Clive Bundy, Living Caricature of Libertopian.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is "the curiosity" as it relates to this specific case in Nevada?

Looking at the whole picture, the US doesn't have the right to own and rent out land within a State.

The US can only own land within a State under very specific circumstances.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, 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

Now, prior to becoming a State, a Territory does not have a State Legislature, therefore there can be no circumstance in which the Territory can cede ownership to the US as a condition of becoming a State.

[Jerome]

And none of that invalidates existing water and use rights, rights which the US acknowledges are and have been in existence.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Jerome

Looking at the whole picture, the US doesn't have the right to own and rent out land within a State.

The US can only own land within a State under very specific circumstances.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, 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

That clause was about DC. Can you show how it applies to Nevada?

[Jerome]

Reading the transcripts of the debates, we can see the purpose of limiting the US from owning land within a State was to prevent the US from controlling a State.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That clause was about DC. Can you show how it applies to Nevada?

Avalon Project - Madison Debates - September 5

Mr. SHERMAN was for giving immediate ease to those who looked on this clause as of great moment, and for trusting to their concurrence in other proper measures.

On the question for postponing

N. H. ay. Mas. no. Ct. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. no. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN6]

So much of the (4) clause as related to the seat of Government was agreed to nem: con:

On the residue, to wit, "to exercise like authority over all places purchased for forts &c.

Mr. GERRY contended that this power might be made use of to enslave any particular State by buying up its territory, and that the strongholds proposed would be a means of awing the State into an undue obedience to the Genl. Government.

Mr. KING thought himself the provision unnecessary, the power being already involved: but would move to insert after the word "purchased" the words "by the consent of the Legislature of the State" This would certainly make the power safe.

Obviously they are talking about more than DC.

[LadyShea]

That Constitutional clause from Article 1 Section 8 is about DC

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, 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

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Citations? Where is this information available?

The courts cases, the government never argues that he doesn't own the water and use rights, just that they have the right to charge a fee.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That Constitutional clause from Article 1 Section 8 is about DC

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, 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

Read the debate, after what you have bolded refers to everywhere else.

[Jerome]

Keep in mind that over the past several decades that the BLM has been engaged in a conspiracy to remove ranchers from all about the west.

For this reason, the Court has held certain government officials in contempt and referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. In summary, government officials, and perhaps also Mr. Snow, entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also of their vested water rights. This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm to support the injunction described at the end of this Order.

United States v. Estate of Hage, No. 2:07-cv-01154-RCJ-VCF, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Injunction (D. Nev. May 24, 2013)

[Jerome]

What the BLM does is harass ranchers with lawsuits for the purpose of draining their resources such that they have to sell their rights for a pittance.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Jerome

The courts cases, the government never argues that he doesn't own the water and use rights, just that they have the right to charge a fee.

Does the argument actually concede that he does own those rights? If so under what legal authority?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Jerome

What the BLM does is harass ranchers with lawsuits for the purpose of draining their resources such that they have to sell their rights for a pittance.

Can you back this opinion up with some legal facts?

[LadyShea]

Has Bundy demonstrated his predecessors-in-interest occupied the lands prior to 1848? No, he's a big fat liar

Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy’s parents moved from Bundyville, Arizona and bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt.

Water rights were transferred too, but only to the ranch, not the federally managed land surrounding it. Court records show Bundy family cattle didn’t start grazing on that land until 1954. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...t-The-Venetian

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Jerome

Read the debate, after what you have bolded refers to everywhere else.

It only applies to the states that existed at that time. Read the report I posted earlier today.

[LadyShea]

Jerome, it is possible that Bundy is in the right, but unless you can lay out a clear, concise argument and back it up with Constitutional provisions, treaties and agreements, and legal precedence, I don't have any reason to believe he is.

Seems to me you would need to demonstrate

1. That Bundy enjoys water and land use rights to the land outside of his ranch that supersede the Federal Governments rights to regulate the land they own

or

2. That the US does not and cannot own the land in Nevada that they claim to own by way of purchasing it from Mexico, and/or that they have no rights to regulate the lands or assess usage fees

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It only applies to the states that existed at that time. Read the report I posted earlier today.

Is that so, the writers of the document were only concerned about the national government "awing the State into an undue obedience" as regards existing States, not any new States.

That makes no logical sense whatsoever.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Yeah, how about that!

Like, is this some goofy Sovereign Citizen nonsense or what?

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by Jerome

Why did you skip the part about water and use rights in existence prior to that area becoming US territory?

The US does not deny these rights were and are in existence.

And I don't deny that there is a God. I just don't bother with him until I have evidence that he exists.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Jerome

Looking at the whole picture, the US doesn't have the right to own and rent out land within a State.

Oh dear. Someone's misplaced his copy of the list again.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Hermit

And I don't deny that there is a God. I just don't bother with him until I have evidence that he exists.

Good, then you don't believe the US can own property within a State outside of very limited specific parameters prescribed in the constitution.

[Jerome]

I note you are all ignoring the other case I linked which shows a 35 year long international conspiracy involving the BLM to run off ranchers in the west.

[Watser?]

International conspiracy no less. Is it Mexicans?

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Jerome

I note you are all ignoring the other case I linked which shows a 35 year long international conspiracy involving the BLM to run off ranchers in the west.

This case?

Just as there is no right to graze on the land of another private person without permission, there is no right to graze on federal land without permission, United States v. West, 232 F.2d 694,698 (9th Cir. 1956) (quoting Camfield v. United States, 167 U.S. 518, 524 (1897)); see also Colvin Cattle Co., Inc. v. United States, 468 F.3d 803, 807 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2; Light v. United States, 220 U.S. 523, 536 (1911) ("The United States can prohibit absolutely or fix the terms on which its property may be used.")) . . .

During this period, the Shoshone held title to the land at the pleasure of Congress. Congress had the right to take title to the land from the conquered Shoshone explicitly or implicitly, which it did through various acts and omissions, eventually settling the taking with a cash payment of $26 million by the Indian Claims Commission and extinguishing aboriginal title to the entire area in 1979. (internal citation omitted)

Article IV of the Treaty of Ruby Valley simply opened the Shoshone lands for ranching and other purposes to non-Indians as a general matter but did not plausibly transfer any particular vested rights from Mexican fee holders to any American who ended up on the ceded lands . . . The language of “and ranches established” indicates the contemplation of the establishment of new endeavors by non-Indian settlers, not the transfer of existing private land in fee simple previously issued under Mexican or Spanish patents, or the Shoshone legal equivalent, which transfer might transfer attendant rights. (internal quotation omitted)

United States v. Estate of Hage, No. 2:07-cv-01154-RCJ-VCF, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Injunction (D. Nev. May 24, 2013)

[Dingfod]

I'm going pretty safely go out on a not very shaky limb here and say there weren't any individual water and land use rights in Southeast Nevada prior to Nevada becoming U.S. territory. People, regardless of race, were pretty scarce in general in Nevada in 1864, but most especially in the desert of Southeastern Nevada. Bunkerville, about 40 miles SW of St. George, Utah (est. 1861) wasn't settled by Mormons until 1877. Mormon settlers took up residence in the Las Vegas area in 1855, but abandoned it, returning to Utah in 1857. By treaty, the Pauite tribe owned the land, but ceded it to the federal government in exchange for supplies and farm equipment for use on other lands. One rancher named Gass re-occupied the old Mormon fort after 1865, making it into a resupply stop on the Mormon Trail. But then, that was after Nevada became a U.S territory.

[chunksmediocrites]

You don't understand. Cliven Bundy's family had land rights to that area for grazing Bison latifrons during the Pleistocene from the first "Western Stemmed" people to settle the area. It was all spelled out in petroglyphs but in an international conspiracy the "Clovis" peoples destroyed the contracts while the paleolithic Bundys were busy telling everyone that they didn't acknowledge the Clovis government's actual existence.

And none of this negates the fact that the US government today acts as if it had some sort of legal authority or control over federal land inside the United States, and that people- God-fearing Amuricans, no less- can't just do as they please on Amurican land, and have to follow "laws", and "rules", just because some "judiciary" says so.

That's why I'm converting all my horrible US dollars into Ron Paulsos*, considered legal tender in anyplace freedom thrives!** Take that Federal Overlords!

*Ron Paulsos are small silver coins with the words "bit coin" stamped on one side, and a picture of Ron Paul wrestling Uncle Sam while States-Rights Sally stands to the side, cheering on her hero. It's a little hard to make out, but it is definitely all on there.

**Not legal tender.