Clive Bundy, Living Caricature of Libertopian.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by Jerome

Not legal to extort a territory.

They were the ones extorted.

I love how you think extortion is ok and also somehow invalidates the supreme law of the land.

If that was so, any of the states could challenge the constitutionality of the signing over, but they don't because it isn't. Nobody twisted their arm to join the US as a state.

[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by Jerome

A state legislature can vote to allow national ownership, that was not done here. It was still a territory.

The US Federal Government took the land from Mexico in 1848.

Wow- it is almost as if this area was then the property of the Federal Government, Jerome!

The Federal Government allowed the Territory of Nevada to incorporate in 1861; however the Territory of Nevada did not actually encompass the eastern third of what would become the State of Nevada- that was part of the Territory of Utah, except for the southeast tip of what would someday be the State of Nevada and encompass Bunkerville (36°45′55″N 114°8′11″W)- the area below the 37th parallel remained part of the Territory of New Mexico.

Then in 1863 that area- that would become Bunkerville 14 years later- became part of the Territory of Arizona (the US government's claim; as opposed to the Territory of Arizona as defined by the Confederate States of America, which did not encompass said lands).

In 1864, Nevada became a state; it did not, however, at that time hold the land which would later become Bunkerville and its surroundings. That area was still part of the Territory of Arizona, until 1866 when the northwest corner of that Arizona Territory was annexed by the State of Nevada.

And as Dingfod pointed out, Bunkerville would not exist until settled by Utah polygamists in 1877, none of whom appear to be particularly related to the Bundy family.

The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 established Federal Grazing Districts.

In 1936 the Las Vegas grazing district was set up.

The Bureau of Land Management was formed in 1946.

Cliven Bundy was born in 1946.

His parents first bought land in Bunkerville in 1948.

They built the ranch in 1951.

They began to graze cattle in 1954.

Cliven Bundy recognizes the State of Nevada, and claims to follow its laws. The Constitution of the State of Nevada includes the following paramount allegiance clause:

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

This is directly related to the Civil War raging in the States at the time; however the people of Nevada have not seen fit to remove it.

Further, Cliven Bundy paid fees to the BLM for use of the Bunkerville allotment until 1993, when he claims the fees became too high; though the fees- set by Congress and Ronald Reagan's executive order 12548-Grazing Fees- NOT by the BLM- peaked in 1994 and have actually been lower than the 1994 high for every year since.

But please, don't let any of that get in the way of your claims. International Conspiracies!

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Jerome

Just wow...

I was not claiming it was good that they did it, just that they had popular support to do so.

Sorry, I was under the impression that, for example, the settlers of Georgia (e.g. the voters) were in favor of removing the Cherokee Indians from their land.

And so on and so forth throughout US history.

Either that, or the massive popular opposition to US expanding European settlement into Indian lands was kept a secret in my history classes. (Not that they were unanimous by any means.)

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by Jerome

... the water company can make the water too expensive to buy, thereby buy all the homes in a neighborhood for 10% of the price. Guess what then .. they lower the price of water, then sell the houses for super fat profit!

I think it's great that you understand the problems inherent in free markets.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Jerome

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.

"The document" I quoted is the Constitution. Those debates were from a few weeks before it was adopted. Why would they be considering some possible future expansion via foreign land purchases when they were still hashing out the relationship between the original states and the newly forming Federal government?

ETA: Additionally the person (not multiple "writers") you quoted from the Madison debates was Eldridge Gerry, who ultimately refused to sign the Constitution, was known for his obsessive fear of political and military tyranny and suspicion of others' motives, and who thought the general population was easily misled and didn't like election "by the people". There is no reason to believe his opinion was widely shared by others in the Constitutional congress.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I think it's great that you understand the problems inherent in free markets.

That would be a monopoly, not a free market.

I find it interesting when people redefine terms to make themselves feel better about their failed beliefs.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"The document" I quoted is the Constitution. Those debates were from a few weeks before it was adopted. Why would they be considering some possible future expansion via foreign land purchases when they were still hashing out the relationship between the original states and the newly forming Federal government?

Curiously they had a mechanism for new states. Can you point to the part where the original states are treated differently from any new states?

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Hermit

If that was so, any of the states could challenge the constitutionality of the signing over, but they don't because it isn't. Nobody twisted their arm to join the US as a state.

I love how you think extortion is ok and also somehow invalidates the supreme law of the land.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

This case?

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)

I note you are ignoring this case you linked to.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by Jerome

That would be a monopoly, not a free market.

I find it interesting when people redefine terms to make themselves feel better about their failed beliefs.

I find it immensely boring when someone tries to pretend there are free markets anywhere or that that would be desirable.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by Jerome

I love how you think extortion is ok and also somehow invalidates the supreme law of the land.

Eh dude. You are the one supporting Cliven Bundy's 'right' to extort the government by threatening to kill federal agents.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by Watser?

Eh dude. You are the one supporting Cliven Bundy's 'right' to extort the government by threatening to kill federal agents.

What's more, there was no extortion to begin with. If there was, the deal would be simply legally unenforceable and the states could have it annulled in court and ownership of all unappropriated land signed over to the states. The states are not challenging the deal, though, because no extortion took place.

[ShottleBop]

Originally Posted by Jerome

That would be a monopoly, not a free market.

I find it interesting when people redefine terms to make themselves feel better about their failed beliefs.

"Free markets" naturally tend to monopoly. That's why the anti-trust acts were adopted beginning late in the 19th century.

[ChuckF]

I do feel pretty bad for the Territory of Nevada, the victim of extortion as a result of its admission to the Union. Did the Territory also suffer a battery? Was it assaulted? Was it falsely imprisoned?

[LadyShea]

[quote=Jerome;1185510]

Originally Posted by Jerome

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.

Curiously they had a mechanism for new states. Can you point to the part where the original states are treated differently from any new states?

Can you point to the part of the Constitution that conforms with the statement you posted as being or supporting your argument? Do you even remember what your argument actually was?

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.

What is this meant to support? Are you arguing that the US cannot own land, or that the US cannot regulate the land it owns?

Article IV Section III

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The 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; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

I do feel pretty bad for the Territory of Nevada, the victim of extortion as a result of its admission to the Union. Did the Territory also suffer a battery? Was it assaulted? Was it falsely imprisoned?

I can see the headline already:

Brian Sandoval: We wuz robbed!

[BrotherMan]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

I do feel pretty bad for the Territory of Nevada, the victim of extortion as a result of its admission to the Union. Did the Territory also suffer a battery? Was it assaulted? Was it falsely imprisoned?

I think the obvious path of recourse is to claim the state was underage and therefore couldn't consent to any contract.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by BrotherMan

I think the obvious path of recourse is to claim the state was underage and therefore couldn't consent to any contract.

That sounds very legitimate.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by Jerome

That would be a monopoly, not a free market.

So the freedom of monopolies has to be limited for the sake of freedom!

And who do you imagine will do this, Jerry? The invisible hand?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

I do feel pretty bad for the Territory of Nevada, the victim of extortion as a result of its admission to the Union. Did the Territory also suffer a battery? Was it assaulted? Was it falsely imprisoned?

It was much worse than that, I'm afraid. The therapy sessions -- most of which involved anatomically correct dolls, lots of crying, and regular assumption of the fetal position -- continued for decades. Nevada remains fucked up and only marginally functional to this day.

Originally Posted by Jerome

That would be a monopoly, not a free market.

All free markets ultimate end in single-seller monopolies. Didn't you see Rollerball?

[Clutch Munny]

The terrible irony being that Nevada can't go to Reno to get a quickie divorce.

[Stephen Maturin]

Srsly though, federal land acquisition and management is hardly my bailiwick, but before this Bundy story came along I can't recall ever seeing anyone claim that the Enclave Clause was all about ownership rather than authority to legislate, as the plain text indicates. And I'd REALLY never seen anyone claiming that that clause required state legislative approval for the U.S. to own land that it already owned. Some uber-nutters are even saying that the U.S. can't own land at all except for the limited purposes set out in the Enclave Clause ("forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings").

A+ for effort.

A++ for dumbs

+4 Internets for lulz.

1 Wingnut Welfare Voucher with a face value of $500 for t3h crazy.

The notion that the U.S. can't own any land in any state without the state legislature's approval strikes me as preposterous. Never mind the Enclave Clause. Take a look at the rest of Article I, Section 8. Congress may acquire land anywhere it jolly well chooses in furtherance of any of those powers, or any powers properly implied through the Necessary and Proper Clause. If Congress decides that a nationwide network of underground tunnels connecting all military installations is necessary in furtherance of its authority to raise, provide for and maintain an army and navy, it can gobble up whatever land it needs to do that, and there isn't a goddamn thing state governments can do about it.

Funny thing is, a perfectly plausible straight-face argument can be made in [partial] support of Bundy's position. For instance, this lawprof makes a decent originalist case for the proposition that non-enclave land acquired by the U.S. can only be retained in furtherance of an enumerated or properly implied power. If it's not so used, then the U.S.'s retention of the land is ultra vires and unconstitutional. The argument is that U.S. land not being used for a constitutionally proper purpose should be sold or otherwise disposed of with reasonable dispatch. You'd be hard-pressed to come up with a viable rationale for claiming that all the "grazing land" the U.S. owns in Nevada is being held in furtherance of an enumerated or property implied power.

'Course, the Supreme Court doesn't see it that way. The Court views the U.S.'s authority to acquire and regulate non-enclave land as p. much unbounded. E.g., Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (1976).

[Dingfod]

$1.35 per animal per month makes ranching unprofitable? Tell that to ranchers paying 12-15 times that much on private land, and four to five times as much on state lands.

[Dingfod]

Why does Ruby Valley keep being mentioned by Bundy supporters? Bundy's cattle are trampling the shit out of the Bunkerville unit, which was Paiute land until the 1860s, and it is nowhere near the Ruby Valley or Shoshone lands. Since the Bunkerville area was not settled until after Nevada became a state, persons homesteading land there were entitled only to 320 acres, for which they had to pay a pittance and live on it and make improvements for five years to get title. A lot of ranchers back in the day bought out neighboring homesteaders to add to their empires, and worse, as I have seen in numerous Western movies.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

The notion that the U.S. can't own any land in any state without the state legislature's approval strikes me as preposterous.

Then how do you explain that they put that in the law for the express purpose of preventing "awing the State into an undue obedience to the Genl. Government"?