what you speak for the Supreme Court has made it clear in 1845 that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with for the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minimum, it became state land ? not federal.

And then this - newer

The Federal government is to “purchase” that type of property with the consent of the state legislature. Totally different in nature from a Territory. America's Founding Documents | National Archives

From the US Constitution Article. I. Section. 8.

“…and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And”
[/quote]

Okay, educate us.
I searched the Pollard’s Lessee decision. It is all about littoral claims in Alabama, and references the cession of Georgia (and in context, Virginia) lands to the United States as required by the Constitution, and the subsequent cession by Spain of southern Alabama, and which rights were transferred specifically by Georgia and Spain to the United States.
It dates from 1845, before the Mexican cession of the southwest to the United States (note: Mexico ceded the land, and not a pre-existing state.)

So is Pollard generally applicable, or is it an opinion limited to the case at hand, the reversal of a judgment of the Alabama Supreme Court? (Note that no other order was issued; the decision did not direct the disposition of federal lands outside of Alabama.)
If so, why has it not been used to challenge all the subsequent laws on the management of public lands–and that would include the BLM and Homestead Acts?
If so, why did Bundy’s lawyers not use it in their appeals to the US District Court?

I think you found the Pollard citation on a website, one which has an opinion to make. Care to share it?

Does my skepticism now make me a “left-wing commentator?”[/quote]

Oops I thought I had included the website about the Pollard decision.

And I don’t see much of an opinion in the article just a statement of facts on the books.

The main issue I believe back then was this -

The votes at the end of the day demonstrate that they never needed Nevada. Nonetheless, within the provisions of the Statehood Act of March 21, 1864 that brought Nevada into the voting fold, we see the source of the problem today. This Statehood Act retained the ownership of the land as a territory for the federal government. In return for the Statehood that was really against the law, the new state surrendered any right, title, or claim to the unappropriated public lands lying within Nevada. Moreover, this cannot be altered without the consent of the Feds. Hence, the people of Nevada cannot claim any land whatsoever because politicians needed Nevada for the 1864 election but did not want to hand-over anything in return. This was a typical political one-sided deal.

Republican Ronald Reagan had argued for the turnover of the control of such lands to the state and local authorities back in 1980. Clearly, the surrender of all claims to any land for statehood was illegal under the Constitution. This is no different from Russia seizing Crimea. The Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in Pollard�??�?�¢??s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) when Alabama became a state in 1845. The question presented was concerning a clause where it was stated �??�?�¢??that all navigable waters within the said State shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said State, and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said State.�??�?�¢?? The Supreme Court held that this clause was constitutional because it �??�?�¢??conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.�??�?�¢??

And from what I can tell I don’t see why it is not being brought up, but a lot of state issues did change after the Civil War, so in my opinion needs more research and digging. Just sharing what I find as I do.

According to the Nevada Constitution, which was created after the 1845 ruling. The Nevada Constitution clearly states all land not already appropriated when Nevada was a territory was to be controlled by the federal government.

The Northwest Ordinances were law, not part of the Constitution itself. Congress can change law. Congress passed a law which would bar Nevada from becoming a state at that time, and then Congress passed a law which would allow Nevada to become a state.

So, it seems to have been a cluster fuck from the start.

When looking at thins issue you must consider the law, the intent of the law, the context of the law and how the law has been â??interpretedâ?? or ruled on. Therefore you must consider what Madison said regarding the Northwest Ordinance at the 1st Constitutional Convention. You must also take into account the decisions from the US Supreme Court:

Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan (1845)

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
Could the Federal Government deny a citizen the right to property without due process of law? Could an item of property (a slave) be taken from the owner without just compensation? And finally, was the Missouri Compromise a valid and constitutional action of the National Government?

Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1885)

Camfield v. United States (1897)

Light v. United States (1911)

Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976)
The Court would not accept New Mexicoâ??s narrow reading of the property clause, which was to limit Congressional power to just two acts: (1) the power to dispose of and make incidental rules regarding the use of federal property and (2) the power to protect federal property. New Mexico had no support beyond dicta in two cases for its narrow view.
The Court determined that the property clause allows Congress to determine what are â??needfulâ?? rules â??respectingâ?? public lands. The Court has repeatedly asserted that this power over public lands is without limitations. The Court cites several cases in concluding that regulating and protecting wildlife is within this broad property power since it is both needful and concerns public land.

It is very easy to get bogged down in the details, laws, statues, precedents, etc. This has always been the goal of the big government leftists and what the Founders warned about…

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow?? James Madison

237

What if the Constitution no longer applied?

What if the whole purpose of the Constitution was to limit the government?

What if Congress’ enumerated powers in the Constitution no longer limited Congress, but were actually used as justification to extend Congress’ authority over every realm of human life?

What if the president, meant to be an equal to Congress, has instead become a democratically elected, term-limited monarch?

What if the president assumed everything he did was legal, just because he’s the president?

What if he could interrupt your regularly scheduled radio and TV programming for a special message from him?

What if he could declare war on his own?

What if he could read your emails and texts without a search warrant?

What if he could kill you without warning?

What if supreme court justices no longer looked to the constitution to determine the constitutionality of a law, but rather simply to justices who preceded them thought about it?

What if the rights and principles guaranteed in the Constitution have been so distorted in the past 200 years as to be unrecognizable by the Founders?

What if the fifty states were no longer sovereign entities equals to each other, and parents to the federal government they voluntarily constituted?

What if the states were mere provinces of a totally nationalized and fully centralized government?

What if the Constitution was amended stealthily, not by constitutional amendments duly passed by the states, but by the constant and persistent expansion of the federal government’s role in our lives?

What if the federal government decided if its own powers were proper and constitutional?

What if the Constitution, was no longer the supreme law of the land?

What if you needed a license from the government to speak, to assemble or to protest the government?

What if the government didn’t like what you had to say so it didn’t give you the license?

What if the right to keep and bear arms only applied to the government?

What if posse comitatus ? the federal law that prohibits our military from occupying our streets ? were no longer in effect?

What if the government considered the military an adequate dispenser of domestic law enforcement?

What if cops looked and acted like troops and you couldn’t distinguish the military from the police?

What if you where not secure in your person, in your papers, and in your property?

What if federal agents could write their own search warrants in defiance of the Constitution?

What if the government could decide when you were, and when you weren’t entitled to a jury trial?

What if the government could take your property whenever it wanted it?

What if the government could continue prosecuting you until it got the verdict it wanted?

What if the government could force you to testify against yourself simply by labeling you a domestic terrorist?

What if the government could torture you until you said what the government wanted to hear?

What if people running for president actually supported torture?

What if the government tortured your children to get to you?

What if government judges and government lawyers intimidated juries into convicting the innocent?

What if the government could send you to your death and your innocence meant nothing so long as the government’s procedures were followed?

What if America’s prison population, the largest in the world, was the result of a cruel and unusual way for a country to be free?

What if half the prison population never harmed anyone but themselves?

What if the people had no rights except those the government chose to let them have?

What if the states had no rights except to do as the federal government commanded?

What if our elected officials didn’t really live among us, but all instead had their hearts and their homes in Washington, D.C.?

What if the government could strip you of your rights because of where your mother was when you were born?

What if the income tax was unconstitutional?

What if the states were convinced to give up their representation in Congress?

What if the government tried to ban you from using a substance older than the government itself?

What if voting didn’t mean anything anymore because both political parties stand for Big Government?

What if the government could write any law, regulate any behavior and tax any event, the Constitution be damned?

What if the government was the reason we don’t have a Constitution anymore?

What if you could love your country but hate what the government has done to it?

What if sometimes to love your country, you had to alter or abolish the government?

What if Jefferson was right?

What if that government is best which governs least?

What if I’m right? What if the government is wrong?

What if it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong?

What if it is better to perish fighting for freedom than to live as a slave?

What if freedom’s greatest hour of danger is now?

  • Judge Napolitano
238

http://madworldnews.com/federal-judge-slams-blm-criminal-conspiracy/

This is also an interesting read.

239

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:
The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states:

The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.

So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.

Sorry, but to all the left-wing commentators who call Bundy a tax-cheat and an outlaw, be careful of what you speak for the Supreme Court has made it clear in 1845 that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with for the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minimum, it became state land ? not federal.

And then this - newer

The Federal government is to “purchase” that type of property with the consent of the state legislature. Totally different in nature from a Territory. America's Founding Documents | National Archives

From the US Constitution Article. I. Section. 8.

“…and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And”
[/quote]

Okay, educate us.
I searched the Pollard’s Lessee decision. It is all about littoral claims in Alabama, and references the cession of Georgia (and in context, Virginia) lands to the United States as required by the Constitution, and the subsequent cession by Spain of southern Alabama, and which rights were transferred specifically by Georgia and Spain to the United States.
It dates from 1845, before the Mexican cession of the southwest to the United States (note: Mexico ceded the land, and not a pre-existing state.)

So is Pollard generally applicable, or is it an opinion limited to the case at hand, the reversal of a judgment of the Alabama Supreme Court? (Note that no other order was issued; the decision did not direct the disposition of federal lands outside of Alabama.)
If so, why has it not been used to challenge all the subsequent laws on the management of public lands–and that would include the BLM and Homestead Acts?
If so, why did Bundy’s lawyers not use it in their appeals to the US District Court?

I think you found the Pollard citation on a website, one which has an opinion to make. Care to share it?

Does my skepticism now make me a “left-wing commentator?”[/quote]

Oops I thought I had included the website about the Pollard decision.

And I don’t see much of an opinion in the article just a statement of facts on the books.

The main issue I believe back then was this -

The votes at the end of the day demonstrate that they never needed Nevada. Nonetheless, within the provisions of the Statehood Act of March 21, 1864 that brought Nevada into the voting fold, we see the source of the problem today. This Statehood Act retained the ownership of the land as a territory for the federal government. In return for the Statehood that was really against the law, the new state surrendered any right, title, or claim to the unappropriated public lands lying within Nevada. Moreover, this cannot be altered without the consent of the Feds. Hence, the people of Nevada cannot claim any land whatsoever because politicians needed Nevada for the 1864 election but did not want to hand-over anything in return. This was a typical political one-sided deal.

Republican Ronald Reagan had argued for the turnover of the control of such lands to the state and local authorities back in 1980. Clearly, the surrender of all claims to any land for statehood was illegal under the Constitution. This is no different from Russia seizing Crimea. The Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in Pollard�??�?�¢??s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) when Alabama became a state in 1845. The question presented was concerning a clause where it was stated �??�?�¢??that all navigable waters within the said State shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said State, and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said State.�??�?�¢?? The Supreme Court held that this clause was constitutional because it �??�?�¢??conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.�??�?�¢??

And from what I can tell I don’t see why it is not being brought up, but a lot of state issues did change after the Civil War, so in my opinion needs more research and digging. Just sharing what I find as I do.

According to the Nevada Constitution, which was created after the 1845 ruling. The Nevada Constitution clearly states all land not already appropriated when Nevada was a territory was to be controlled by the federal government.

The Northwest Ordinances were law, not part of the Constitution itself. Congress can change law. Congress passed a law which would bar Nevada from becoming a state at that time, and then Congress passed a law which would allow Nevada to become a state.

So, it seems to have been a cluster fuck from the start.[/quote]

This was helpful. Mr. Armstrong is expressing one man’s opinion; it does not seem that he is a constitutional lawyer.
What is lost here is the difference between the admission of states from the Northwest Territories and from the existing 13 states at the time of adoption of the Constitution, and all other acquisitions after 1788, where the jurisdictions are defined by other laws. The Constitution (and Pollard) is relevant to the former, but I don’t know that it is enforced on the latter.

So Nevada–by law–gave its rights of territory to the Feds. You also are correct; Nevada probably should not have been admitted at all; its population was probably less than 40,000 (the first census soon after admission counted only 42,000).

So:

  1. By cession from Mexico, the Feds have the jurisdiction on public lands
  2. By law and the conditions of admission to the union, the Feds have the jurisdiction on public lands in question. By law, the BLM administers the lands for the benefit of the people of the United States (and not for Bundy, ranchers, or Nevadans exclusively).
  3. By Clark County’s action, and by law, the Feds, and not Clark County, have the water rights in the area in question.
  4. Clark County had declined to accept any money front he Bundys; and the Bundys failed to pay “taxes” (really usage fees) that others are obliged to pay.
  5. The Federal Court of appeal ruled against Bundy after 20 years of litigation; the Bundys trespassed further into BLM lands than any previous arrangement allowed. They had no squatters’ rights, even if such a thing is respected elsewhere.
  6. The BLM acted like idiots in forcing the issue; that doesn’t put Bundy in the right on all his claims, though.