Folks on-line
1
Forums Albums Skins 1
Search Register Logon


You are logged in as a guest. Logon or register an account to access more features.
OTHER FORUMS:    Horse Trailers  -   Trucks   -   Cutting  -   Reining  -   Roping 
'
Rancher VS. Government
Moderators: luluwhit, gotothewhip, crossspur, Farrierlady, ForumAdmin
Out-Rider: txdad


Jump to page : < ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >
Now viewing page 13 [20 messages per page]
Last activity 2014-04-14 9:29 AM
247 replies, 15100 views

View previous thread :: View next thread
   General Discussion -> Barrel Talk
Refresh
Message format
 
foundation horse
Posted 2014-04-13 1:17 PM (#6975452 - in reply to #6972791)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government


Military family

Semper Fi


500050005000500050005000500100100100252525
Location: North Texas
For all those who have studied The Constitution, just where is the Authority Documented for all these Government Agencies to begin with?
Top of the page Bottom of the page
foundation horse
Posted 2014-04-13 1:37 PM (#6975460 - in reply to #6972791)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government


Military family

Semper Fi


500050005000500050005000500100100100252525
Location: North Texas
I believe the comments and referenced alluded to in this article will support my and others position in regards to being against The Feds on this deal.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18032-blm-s-...
Top of the page Bottom of the page
foundation horse
Posted 2014-04-13 2:14 PM (#6975476 - in reply to #6972791)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government


Military family

Semper Fi


500050005000500050005000500100100100252525
Location: North Texas
Just to make point easier to understand for those who would not bother opening the link...................................


BLM's Seizure of Nevada Rancher's Land Rights Unconstitutional
Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.













font size decrease font size increase font size
Print

E-mail



















BLM&#039;s Seizure of Nevada Rancher&#039;s Land Rights Unconstitutional


By now, the broad strokes of the showdown in the Nevada desert between legacy cattle rancher Cliven Bundy (shown) and the federal government are readily discernible. For those needing an on-ramp to the issue, read this article written by The New American’s senior editor, William F. Jasper.

Most media coverage of the situation focuses on two claims by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). First, that Bundy hasn’t paid fees to the federal government for his use of “public lands.” Second, that Bundy’s cattle (near 1,000 head) are threatening the habitat of the desert tortoise (never mind that the feds have been killing thousands of those “endangered” animals for years).

What has failed to be adequately explored are the key constitutional conflicts between the BLM’s tyrannical behavior and the power granted to the federal government in the Constitution.







First, a brief review of the historical debates on the issue of federal ownership of “public lands” is in order.

On September 5, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia were wrapping up the nearly four months of deliberations. Within two weeks, the document would be signed and sent to state conventions for consideration. But first, there was the question of control the federal government would be authorized to exercise over “public land.”

Discussions centered on the provision of the Constitution known as the Enclave Clause — Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. As he had done so many times, Massachusetts delegate Elbridge Gerry rose to employ his impressive oratorical skill to build better fences separating the federal government from the states and the people.

Gerry contended that “this power [to exercise authority over “public land”] 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 general government.”

There is no better description of the despotism of the BLM than “awing the state into undue obedience to the general government.” The federal government — and most commentators — believe that the federal government is merely exercising its constitutional right to control “public lands.” Sure, these apologists admit, Bundy is suffering personal deprivation, but that’s the price we pay for “domestic tranquility.”

Our Founding Fathers knew better. As Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) explained in regard to federal seizure of significant land in the mountain West:

Then, as now, we have a grave risk associated with the fact that when the federal government owns this much land, the federal government has this much power. This was on the minds of the delegates to the Convention of 1787, that one of the things they needed to protect against was the concentration of too much power in the hands of the few, especially the concentration of too much power within the federal government. They understood, and each of them had a mission to protect the sovereignty of their respective states. They understood that if Congress had too much power to simply buy up too much land in any one state, disproportionately in some states, the federal government would have too much influence within that state.

Unfortunately for the state of Nevada, its own state constitution is little more than a paean to the unfettered ferocity of the federal beast. Section 2 of the Nevada constitution reads:

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 existance [sic], 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.

Could there be a less constitutionally sound demarcation of the spheres of power of the states and the federal government? James Madison’s allotment of authority as set out in The Federalist, No. 45, was apparently not available to the drafters of the Silver State’s constitution. Madison wrote:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Cliven Bundy’s family has lived on this land for nearly 140 years. The Bundys have settled and improved this property since Cliven's ancestor accompanied Edward Bunker and a company of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints members who settled on the Virgin River, a few miles west of the Nevada-Arizona border in 1877.

In nearly every way, Bundy’s life and liberty are connected inextricably to this property — property they have preemptive rights to and have worked for years before the federal government realized there was gold — black gold — in them thar hills.

The BLM makes millions by leasing land such as that worked by Cliven Bundy to energy companies dedicated to fracking operations. A 2007 map produced by the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology shows oil exploration being conducted on the land surrounding Bundy’s spread. Some drilling operations in the area are already successfully siphoning oil from the wells in Bundy’s backyard.

There’s more than federal lust for oil and mineral leases, though, at work against Cliven Bundy.

Nevada native Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) knows something about the tortoise and how important its survival is. When a millionaire donor to Reid needed the BLM to fudge the boundaries of the desert tortoise’s protected habitat so that he could build a billion-dollar real estate development, it was not as precious a natural resource as it is now.

That donor, Harvey Whittemore, was convicted last May of making illegal campaign contributions to Reid. A news report of the verdict revealed, “Prosecutors said Whittemore gave money to family members and employees in 2007 to make contributions he had promised to Reid while concealing himself as the true source to skirt campaign finance laws.”

Harry Reid has another ominous tie to the federal government’s attempt to seize Bundy’s land. Just days ago, the Senate confirmed Neil Kornze, former senior adviser to Senator Reid, to head the BLM.

Next, a crucial question that has until now not been asked is: Does the federal government (or any government) have the right to pass “laws” such as those being enforced against Cliven Bundy?

For an answer, I turn to The Law, by Frederic Bastiat:

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute.

Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

Finally, there is one constitutional consideration that needs to be made. Despite the Nevada constitution’s capitulation to supreme federal authority (authority, remember, that does not exist in the Constitution), there is another article in that document that it could be argued supersedes the other article’s cession of state and popular sovereignty.

Section 1, titled “Inalienable Rights,” of the Nevada constitution reads:

All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

As of today, Cliven Bundy is not free and his God-given and inalienable right to use and protect land he and his family have had preemptive rights to for generations is being abridged. If nothing is done to defend his enjoyment of his rights, then soon the plutocrats on the Potomac will not recognize any restrictions on their power and they will seize any land, using any excuse, and will enforce those seizures with weapons.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Bibliafarm
Posted 2014-04-13 4:30 PM (#6975529 - in reply to #6975393)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government


Military family

Warmblood with Wings


5000500050005000500010010010010025
Location: Florida..
musikmaker - 2014-04-13 1:05 PM
Bibliafarm - 2014-04-13 10:32 AM
musikmaker - 2014-04-13 12:28 PM
CJE - 2014-04-13 10:17 AM  Just a simple question?



So is this about a tortoise or grazing fees?



Would this have happened if he had paid the grazing fees?
Simple?  Lol...

They wouldn't accept his money becasue they wanted his cows off the land...they'd previously 'bought out' the other 52 ranchers after they made the tortoise 'endangered', then ended up euthanizing 1,000's of them (the tortoise..so far!), come to find out Harry Reid's son is a lobbyist for a huge Chinese owned company who are planning a $5 billion solar plant there & they demanded the Bundy's and his cattle be re-moved.

At least this is what I'm gathering to date...note the White House is very quiet, yet, the orders come from that direction.


 
 do you have a legal statement showing this?.so many facts out there contradicting itself.
No, I'm sorry I'm not privvy to that directly, however, I'd think if someone wanted to dig they could find the various court orders/decisions (by federal judges who are appointed).  I'm certain that the few journalists who are covering this are digging, too.  There's quite a lot of info & links on this thread along with google searches where you can do your own investigating!

I haven't seen any 'contradictions' so much as af time-line of the above summary.


 

Thank you.. there are so many statements and opinions its hard to figure out the truth ..  
Top of the page Bottom of the page
scared of sharks
Posted 2014-04-13 11:23 PM (#6975764 - in reply to #6972791)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government



Elite Veteran


Posts: 986
500100100100100252525
RANCH SHOWDOWN BLOWS LID OFF LONG STANDING DEAL WITH CHINESE AND HARRY REID. He struck a deal with them on his last trip to China in giving them this land for solar energy company rights. Google article. He is behind all this and is responsible for the cattle roundup and sending BLM in
Top of the page Bottom of the page
musikmaker
Posted 2014-04-14 9:11 AM (#6975854 - in reply to #6972791)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government



Nicknameless


Posts: 4328
2000200010010010025
Location: I can see the end of the world from here!
This issue is proof positive taht if you hear something enough times you begin to believe it...so, one more time:
The fed does NOT own the public lands!

Lol.
I'm going to share this link as it's very informative (for those who are seeking the truth vs an arguement!)
http://benswann.com/lofti-who-actually-owns-americas-land-a-deeper-look-at-the-bundy-ranch-crisis/
It's so hard to compile the info and post it & I don't think most ppl click on the links so I'm also going to try to c/p the proof (this is not the above link)...this is the Eisenhower Report from 1962, it's an inventory report on jurisdictional status on federal areas within states:

       TYPE OF LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION           

CODE 1 Exclusive Legislative Jurisdiction. This term is applied when the Federal Government possesses, by
whichever method ac­ quired, all of the authority of the State, and in which the State concerned
has not reserved to itself the right to exercise any of the authority concurrently with the United
States except the right to serve civil or criminal process in the area for activities which
occurred outside the area,

CODE 2 Concurrent Legislative Jurisdiction. This term is applied in those instances wherein in granting to
the United States authority which would otherwise amount to exclusive legislativ jurisdiction over
an area, the State concerned has reserved to itself the right to exercise, concurrently with the
United States, all of the same authority.

CODE 3 Partial Legislative Jurisdiction. This term is applied in those instances wherein the Federal
Government has been granted for exercise by it over an area in a State certain of the State's
authority, but where the State concerned has reserved to itself the right to exercise, by itself or
concurrently with the United States, other authority constituting more than merely the right to
serve civil or criminal process in the area (e.g., the right to tax
private property).

CODE 4 Proprietorial Interest Only. This term is applied to those instances wherein the Federal Government
has acquired some right or title to an area in a State, but has not obtained any measure of the
State's authority over the area. In applying this definition, recognition should be given to
khe fact that the United States, by virtue of its functions and authority under various provisions
of the Constitution, has many powers and immunities not possessed by ordinary landholders with
respect to areas in which it acquires an interest, and of the further fact that all its properties
and functions are held or performed in a governmental
rather than a proprietary capacity.

CODE 5 Unknown. Land will be reported under this category when there is no data or record to guide the
reporting holding agency.

EXPLANATION:
The number (1 thro gh 5)appearing in the Jurisdic­
tional Code column indicates the legislative jurisdiction
of the acreage listed on the same line in the Land columns.
For example, a number 1 indicates exclusive jurisdiction
by the Federal Government over the area shown in the Land cols on the same line.


This is the code structure for Clark County NV, note that the land in question, actually everything except the post office & Lake Mead Base, is code 4:





 
Top of the page Bottom of the page
musikmaker
Posted 2014-04-14 9:28 AM (#6975872 - in reply to #6975854)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government



Nicknameless


Posts: 4328
2000200010010010025
Location: I can see the end of the world from here!
musikmaker - 2014-04-14 8:11 AM This issue is proof positive taht if you hear something enough times you begin to believe it...so, one more time:

The fed does NOT own the public lands!



Lol.

I'm going to share this link as it's very informative (for those who are seeking the truth vs an arguement!)

http://benswann.com/lofti-who-actually-owns-americas-land-a-deeper-look-at-the-bundy-ranch-crisis/

It's so hard to compile the info and post it & I don't think most ppl click on the links so I'm also going to try to c/p the proof (this is not the above link)...this is the Eisenhower Report from 1962, it's an inventory report on jurisdictional status on federal areas within states:


       TYPE OF LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION           



CODE 1 Exclusive Legislative Jurisdiction. This term is applied when the Federal Government possesses, by

whichever method ac­ quired, all of the authority of the State, and in which the State concerned

has not reserved to itself the right to exercise any of the authority concurrently with the United

States except the right to serve civil or criminal process in the area for activities which

occurred outside the area,



CODE 2 Concurrent Legislative Jurisdiction. This term is applied in those instances wherein in granting to

the United States authority which would otherwise amount to exclusive legislativ jurisdiction over

an area, the State concerned has reserved to itself the right to exercise, concurrently with the

United States, all of the same authority.



CODE 3 Partial Legislative Jurisdiction. This term is applied in those instances wherein the Federal

Government has been granted for exercise by it over an area in a State certain of the State's

authority, but where the State concerned has reserved to itself the right to exercise, by itself or

concurrently with the United States, other authority constituting more than merely the right to

serve civil or criminal process in the area (e.g., the right to tax

private property).



CODE 4 Proprietorial Interest Only. This term is applied to those instances wherein the Federal Government

has acquired some right or title to an area in a State, but has not obtained any measure of the

State's authority over the area. In applying this definition, recognition should be given to

khe fact that the United States, by virtue of its functions and authority under various provisions

of the Constitution, has many powers and immunities not possessed by ordinary landholders with

respect to areas in which it acquires an interest, and of the further fact that all its properties

and functions are held or performed in a governmental

rather than a proprietary capacity.



CODE 5 Unknown. Land will be reported under this category when there is no data or record to guide the

reporting holding agency.



EXPLANATION:

The number (1 thro gh 5)appearing in the Jurisdic­

tional Code column indicates the legislative jurisdiction

of the acreage listed on the same line in the Land columns.

For example, a number 1 indicates exclusive jurisdiction

by the Federal Government over the area shown in the Land cols on the same line.





This is the code structure for Clark County NV, note that the land in question, actually everything except the post office & Lake Mead Base, is code 4:











 

I'm not able to attach this so if you're interested you'll have to open it in a PDF file...it shows ALL the public land through out the states and the coding for it as explained.  It also shows the years acquired & yr ende if applicable.
Nobody can argue with this!  Not even the fed...lol.  (Although it says defend america...that is simply who made it available online, the document is the original Eisenhower Report).
Here is the link where you can find info on each state...it's in the column on the right, click on state!
http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Jurisdiction.html

Nevada:
http://www.defendruralamerica.com/files/Jurisdiction-NV.pdf

 
Top of the page Bottom of the page
KylaKris
Posted 2014-04-14 9:29 AM (#6975873 - in reply to #6975529)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government


Elite Veteran


Posts: 927
50010010010010025
Bibliafarm - 2014-04-13 3:30 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-13 1:05 PM
Bibliafarm - 2014-04-13 10:32 AM
musikmaker - 2014-04-13 12:28 PM
CJE - 2014-04-13 10:17 AM  Just a simple question?



So is this about a tortoise or grazing fees?



Would this have happened if he had paid the grazing fees?
Simple?  Lol...

They wouldn't accept his money becasue they wanted his cows off the land...they'd previously 'bought out' the other 52 ranchers after they made the tortoise 'endangered', then ended up euthanizing 1,000's of them (the tortoise..so far!), come to find out Harry Reid's son is a lobbyist for a huge Chinese owned company who are planning a $5 billion solar plant there & they demanded the Bundy's and his cattle be re-moved.

At least this is what I'm gathering to date...note the White House is very quiet, yet, the orders come from that direction.


 
 do you have a legal statement showing this?.so many facts out there contradicting itself.
No, I'm sorry I'm not privvy to that directly, however, I'd think if someone wanted to dig they could find the various court orders/decisions (by federal judges who are appointed).  I'm certain that the few journalists who are covering this are digging, too.  There's quite a lot of info & links on this thread along with google searches where you can do your own investigating!

I haven't seen any 'contradictions' so much as af time-line of the above summary.


 
Thank you.. there are so many statements and opinions its hard to figure out the truth ..  

I have not read the last few pages, but this is exactly what is happening. The d@mn tortoise has been a cover for many years, but in the end there has always been an alterior motive. I am glad that I do not live in NV anymore, but feel for my family who are still there and running thier cattle on BLM land. As far as I am concerned the Reid's can shove it.

Edited by KylaKris 2014-04-14 9:30 AM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Jump to page : < ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >
Now viewing page 13 [20 messages per page]
Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread
Message format
 


Registered to: Barrel Horse World
(Delete all cookies set by this site)
Running MegaBBS ASP Forum Software
© 2002-2014 PD9 Software