foundation horse - 2014-04-11 2:15 PM What about An American Citizen's Constitutional Right to a Fair Trial by His/Her Peers? The BLM has in essence become Judge, Jury and Executioner in this debacle. While Cliven Bundy may well be 'in the wrong' here, His Constitutional Right to a Fair Trial to decide has been usurped by Government Employees not Elected Officials. Or has anyone thought of this?

TXBO - 2014-04-11 2:57 PM


Apparently, two judges have ordered him to remove them.

If this was your land and ol' Clive decided he had the right to graze it, how long would you take to get his cattle off?  Would you be satisfied with 20 years? 

TXBO - 2014-04-11 1:57 PM Apparently, two judges have ordered him to remove them.



If this was your land and ol' Clive decided he had the right to graze it, how long would you take to get his cattle off?  Would you be satisfied with 20 years? 

musikmaker - 2014-04-11 5:33 PM  I'm baaack!  Had to attend the funeral of an elderly & lovely lady...

Anyhow...I find this all very interesting mainly because when the we first became the 'United' States of America & ended up purchasing (against the belief of many, including James Madison) some of these Territories from other countries, the Treaty's stipulated that when the territory's gained statehood they would have the same exact rights as the original 13 states "...and own the land from border to border to the core of the earth, including all minerals & water...".  Alas, enter the 'public debt' from buying said lands...they had to 'think fast' as this was not allowed per the Constitution...enter the Homestead Act...part of the Treaty agreement was the immigration of people to this country & things were going pretty good except there was a lot of land that wasn't habitable.  Some of the states did get there land...some didn't.  Enter the Revolutionary War...then the railroads (think transportation...as in federal $'s and big corporations)...now enter the only men serving in Congress were from the original 13 states!  See where this is going?

They vetoed allowing new congreessmen from the newly formed states until they became populated...yet, they didn't want to encourage the movement west...who would work their factories?

This is all recorded...it's our history.

Ultimately, the original states 'borrowed' money from the 'coffers'.  Yep.  That is who owes the money to this day.  The east owes the treasury because they utilized the 'public land' as payment to THEM...they split the proceeds from the sale of land & the gold, silver....  This is quite hidden in the history books!



So here we are.  Congress still has the power to return the land to the individual states...but they won't.  Why would they?  They all fight over the monies year after year...they've come to depend on it as a political football...you know, when they promise how much they will bring to each of us?  THAT is the greed!!!!

Now they have most of the people convinced that this is 'their' land & they are the landlords.  What a crock.

This land was never meant to be a money maker 'for the people' or the 'general welfare' of the nation.  It was meant to be lived on, worked, to provide opportunity for the risk taking citizens of our great Capitalistic country.

Welfare?  No.  Opportunity for the gutsy.

The revenue is in having a strong local economy...providing jobs etc...that is the gold.

I'll stop...for now!

 

TXBO - 2014-04-11 5:11 PM I haven't studied the history of the the deeding of land in Nevada but the fact is the federal government owns this BLM land.



It's certainly not unconstitutional for the fed to own land in the states unlike many of you seem to think. 

musikmaker - 2014-04-11 6:22 PM They do NOT own this land.  It is a Jurisdiction 4...I'll get the info later to show you what it means, suffice it to say that it allows the fed to manage it along with the county/state.  I'll post the gov't papers when I can (really busy!)...google Doyel Shamely Apache County...he's awesome.

TXBO - 2014-04-11 5:28 PM Who owns it?  They must have asked BLM to manage it for them then. 

musikmaker - 2014-04-11 10:47 PM It's under the jurisdiction & authority of the state in which it resides...hence the fact that the Sheriff is the ultimate authority as he/she is an elected official.  Nobody holds title as the 'disposal' has yet to be accomplished per treaty.  This alone should prove that the federal gov't has not completed their role and the land should now be forfeited to the states due to incompetence.  At the least.  Corruption if they want to get nasty about it.

It's all so convoluted & you'd have to ask..."Why?". 

Still...the fact remains that the western states have not yet recieved their rights.  Cannot argue that in any discussion.



To go back a little more....when so much of the 'wasteland' was not 'disposed' of, the fed 'offered' to manage it and most of the states agreed.  It seemed to be a pretty good 'deal' at the time I guess.  Off the top of my head, the cut was 49/51% w/the fed getting the 51.  Just last year the fed raised their 'share' to 53%, we're broke  (I may be off a % or 2...forgive me if I am).  They use this money to 'bargain, threaten & buy' politicians and the public.  They pull our 'funds', they make deals w/the insurance company's...this is a big chunk of the funds they use to make the states tow the line.

We're paying for our own bondage.



Who owns the land?  The devil's in the details.

 

musikmaker - 2014-04-11 10:47 PM It's under the jurisdiction & authority of the state in which it resides...hence the fact that the Sheriff is the ultimate authority as he/she is an elected official.  Nobody holds title as the 'disposal' has yet to be accomplished per treaty.  This alone should prove that the federal gov't has not completed their role and the land should now be forfeited to the states due to incompetence.  At the least.  Corruption if they want to get nasty about it.

It's all so convoluted & you'd have to ask..."Why?". 

Still...the fact remains that the western states have not yet recieved their rights.  Cannot argue that in any discussion.



To go back a little more....when so much of the 'wasteland' was not 'disposed' of, the fed 'offered' to manage it and most of the states agreed.  It seemed to be a pretty good 'deal' at the time I guess.  Off the top of my head, the cut was 49/51% w/the fed getting the 51.  Just last year the fed raised their 'share' to 53%, we're broke  (I may be off a % or 2...forgive me if I am).  They use this money to 'bargain, threaten & buy' politicians and the public.  They pull our 'funds', they make deals w/the insurance company's...this is a big chunk of the funds they use to make the states tow the line.

We're paying for our own bondage.



Who owns the land?  The devil's in the details.

 

TXBO - 2014-04-12 7:41 AM

musikmaker - 2014-04-12 8:59 AM

musikmaker - 2014-04-11 10:47 PM  It's under the jurisdiction & authority of the state in which it resides...hence the fact that the Sheriff is the ultimate authority as he/she is an elected official. 

musikmaker - 2014-04-11 10:47 PM  .....  Nobody holds title as the 'disposal' has yet to be accomplished per treaty.  This alone should prove that the federal gov't has not completed their role and the land should now be forfeited to the states due to incompetence.  ....

dhdqhllc - 2014-04-12 7:06 AM

Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-12 9:02 AM This was never state land, first it was that of the American Indians, and then later claimed by Mexico. As part of the treaty to end the Mexican-American war it became part of the USA. When New Mexico Territory was organized it became part of that, and then later became part of Arizona Territory. The US Constitution gives control of territories and their lands to Congress. Nevada became a state in 1864, and the state constitution gave all property not claimed by settlers to the federal government. The very southern tip of Nevada (where this grazing allotment was) was taken from Arizona Territory and added to Nevada in 1867. The same stipulation applied, land not already claimed was given to the US government.



The Bundy family came about 10 years later and received a grazing allotment from the feds; the land was already federal property. In the early 1990s, the Bundy family began to abuse that allotment by not paying their fee and letting some of the animals go feral. Too many supporters are chanting the Bundy clan has been their longer than the BLM. The Department of Interior who runs the BLM had been around since 1849, and the General Land Office (the forerunner of the BLM) has been around since 1812. Anyhow these issues of property ownership and rights have been through the courts for 20 years, lawyers on both sides took a look at records and saw Mr. Bundy did not own the property; he lost. 

Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-12 10:02 AM This was never state land, first it was that of the American Indians, and then later claimed by Mexico. As part of the treaty to end the Mexican-American war it became part of the USA. When New Mexico Territory was organized it became part of that, and then later became part of Arizona Territory. The US Constitution gives control of territories and their lands to Congress. Nevada became a state in 1864, and the state constitution gave all property not claimed by settlers to the federal government. The very southern tip of Nevada (where this grazing allotment was) was taken from Arizona Territory and added to Nevada in 1867. The same stipulation applied, land not already claimed was given to the US government.



The Bundy family came about 10 years later and received a grazing allotment from the feds; the land was already federal property. In the early 1990s, the Bundy family began to abuse that allotment by not paying their fee and letting some of the animals go feral. Too many supporters are chanting the Bundy clan has been their longer than the BLM. The Department of Interior who runs the BLM had been around since 1849, and the General Land Office (the forerunner of the BLM) has been around since 1812. Anyhow these issues of property ownership and rights have been through the courts for 20 years, lawyers on both sides took a look at records and saw Mr. Bundy did not own the property; he lost. 

musikmaker - 2014-04-12 10:30 AM I've read this c/p somewhere myself and although it seems to make sense...it just doesn't.  Mainly because the state had no authority to 'give' the land away & the Constitution forbids the fed from accepting said land other than for the erection of forts, dockyards, arsenals etc ( Article l Section 8 Clause 17).



You're right...the land was never handed over to the states as stipulated.  The fed saw an opportunity to steal it, prevent the people from ever being on equal footing.  Do we support that?  Just because it was done?

The land that the various Indians now reside is in a 'reserved' satus, much like the public land we're discussing...we can go there but the water's deep!



As explained in an earlier post about the Territory's...when the land was disposed of the states were to be on 'equal footing' with the origianl 13 states...never happened.  That is a fact.