Clive Bundy, Living Caricature of Libertopian.

[ChuckF]

So Cliven Bundy is trespassing on (and causing waste to) Shoshone land? Total disrespect for property!

[Jerome]

No, this Bundy guy is on land that belongs to Arizona because they can not cede their property to the US by becoming a state.

The US, according to the Constitution, can only own property within a State under very specific circumstances, none of them including a bribe to a territory for the acceptance as a State in the Union.

[ChuckF]

Oh, I see.

[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by Jerome

No, this Bundy guy is on land that belongs to Arizona because they can not cede their property to the US by becoming a state.

The US, according to the Constitution, can only own property within a State under very specific circumstances, none of them including a bribe to a territory for the acceptance as a State in the Union.

Is Arizona in Nevada now? because that could make the legal question very complex indeed.

[ChuckF]

Yeah those were a dicey several decades between the time that Nevada became a state in 1864 and the time that Arizona became a state in 1912, legally speaking. Because of real law stuff!

[Jerome]

So the particular state was mistyped, irrelevant to the curiosity.

[ChuckF]

So Cliven Bundy is trespassing on ________'s land because __________.

[Jerome]

He is not trespassing, he has the water and use rights (this is not disputed). The land belongs to the state is the argument.

[Jerome]

The US is claiming rent on lands they do not own is the other argument.

[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by Jerome

He is not trespassing, he has the water and use rights. The land belongs to the state is the argument.

Right. Not trespassing, except for the trespassing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:12-cv-0804-LDG-GWF

CLIVEN BUNDY,

Defendant.

This matter comes before the court on the plaintiff United States’ Motion for

Summary Judgment (#18, Opposition #28, Reply #30) and defendant Cliven Bundy’s Motion

to Dismiss (#28, Opposition #30).

I. BACKGROUND

The United States filed a complaint on May 14, 2012, for injunctive relief to prevent Bundy’s alleged unauthorized and unlawful grazing of livestock on property owned by the United States and administered by the Secretary of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service, and for trespass damages.

[Jerome]

lol

Tell about how that land is US property.

[Jerome]

See, you have to have ownership to trespass someone.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Jerome

See, you have to have ownership to trespass someone.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Jerome

He is not trespassing, he has the water and use rights (this is not disputed).

lol

The land belongs to the state is the argument.

So the State of Nevada conveyed the water and use rights to Bundy?

ETA: Or the Shoshone? Or Arizona?

[Jerome]

The water and use rights for that particular place were there since the spanish owned the land.

The US has never claimed that those rights at any point left the owners of the water and use rights.

The US is claiming rent on the right.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Jerome

The water and use rights for that particular place were there since the spanish owned the land.

So the Spanish conveyed the water and use rights to Bundy?

[Jerome]

Yes, the right is traceable, the US does not dispute this.

[ChuckF]

So Bundy acquired his interest in the water and use rights from the Spanish Empire? (And therefore not from the state of Nevada, the state of Arizona, or the Shoshone.)

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Jerome

So the particular state was mistyped, irrelevant to the curiosity.

Your argument over several posts was about situations in Arizona, so it wasn't merely a typo. What is "the curiosity" as it relates to this specific case in Nevada?

[Dingfod]

There are state lands scattered throughout those federal lands, the federal government granting one section of land (1 square mile) per 36 section township for the purpose of funding schools in the state either by the sale or rent of the land or land for direct use of the schools. In the last couple of decades there has been a number of land swaps occurring in various western states to consolidate state lands near growing cities or prime development properties, to maximize state revenues with the increased property value. A lot of the isolated state land sections were pretty much useless for anything other than grazing because of poor access either by the terrain involved or by limited roadways across pristine government land or even within National Parks or Monuments. It's possible a few thousand of the acres that Bundy leased had at one time been state land. But, if so, he wasn't paying them either, and they charge four or fives times as much per animal unit as the BLM does.

[erimir]

Cliven Bundy was granted rights to graze that land by Francesco Antonio de Lorenzana y Butrón Irauregui, at the time Archbishop of México and in the future Archbishop of Toledo, Primate and Grand Inquisitor of Spain

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by Jerome

Tell about how that land is US property.

The story so far:

Nevada was a territory until 1864. One condition of becoming part of the US was to sign ownership of all unappropriated land over to the federal government. Nevada signed.

As long as Bundy paid rent for the use of federal land in the form of $1.35 per head of cattle per month the BLM had no problem with it being used by him for grazing his cattle. When he ceased paying that pittance he became a squatter and a thief. The government took him to court. For twenty years Bundy fought them there and lost every single case. Then he refused to attend court any further. That's when the BLM stepped in with arms, but decided to withdraw in order to prevent bloodshed when confronted by an armed bunch of sovereign citizen nutters from every Hicksville in the US.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Hermit

The story so far:

Nevada was a territory until 1864.

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.

[LadyShea]

CRS Report for Congress

Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority and the History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention

December 3, 2007

The U.S. Constitution addresses the relationship of the federal government to
lands. Article IV, § 3, Clause 2 — the Property Clause — gives Congress authority
over federal property generally, and the Supreme Court has described Congress’s
power to legislate under this Clause as “without limitation.” The equal footing
doctrine (based on language within Article IV, § 3, Clause 1), and found in state
enabling acts, provides new states with equality to the original states in terms of
constitutional rights, but has not been used successfully to force the divestment of
federal lands. The policy question of whether to acquire more, or to dispose of any
or all, federal lands is left to Congress to decide.

The initial federal policy generally was to transfer ownership of many federal
lands to private and state ownership. Congress enacted many laws granting lands and
authorizing or directing sales or transfers, ultimately disposing of 1.275 billion acres.
However, from the earliest times, Congress also provided for reserving lands for
federal purposes, and over time has reserved or withdrawn areas for such entities as
national parks, national forests, and wildlife refuges.

At its inception, the federal government did not own land in the original states
of the Union. Rather, ownership of lands between the Appalachian Mountains and
the Mississippi River was ceded by the original states, and additional states were
formed from those lands.3 West of the Mississippi River (except Texas), lands were primarily acquired by the U.S. federal government from foreign governments, as was Florida (which was acquired from Spain). The means by which the federal
government came to own its lands can affect which laws govern the lands’
management. The public domain lands, primarily those obtained from a foreign
sovereign, typically are governed by different laws than are lands acquired from
states or individuals.

The U.S. Constitution addresses the relationship of the federal government to
lands. The Property Clause, Article IV, § 3, Clause 2, gives Congress authority over
the lands, territories, or other property of the United States. It reads:
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.

This provision provides broad authority for Congress to govern the lands
acquired by the federal government as it sees fit, and to exercise exclusive authority
to decide on whether or not to dispose of those lands.

The U.S. Supreme Court has
described this power as “without limitation,” stating that:
while Congress can acquire exclusive or partial jurisdiction over lands within a
State by the State’s consent or cession, the presence or absence of such
jurisdiction has nothing to do with Congress’ powers under the Property Clause.
Absent consent or cession a State undoubtedly retains jurisdiction over federal
lands within its territory, but Congress equally surely retains the power to enact
legislation respecting those lands pursuant to the Property Clause.... And when
Congress so acts, the federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state
laws under the Supremacy Clause.4

[LadyShea]

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.

Citations? Where is this information available?