Clive Bundy, Living Caricature of Libertopian.

[erimir]

Jerome, What does any of the crap you're blathering on about have to do with Cliven Bundy?

Even if Nevada or some other entity is the "rightful owner" of that land, how does that translate to Cliven Bundy having a right to do anything on it?

And why aren't Nevada, or descendants of Mexicans, or Shoshone, or whoever contesting the federal government's claim?

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by Jerome

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

There's the matter of the Nevada territory, like so many others, having signed ownership over to the federal government in order to become part of the US. You might not acknowledge the legality of it, but not even the state of Nevada disputes the legality.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by erimir

And why aren't Nevada, or descendants of Mexicans, or Shoshone, or whoever contesting the federal government's claim?

People have been, but the BLM and the national government have the resources to drain these people of resources. As shown above, courts have ruled the national government through the BLM has been involved in an international conspiracy to steal individuals' rights.

The constitution does not allow the national government to own land within a state except under very specific circumstances, a state constitution does not trump the national constitution.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Hermit

There's the matter of the Nevada territory, like so many others, having signed ownership over to the federal government in order to become part of the US.

Just because it was done doesn't make it legal, unless you are accepting that the national constitution is invalid in some way.

Just like the illegal overseas wars, just because it is done doesn't make it legal.

[erimir]

The nebulous "people"

I asked specifically about Nevada or Shoshone groups. Not aggrieved government-hating white dudes who have no claim either way.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by erimir

The nebulous "people"

I asked specifically about Nevada or Shoshone groups. Not aggrieved government-hating white dudes who have no claim either way.

I gave you a Shoshone rancher which was like terrorized by the national government, in fact the BLM is currently stealing his social security to pay back fines!

He was the head of the Shoshone nation at the time iirc. You can search the information through the link I provided.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by Jerome

Just because it was done doesn't make it legal, unless you are accepting that the national constitution is invalid in some way.

Just like the illegal overseas wars, just because it is done doesn't make it legal.

If it was unconstitutional, wouldn't the 50 States challenge the right of the federal government to title of unappropriated lands? It seems the states know something that you and a few hundred other sovereign citizenship nutters have a difficulty understanding. Deluded freaks, the lot of you.

[Jerome]

These people have been caring for the land and providing resources to the population for generations, well over 100 years. The national government came in relatively recently with the lie that they were just there to help care for the land, the lie was brought and minor fees were paid to fund the BLM's effort to assist the ranchers. Instead, after establishing themselves, the BLM increased the fees such that ranching became unprofitable so that they could purchase the lands from the ranchers for a song.

It is a long term conspiracy.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Hermit

If it was unconstitutional, wouldn't the 50 States challenge the right of the federal government to title of unappropriated lands? It seems the states know something that you and a few hundred other sovereign citizenship nutters have a difficulty understanding. Deluded freaks, the lot of you.

I am a natural born US citizen, but this new insult/characterization is interesting. Is this the new talking point for when the facts of an argument disagree with your preconceived conclusions?

[Jerome]

It is amusing to see liberals support the government taking from the little guy to give to mega corporations.

[ChuckF]

I just checked the property records.

This house was purchased in 2009. It turns out that there are actually a whole boatload of ancestral rights associated with it, dating back to colonial times. This land has been here the whole time, continuously and without interruption. I read the Declaration of Independence, you guys. And therefore, no taxes.

This is super serial, and not some silly sov cit nonsense, as sure as the fringe on a flag in a federal courtroom will deprive that purported court of personal and subject matter jurisdiction due to admiralty law.

[Stephen Maturin]

I'm reserving judgment until I see what Lew Alcindor has to say.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Jerome

As shown above, courts have ruled the national government through the BLM has been involved in an international conspiracy to steal individuals' rights.

Originally Posted by Jerome

I gave you a Shoshone rancher which was like terrorized by the national government, in fact the BLM is currently stealing his social security to pay back fines!

He was the head of the Shoshone nation at the time iirc. You can search the information through the link I provided.

There are, of course, huge problems with the way the US government has treated rights of Native American tribes to land.

But that's not a matter of individual rights.

However, there's still the question of what the fuck this has to do with Cliven Bundy. He shouldn't get out of fees for grazing on those lands, regardless if the rightful owners are the Shoshone or Nevada. If anything, all the Shoshone case suggests is that those fees should be paid out to them rather than the government.

Cliven Bundy claims he has a right to use that land for free, so he recognizes Shoshone claims to that land no more than the US government.

And I don't exactly see any of Bundy's ilk riding to their rescue either. Or any medium-sized corporations, or much of any other entities who have benefited from the theft of Native American lands.

I would characterize that as following the general pattern of US colonization, whether carried out by government or private individuals. The fucking over of Indian tribes (which has gone on for the entire history of the US and before then) is not a symptom of big government specifically, and it was certainly not something carried out by government without a mandate from its voters.

How much of the property out there in the West, owned by people who value "individual rights" and dislike the federal government, was actually granted to them by homesteading acts and the like and so given to them by the government? Who had the "ancestral rights" to that land?

If anything, I'd say that the US conception of "individual rights" is just as much a part of the problem for most Native American tribes when it comes to regaining what was taken from them.

Originally Posted by Jerome

It is amusing to see liberals support the government taking from the little guy to give to mega corporations.

Where did the mega corporations enter into this?

(btw, it's liberals opposing the Keystone Pipeline, which actually is taking from the little guy to give to a mega-corporation)

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by erimir

Where did the mega corporations enter into this?

Well, before this story broke nationally, the good Senator Reid's son's international corporation was set to buy the property for about $4 million on an assessed value of $40 million.

Nice $35 million profit.

If you think the land belongs to the US, why should the US be giving value away to the family of Senators?

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by erimir

Cliven Bundy claims he has a right to use that land for free, so he recognizes Shoshone claims to that land no more than the US government.

Different lands, the Bundy guy is not on Shoshone property.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by erimir

However, there's still the question of what the fuck this has to do with Cliven Bundy. He shouldn't get out of fees for grazing on those lands, regardless if the rightful owners are the Shoshone or Nevada. If anything, all the Shoshone case suggests is that those fees should be paid out to them rather than the government.

The fees were paid to the US to fund the BLM to help the ranchers care for the land. When the BLM tried their scam by raising fees well beyond their need for funding, he tried to pay the fees to Nevada and have them run a BLM of their own.

What everyone here is failing to understand, the fees were never a 'rent' for use of the property, it was just a funding mechanism for the BLM charged with helping the ranchers.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by erimir

The fucking over of Indian tribes is not a symptom of big government specifically, and it was certainly not something carried out by government without a mandate from its voters.

Just wow...

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by Jerome

I am a natural born US citizen, but this new insult/characterization is interesting. Is this the new talking point for when the facts of an argument disagree with your preconceived conclusions?

Facts, you say? Ok.

The Nevada territory signed over title of all unapprpriated land to the federal government in 1867 in order to become part of the United States of America.

The legality of this signing over is undisputed by Nevada, as are all similar cases in all of the other states where this has happened.

Cliven Bundy ignores all of that, and so do the several hundred Sovereign Citizen nutters.

Now cry me a river, you deluded freak.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Hermit

The Nevada territory signed over title of all unapprpriated land to the federal government in 1867 in order to become part of the United States of America.

Not legal to extort a territory.

The legality of this signing over is undisputed by Nevada, as are all similar cases in all of the other states where this has happened.

They were the ones extorted.

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

[Jerome]

Exactly what is happening (a senator in the national government is "awing the State into an undue obedience") is why the national government, according to the constitution, can't own land within a state.

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.

Avalon Project - Madison Debates - September 5

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Jerome

Not legal to extort a territory.

[Jerome]

The BLM is like the water company. According to your interpretations here, 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!

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

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

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Jerome

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

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Jerome

These people have been caring for the land and providing resources to the population for generations, well over 100 years.

Who exactly are "these people" you are referring to? Cliven Bundy's parents didn't move to Nevada until the 1940's

The national government came in relatively recently with the lie that they were just there to help care for the land, the lie was brought and minor fees were paid to fund the BLM's effort to assist the ranchers.

The BLM was formed in the 1940's also. Before that those Federal lands were managed by the General Land Office and the U.S. Grazing Service

Instead, after establishing themselves, the BLM increased the fees such that ranching became unprofitable so that they could purchase the lands from the ranchers for a song.

The Federal government has always owned most of the land in Nevada, it's not like they recently purchased the land Bundy is claiming rights to