Racist rancher,feds at a standoff.Drone strike looming! (2 Viewers)

[sublimeone]

Looks like the rancher won: http://abcnews.go.com/US/nevada-cattle-rancher-wins-range-war-federal-government/t/story?id=23302610&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drudgereport.com%2F

Better translation:There are a large number of complete ####### whackadoodles with guns converging on this area and, as has been true for the last 20 years, we're not interested in a violent end to this situation so for the time being we're pulling back to help prevent an unfortunate incident.

Pretty invested in this thing, huh?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Looks like the rancher won: http://abcnews.go.com/US/nevada-cattle-rancher-wins-range-war-federal-government/t/story?id=23302610&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drudgereport.com%2F

Better translation:There are a large number of complete ####### whackadoodles with guns converging on this area and, as has been true for the last 20 years, we're not interested in a violent end to this situation so for the time being we're pulling back to help prevent an unfortunate incident.

Pretty invested in this thing, huh?

No... had never heard of it before yesterday. Just thought your interpretation was, um, lacking (to avoid the obvious bovine reference).

But if you think that this is over and the rancher has won and he'll graze his cattle in peace from here on in I'd be happy to make a wager on it.

 

[Lutherman2112]

This will chase the armed dumb asses off for a bit.

 

[sublimeone]

Looks like the rancher won: http://abcnews.go.com/US/nevada-cattle-rancher-wins-range-war-federal-government/t/story?id=23302610&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drudgereport.com%2F

Better translation:There are a large number of complete ####### whackadoodles with guns converging on this area and, as has been true for the last 20 years, we're not interested in a violent end to this situation so for the time being we're pulling back to help prevent an unfortunate incident.

Pretty invested in this thing, huh?

No... had never heard of it before yesterday. Just thought your interpretation was, um, lacking (to avoid the obvious bovine reference).But if you think that this is over and the rancher has won and he'll graze his cattle in peace from here on in I'd be happy to make a wager on it.

the headline of the story is "Rancher wins range war."

relax

 

[Lutherman2112]

Looks like the rancher won: http://abcnews.go.com/US/nevada-cattle-rancher-wins-range-war-federal-government/t/story?id=23302610&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drudgereport.com%2F

LOL

ETA: you do realize that the Feds are going to wait until temps go through the roof and the protesters are smaller in number, Right?

 

[Rove!]

Here's a study from the University of Arizona that suggests that cow overgrazing is good for the tortoises

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/rangelands/article/viewFile/10776/10049

It's a 3-page article from 1990 expressing the opinion that desert tortoises need cattle #### to survive.

And it's not from U of A; Rangelands just happens to be one of several journals hosted by U of A.

The article's writer, Vernon Bostick, retired in 1981 and never worked of U of A.

If we are to believe to protesters, this isn't about the permits, the cattle, or the tortoise, this is about FREEDOM!

his resume looks impressive

Vernon received his BS in ecology in 1936 and had careers in the U.S. Forest Service, ecology and range management consultant and radiation protection technologist at the Nevada Test Site from 1961, retiring in 1981. He continued his education and received his MS in biology from UNLV in 1973. After retiring, he was very active in local environmental and conservation issues including the development of the Wetlands Park where several of its key features are named in his honor

this is somewhat reminiscent of the TedTalks by Allan Savory about livestock being beneficial to land and helping to prevent desertification and global warming

http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change

 

[Gopher State]

The rancher just wants to STEAK his claim to the land

 

[sublimeone]

Looks like the rancher won: http://abcnews.go.com/US/nevada-cattle-rancher-wins-range-war-federal-government/t/story?id=23302610&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drudgereport.com%2F

LOL

ETA: you do realize that the Feds are going to wait until temps go through the roof and the protesters are smaller in number, Right?

Oh, I thought the 20 year legal wrangling just went up in smoke and the rancher and his kin are free to squat for all eternity. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[tom22406]

So no deal was reached,he got his cattle back and they will continue to roam the same area and he still owes the fees.

Yeah this will be something to follow in the future to see how the feds react next.

I think I caught somewhere that the price to do this "operation" was over $3 million,brilliant!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

tim never misses a chance to call Tea Party folks racists. never.

Actually, I have never once called Tea Party members racist. For the most part I don't believe they are. What I wrote above does not imply racism; only hypocrisy and a rather selective vision of what freedom is.

Tim, is the Tea Party a racist organization?

The Tea Party is not one organization but many different ones not necessarily affiliated with each other. I don't believe that most people who identify themselves with the Tea Party are racist.

in your view, are those who identify themselves with the Tea Party (including the "Tea Party types" you reference above) more or less likely to be racist than the average American?

More likely. I would bet that most white racists have an affinity toward the Tea Party. But that doesn't mean that most Tea Partiers have an affinity towards racism.

Just out of curiosity, since you're an expert on the subject, which party do other sorts of racists besides "white" ones have an affinity for?

Black racists tend to have an affinity for the Communist party.

Oh come on, Tim, really?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Looks like the rancher won: http://abcnews.go.com/US/nevada-cattle-rancher-wins-range-war-federal-government/t/story?id=23302610&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drudgereport.com%2F

Pretty bad optics. The Obama team hates bad optics.

Just a few observations here:

"My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley ever since 1877. All these rights I claim have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and water. I have been here longer. My rights are before the BLM even existed," Bundy said. The Bundy family was already ranching here long before the Department of Interior was born...

My guess is when these lands were first federalized certain promises were made, guarantees were created. Someone should look at those original promises and giarantees.

The bureau will pay nearly a $1 million to a private contractor to round up Bundy's cows ...

You have got to be kidding - what a waste of money.

Example, there are two fenced spots where the public will be allowed to protest the roundup. A sign inside the fence shows how some people feel about a First Amendment zone.

A "First Amendment Zone"? No one can be ok with this.

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25168654/i-team-feds-and-nevada-rancher-facing-off-over-public-lands

 

[Lutherman2112]

Free speech zone

They have been around for awhile.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Free speech zone

They have been around for awhile.

Political conventions and college campuses are very different from wide open range.

 

[fatness]

Looks like the rancher won: http://abcnews.go.com/US/nevada-cattle-rancher-wins-range-war-federal-government/t/story?id=23302610&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drudgereport.com%2F

Pretty bad optics. The Obama team hates bad optics.

Just a few observations here:

"My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley ever since 1877. All these rights I claim have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and water. I have been here longer. My rights are before the BLM even existed," Bundy said. The Bundy family was already ranching here long before the Department of Interior was born...

My guess is when these lands were first federalized certain promises were made, guarantees were created. Someone should look at those original promises and giarantees.

Pretty sure the Nevada Cattlemen's Association has a handle on it.

So far, the Nevada Cattlemen's Association (NCA), which represents some 700 ranchers in the state, is taking a hands-off stance on Bundy's protest.

In a statement, the association noted that Bundy's case had been reviewed by a federal judge, and that a legal decision had been rendered to remove the cattle. The statement said that NCA "does not feel it is in our best interest to interfere in the process of adjudication in this matter, and in addition NCA believes the matter is between Mr. Bundy and the federal courts."

Asked about the Bundy situation, NCA president Ron Torell told ABC News, "This has gotten way out of hand."

Asked if other Nevada cattlemen were as angry with the federal government as Bundy, Torell said, "absolutely not."

It's true, he said, that many NCA members are disgruntled at having to deal with BLM's bureaucracy. But, he noted, 87 percent of Nevada land is public land, so cattlemen cannot survive on private land alone. "It's important for our permitees to work with the land management agencies. We want to be good stewards of the land -- to protect natural resources."

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/nevada-rancher-threatens-range-war-feds/story?id=23225314&page=2

 

[fatness]

Free speech zone

They have been around for awhile.

Political conventions and college campuses are very different from wide open range.

So free speech depends on terrain?

 

[DiStefano]

Years ago I bought a house and discovered that my neighbor had encroached on the land which was now my property when he built a swimming pool. My property was fairly large, and it wasn't a very big deal, as it was down by some scrub oak on the edge. I had no intention of doing anything about it, but I became curious about the legal situation about that particular 25 sq ft or so. I researched it and found out that because the pool had been built many years before, I had essentially lost that part of my property, because of the statute of limitations on making a formal protest.

It seems to me that this is what applies here.

 

[fatness]

Years ago I bought a house and discovered that my neighbor had encroached on the land which was now my property when he built a swimming pool. My property was fairly large, and it wasn't a very big deal, as it was down by some scrub oak on the edge. I had no intention of doing anything about it, but I became curious about the legal situation about that particular 25 sq ft or so. I researched it and found out that because the pool had been built many years before, I had essentially lost that part of my property, because of the statute of limitations on making a formal protest.

It seems to me that this is what applies here.

What you related about your house means that adverse possession in your area works very differently than it does here. The burden here is on the pool owner to go to court to prove that he/she as actually acquired the land by adverse possession over the years, and it is not easy to prove.

If you're saying that this applies to Bundy's situation, I don't think you can legally file an adverse possession claim against the federal government.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Just a few observations here:

"My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley ever since 1877. All these rights I claim have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and water. I have been here longer. My rights are before the BLM even existed," Bundy said. The Bundy family was already ranching here long before the Department of Interior was born...

My guess is when these lands were first federalized certain promises were made, guarantees were created. Someone should look at those original promises and giarantees.

From an article I linked earlier:

The [sagebrush] rebellion seemingly died in 1996 when a federal judge ruled unconstitutional a 1979 state law claiming Nevada had power over all public land within its borders. The federal government claims ownership of much of the West because that land was ceded to it in 1848 via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo at the conclusion of the Mexican-American War.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Pretty sure the Nevada Cattlemen's Association has a handle on it.

So far, the Nevada Cattlemen's Association (NCA), which represents some 700 ranchers in the state, is taking a hands-off stance on Bundy's protest.

In a statement, the association noted that Bundy's case had been reviewed by a federal judge, and that a legal decision had been rendered to remove the cattle. The statement said that NCA "does not feel it is in our best interest to interfere in the process of adjudication in this matter, and in addition NCA believes the matter is between Mr. Bundy and the federal courts."

Asked about the Bundy situation, NCA president Ron Torell told ABC News, "This has gotten way out of hand."

Asked if other Nevada cattlemen were as angry with the federal government as Bundy, Torell said, "absolutely not."

It's true, he said, that many NCA members are disgruntled at having to deal with BLM's bureaucracy. But, he noted, 87 percent of Nevada land is public land, so cattlemen cannot survive on private land alone. "It's important for our permitees to work with the land management agencies. We want to be good stewards of the land -- to protect natural resources."

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/nevada-rancher-threatens-range-war-feds/story?id=23225314&page=2

Also, from the aforementioned 2001 article:

...

But BLM spokeswoman Jo Simpson said Bundy is one of no more than five ranchers who refuse to pay federal grazing fees in Nevada. Although Bundy has been repeatedly cited for trespassing and has lost in federal court, the BLM has yet to crack down on his operation.

"We do intend to take action," Simpson said without elaborating. "That can range from voluntary compliance, which we prefer, to impoundment of cattle.

"We have more in common with most ranchers than we have differences. Most ranchers do a good job and are in compliance with their permits."

That was echoed by Betsy MacFarlan, Nevada Cattlemen's Association executive director in Elko, who said there are more than 600 grazing-permit holders in the state.

"There are individuals who would say the Sagebrush Rebellion still exists, but Cliven is on the extreme fringe," MacFarlan said. "The majority of ranchers in this state abide by the law."

MacFarlan conceded that most Nevada ranchers have moderated their view toward the federal government. For example, last month members of the state cattlemen's association met in Washington with Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman and top BLM officials.

Increased cooperation between federal and local authorities also has occurred in Nye County, whose fight over road access led to the 1996 federal court ruling that declared the state public-lands act unconstitutional.
...

 

[timschochet]

tim never misses a chance to call Tea Party folks racists. never.

Actually, I have never once called Tea Party members racist. For the most part I don't believe they are. What I wrote above does not imply racism; only hypocrisy and a rather selective vision of what freedom is.

Tim, is the Tea Party a racist organization?

The Tea Party is not one organization but many different ones not necessarily affiliated with each other. I don't believe that most people who identify themselves with the Tea Party are racist.

in your view, are those who identify themselves with the Tea Party (including the "Tea Party types" you reference above) more or less likely to be racist than the average American?

More likely. I would bet that most white racists have an affinity toward the Tea Party. But that doesn't mean that most Tea Partiers have an affinity towards racism.

Just out of curiosity, since you're an expert on the subject, which party do other sorts of racists besides "white" ones have an affinity for?

Black racists tend to have an affinity for the Communist party.

Oh come on, Tim, really?

No not really, but the answer you want me to give is too obvious so I didn't write it. Anyhow what the hell do I know about black racists? I know about white ones because they write their thoughts down in places like Free Republic. Are there similar sites for black racists? If so I haven't read them.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Just a few observations here:

"My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley ever since 1877. All these rights I claim have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and water. I have been here longer. My rights are before the BLM even existed," Bundy said. The Bundy family was already ranching here long before the Department of Interior was born...

My guess is when these lands were first federalized certain promises were made, guarantees were created. Someone should look at those original promises and giarantees.

From an article I linked earlier:

The [sagebrush] rebellion seemingly died in 1996 when a federal judge ruled unconstitutional a 1979 state law claiming Nevada had power over all public land within its borders. The federal government claims ownership of much of the West because that land was ceded to it in 1848 via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo at the conclusion of the Mexican-American War.

US v. Nye County, Nev., 920 F. Supp. 1108 - Dist. Court, D. Nevada 1996

US v. Gardner, 107 F. 3d 1314 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1997

 

[Rove!]

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by timschochet. View it anyway?

 

[Sinn Fein]

Crazy pictures in here

Looks like people were wiling to take up arms against the government over this...glad cooler heads prevailed.

 

[Guest]

If it's about who the land originally belonged to, shouldn't it go back to the Native Americans?

 

[Rove!]

here's something interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Whittemore

It appears that if you know the right people, endangered tortoises are not an issue

 

[Homer J Simpson]

here's something interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Whittemore

It appears that if you know the right people, endangered tortoises are not an issue

I don't think this is really all about turtles, GB.

 

[flapgreen]

Shut it down

 

[RBM]

Crazy pictures in here

Looks like people were wiling to take up arms against the government over this...glad cooler heads prevailed.

Wow. The jerkoff in number 10 looks like he's ready for war.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Crazy pictures in here

Looks like people were wiling to take up arms against the government over this...glad cooler heads prevailed.

Wow. The jerkoff in number 10 looks like he's ready for war.

I get the right to bear arms, but at what point is it illegal? #5 looks like he is setting up a snipers position - I suppose the intent of the right to bear arms is to allow citizens to take up arms against an oppressive government - but that just seem like a bad idea these days - no band of citizens, or militias, would stand a chance against the weaponry of the government.

maybe we need to expand the rights to include other war machinery, before its too late...

 

[fatness]

This was like those Civil War and Revolutionary War re-enactments, where they go around with guns pretending to fight battles. Dream of a lifetime for some of those people. "Hey, there I am on TV defending freedom!"

Check out the freedom fighters atop the bridge.

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

Crazy pictures in here

Looks like people were wiling to take up arms against the government over this...glad cooler heads prevailed.

Wow. The jerkoff in number 10 looks like he's ready for war.

I get the right to bear arms, but at what point is it illegal? #5 looks like he is setting up a snipers position - I suppose the intent of the right to bear arms is to allow citizens to take up arms against an oppressive government - but that just seem like a bad idea these days - no band of citizens, or militias, would stand a chance against the weaponry of the government. maybe we need to expand the rights to include other war machinery, before its too late...

I doubt that the BLM guys felt like they had superior firepower. The alphabet soup of agencies and police departments aren't going to be Using tanks, artillery, and war planes. That's the level of government that would be charged with the "oppression". Further I think guns in the hands of citizens give them the courage to stand up and forces the agents of the government to decide if they're going to fire on their fellow citizens.

 

[fatness]

Further I think guns in the hands of citizens give them the courage to stand up and forces the agents of the government to decide if they're going to fire on their fellow citizens.

In this case guns in the hands of citizens primarily gave people an opportunity to pose for cameras and impress others online. Fantasy role-playing with pictures and videos.

But all it takes is one nut for all hell to break loose. In a group that large, was there one nut? Too much of a chance to take, which is why the government backed off. This isn't something to kill over.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Would love to see the BLM grant the land where Cliven's herds were illegally grazing to Native Americans.

End of problem.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The alphabet soup of agencies and police departments aren't going to be Using tanks, artillery, and war planes. That's the level of government that would be charged with the "oppression".

True, right up until the point one of the cosplay types starts shooting. You'd see helicopters and armored vehicles pretty quick after that. And most folks would be happy to see it.

 

[Guest]

Might be a good time to get into the cattle rustling business. If this guy loses a couple hundred head, who's going to go after you? The feds or the militia?

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

Further I think guns in the hands of citizens give them the courage to stand up and forces the agents of the government to decide if they're going to fire on their fellow citizens.

In this case guns in the hands of citizens primarily gave people an opportunity to pose for cameras and impress others online. Fantasy role-playing with pictures and videos.

But all it takes is one nut for all hell to break loose. In a group that large, was there one nut? Too much of a chance to take, which is why the government backed off. This isn't something to kill over.

First I was mostly responding to the general line of thought that physical resistance to the government is hopeless. It's not.Second It only takes one nut on either side. Sounds like the protesters were threaten by the BLM agents and maintained a slow advance in the face of those threats. It was a defining Moment for both side and neither resorted to violence.

and it seems like many of the people who are anti gun are the same people who think the police cover for one another when they do something wrong. See a recent thread around here. I don't understand how you would think that agencys of the government that wield force can be oppressive but still be against the right to bear arms. Or assume that only "nuts" would stand up to the government in this way.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Further I think guns in the hands of citizens give them the courage to stand up and forces the agents of the government to decide if they're going to fire on their fellow citizens.

In this case guns in the hands of citizens primarily gave people an opportunity to pose for cameras and impress others online. Fantasy role-playing with pictures and videos.

But all it takes is one nut for all hell to break loose. In a group that large, was there one nut? Too much of a chance to take, which is why the government backed off. This isn't something to kill over.

First I was mostly responding to the general line of thought that physical resistance to the government is hopeless. It's not.Second It only takes one nut on either side. Sounds like the protesters were threaten by the BLM agents and maintained a slow advance in the face of those threats. It was a defining Moment for both side and neither resorted to violence.

and it seems like many of the people who are anti gun are the same people who think the police cover for one another when they do something wrong. See a recent thread around here. I don't understand how you would think that agencys of the government that wield force can be oppressive but still be against the right to bear arms. Or assume that only "nuts" would stand up to the government in this way.

Because to believe that what the BLM is doing is "oppressive" is wildly at odds with the facts of the (20 year old) case. The government has the right to enforce the laws, and the rancher doesn't have a leg to stand on.

There's no logic to his argument -- it defies common sense. He's lost in multiple courts. The vast majority of his fellow Nevada ranchers aren't even behind him.

And when people take arms every time they lose a legal battle things don't work so well.

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

The alphabet soup of agencies and police departments aren't going to be Using tanks, artillery, and war planes. That's the level of government that would be charged with the "oppression".

True, right up until the point one of the cosplay types starts shooting. You'd see helicopters and armored vehicles pretty quick after that. And most folks would be happy to see it.

Everyone carries video cameras these days so raw images of the government using armored vehicles against citizens is going to get out. You think that's going to play well with the country? Would you yourself be happy to see it? Whatever this Bundy's guys faults or the validity of his claims here he seems a long way from a David Koresh type. It wouldn't take much for this to turn bad for the government in general popular opinion if they come in with armored vehicles to actually get in a battle with these people.

 

[3C's]

A little different rancher vs government issue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKzUeTDviqc

Unintended consequences with the "fence" and extra border patrol?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The alphabet soup of agencies and police departments aren't going to be Using tanks, artillery, and war planes. That's the level of government that would be charged with the "oppression".

True, right up until the point one of the cosplay types starts shooting. You'd see helicopters and armored vehicles pretty quick after that. And most folks would be happy to see it.

Everyone carries video cameras these days so raw images of the government using armored vehicles against citizens is going to get out. You think that's going to play well with the country? Would you yourself be happy to see it? Whatever this Bundy's guys faults or the validity of his claims here he seems a long way from a David Koresh type. It wouldn't take much for this to turn bad for the government in general popular opinion if they come in with armored vehicles to actually get in a battle with these people.

I approve 100% of the government acting responsibly and withdrawing here. Just because you can legally use force doesn't mean you should seek it out. Sort like if cops didn't beat people to death for reacting to pain instead of just chilling out and giving them a chance to catch their breath and put their hands behind their backs.

It would have been an easy thing to provoke violence in this case and I'm glad they didn't do it.

On the other hand, I also approve 100% of the government using whatever force is required to enforce the laws.

 

[glock]

Update (See "All In" video)

"I abide by all of Nevada state laws, but I don't recognize the United States government as existing... "- Cliven Bundy

 

[fatness]

Further I think guns in the hands of citizens give them the courage to stand up and forces the agents of the government to decide if they're going to fire on their fellow citizens.

In this case guns in the hands of citizens primarily gave people an opportunity to pose for cameras and impress others online. Fantasy role-playing with pictures and videos.

But all it takes is one nut for all hell to break loose. In a group that large, was there one nut? Too much of a chance to take, which is why the government backed off. This isn't something to kill over.

First I was mostly responding to the general line of thought that physical resistance to the government is hopeless. It's not.Second It only takes one nut on either side. Sounds like the protesters were threaten by the BLM agents and maintained a slow advance in the face of those threats.

Let me get this right: the protestors advanced because they felt threatened?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just a few observations here:

"My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley ever since 1877. All these rights I claim have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and water. I have been here longer. My rights are before the BLM even existed," Bundy said. The Bundy family was already ranching here long before the Department of Interior was born...

My guess is when these lands were first federalized certain promises were made, guarantees were created. Someone should look at those original promises and giarantees.

From an article I linked earlier:

The [sagebrush] rebellion seemingly died in 1996 when a federal judge ruled unconstitutional a 1979 state law claiming Nevada had power over all public land within its borders. The federal government claims ownership of much of the West because that land was ceded to it in 1848 via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo at the conclusion of the Mexican-American War.

US v. Nye County, Nev., 920 F. Supp. 1108 - Dist. Court, D. Nevada 1996

US v. Gardner, 107 F. 3d 1314 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1997

I just wanted to say thanks for the good response.

It will take further reading. But just in general it seems like a stretch to say that because the USA won a war with Mexico and claimed the property that that property becomes "federal" in nature. That's a quite a land grab. My feeling is that iuf it was free before it should be free after. Though I haven't looked tat he cases yet, but I will. Thanks.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ok I read it, and frankly I find it shocking:

The United States and Mexico signed the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. In that treaty, Mexico ceded land that includes the present-day state of Nevada to the United States. 9 Stat. 922 (1848); see also Sparrow v. Strong, 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 97, 104, 18 L.Ed. 49 (1865) ("The Territory, of which Nevada is a part, was acquired by Treaty."). The language of the Treaty itself refers to the land ceded by Mexico to the United States as "territories previously belonging to Mexico, and which remain for the future within the limits of the United States." 9 Stat. 922, 929 (1848). Courts in the United States have uniformly found that title to the land first passed to the United States through the Treaty. See, e.g., United States v. California, 436 U.S. 32, 34 n. 3, 98 S.Ct. 1662, 1663 n. 3, 56 L.Ed.2d 94 (1978) (stating that, under the Treaty, "all nongranted lands previously held by the Government of Mexico passed into the federal public domain"); Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128, 131, 96 S.Ct. 2062, 2066, 48 L.Ed.2d 523 (1976) (stating that a limestone cavern located in Nevada is "situated on land owned by the United States since the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848").

The claim by Gardners that it is the duty of the United States to hold public lands in trust for the formation of future states is founded on a case dealing with land acquired by the United States from the thirteen original states. In that case, Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212, 11 L.Ed. 565 (1845), the Supreme Court discussed the extent of the United States' authority over lands ceded to it from Virginia and Georgia to discharge debt incurred by those states during the Revolutionary War. The Court stated that the United States held this land 1318*1318 in trust for the establishment of future states. Id. 44 U.S. (3 How.) at 222. Once those new states were established, the United States' authority over the land would cease. Id. at 221-23. This decision was based on the terms of the cessions of the land from Virginia and Georgia to the United States. Before becoming a state, however, Nevada had no independent claim to sovereignty, unlike the original thirteen states. Therefore, the same reasoning is not applicable to this case, in which the federal government was the initial owner of the land from which the state of Nevada was later carved.

Thus, as the United States has held title to the unappropriated public lands in Nevada since Mexico ceded the land to the United States in 1848, the land is the property of the United States. The United States Constitution provides in the Property Clause that Congress has the power "to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized the expansiveness of this power, stating that "[t]he power over the public land thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations." Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 539, 96 S.Ct. 2285, 2291, 49 L.Ed.2d 34 (1976); United States v. San Francisco, 310 U.S. 16, 29, 60 S.Ct. 749, 756, 84 L.Ed. 1050 (1940). See also Alabama v. Texas, 347 U.S. 272, 273, 74 S.Ct. 481, 481-82, 98 L.Ed. 689 (1954); United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19, 27, 67 S.Ct. 1658, 1662-63, 91 L.Ed. 1889 (1947); Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 92, 99, 20 L.Ed. 534 (1871); United States v. Gratiot, 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 526, 537, 10 L.Ed. 573 (1840). Moreover, the Supreme Court has noted that Congress "may deal with [its] lands precisely as an ordinary individual may deal with his farming property. It may sell or withhold them from sale." Light v. United States, 220 U.S. 523, 536, 31 S.Ct. 485, 488, 55 L.Ed. 570 (1911) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Indeed, the establishment of a forest reserve by Congress is a "right[] incident to proprietorship, to say nothing of the power of the United States as a sovereign over the property belonging to it." Id. at 537, 31 S.Ct. at 488.

The United States, then, was not required to hold the public lands in Nevada in trust for the establishment of future states. Rather, under the Property Clause, the United States can administer its federal lands any way it chooses, including the establishment of a national forest reserve.

This means the Feds own the entirety of all land not under title that essentially includes almost all of the Mountain and Pacific time zones.

They cannot become owners of land which was not previously owned. Sovereignity is not ownership.

No, just no.

 

[moleculo]

Ok I read it, and frankly I find it shocking:

The United States and Mexico signed the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. In that treaty, Mexico ceded land that includes the present-day state of Nevada to the United States. 9 Stat. 922 (1848); see also Sparrow v. Strong, 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 97, 104, 18 L.Ed. 49 (1865) ("The Territory, of which Nevada is a part, was acquired by Treaty."). The language of the Treaty itself refers to the land ceded by Mexico to the United States as "territories previously belonging to Mexico, and which remain for the future within the limits of the United States." 9 Stat. 922, 929 (1848). Courts in the United States have uniformly found that title to the land first passed to the United States through the Treaty. See, e.g., United States v. California, 436 U.S. 32, 34 n. 3, 98 S.Ct. 1662, 1663 n. 3, 56 L.Ed.2d 94 (1978) (stating that, under the Treaty, "all nongranted lands previously held by the Government of Mexico passed into the federal public domain"); Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128, 131, 96 S.Ct. 2062, 2066, 48 L.Ed.2d 523 (1976) (stating that a limestone cavern located in Nevada is "situated on land owned by the United States since the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848").

The claim by Gardners that it is the duty of the United States to hold public lands in trust for the formation of future states is founded on a case dealing with land acquired by the United States from the thirteen original states. In that case, Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212, 11 L.Ed. 565 (1845), the Supreme Court discussed the extent of the United States' authority over lands ceded to it from Virginia and Georgia to discharge debt incurred by those states during the Revolutionary War. The Court stated that the United States held this land 1318*1318 in trust for the establishment of future states. Id. 44 U.S. (3 How.) at 222. Once those new states were established, the United States' authority over the land would cease. Id. at 221-23. This decision was based on the terms of the cessions of the land from Virginia and Georgia to the United States. Before becoming a state, however, Nevada had no independent claim to sovereignty, unlike the original thirteen states. Therefore, the same reasoning is not applicable to this case, in which the federal government was the initial owner of the land from which the state of Nevada was later carved.

Thus, as the United States has held title to the unappropriated public lands in Nevada since Mexico ceded the land to the United States in 1848, the land is the property of the United States. The United States Constitution provides in the Property Clause that Congress has the power "to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized the expansiveness of this power, stating that "[t]he power over the public land thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations." Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 539, 96 S.Ct. 2285, 2291, 49 L.Ed.2d 34 (1976); United States v. San Francisco, 310 U.S. 16, 29, 60 S.Ct. 749, 756, 84 L.Ed. 1050 (1940). See also Alabama v. Texas, 347 U.S. 272, 273, 74 S.Ct. 481, 481-82, 98 L.Ed. 689 (1954); United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19, 27, 67 S.Ct. 1658, 1662-63, 91 L.Ed. 1889 (1947); Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 92, 99, 20 L.Ed. 534 (1871); United States v. Gratiot, 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 526, 537, 10 L.Ed. 573 (1840). Moreover, the Supreme Court has noted that Congress "may deal with [its] lands precisely as an ordinary individual may deal with his farming property. It may sell or withhold them from sale." Light v. United States, 220 U.S. 523, 536, 31 S.Ct. 485, 488, 55 L.Ed. 570 (1911) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Indeed, the establishment of a forest reserve by Congress is a "right[] incident to proprietorship, to say nothing of the power of the United States as a sovereign over the property belonging to it." Id. at 537, 31 S.Ct. at 488.

The United States, then, was not required to hold the public lands in Nevada in trust for the establishment of future states. Rather, under the Property Clause, the United States can administer its federal lands any way it chooses, including the establishment of a national forest reserve.

This means the Feds own the entirety of all land not under title that essentially includes almost all of the Mountain and Pacific time zones.

They cannot become owners of land which was not previously owned. Sovereignity is not ownership.

No, just no.

right, this is why folks from the west don't really look too fondly on bureaucrats in Washington controlling such big areas. It is true that the feds own most of the mountain time zone.

interesting side note- if you look at this map, you see a weird gradient thru Nevada and Wyoming. The gov't ceded lots of land along the railroads in the 1860's to the railroaders - Union Pacific and others - in a checkerboard manner within a certain distance from the tracks as an incentive to build the railroads.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ok I read it, and frankly I find it shocking:

The United States and Mexico signed the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. In that treaty, Mexico ceded land that includes the present-day state of Nevada to the United States. 9 Stat. 922 (1848); see also Sparrow v. Strong, 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 97, 104, 18 L.Ed. 49 (1865) ("The Territory, of which Nevada is a part, was acquired by Treaty."). The language of the Treaty itself refers to the land ceded by Mexico to the United States as "territories previously belonging to Mexico, and which remain for the future within the limits of the United States." 9 Stat. 922, 929 (1848). Courts in the United States have uniformly found that title to the land first passed to the United States through the Treaty. See, e.g., United States v. California, 436 U.S. 32, 34 n. 3, 98 S.Ct. 1662, 1663 n. 3, 56 L.Ed.2d 94 (1978) (stating that, under the Treaty, "all nongranted lands previously held by the Government of Mexico passed into the federal public domain"); Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128, 131, 96 S.Ct. 2062, 2066, 48 L.Ed.2d 523 (1976) (stating that a limestone cavern located in Nevada is "situated on land owned by the United States since the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848").

The claim by Gardners that it is the duty of the United States to hold public lands in trust for the formation of future states is founded on a case dealing with land acquired by the United States from the thirteen original states. In that case, Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212, 11 L.Ed. 565 (1845), the Supreme Court discussed the extent of the United States' authority over lands ceded to it from Virginia and Georgia to discharge debt incurred by those states during the Revolutionary War. The Court stated that the United States held this land 1318*1318 in trust for the establishment of future states. Id. 44 U.S. (3 How.) at 222. Once those new states were established, the United States' authority over the land would cease. Id. at 221-23. This decision was based on the terms of the cessions of the land from Virginia and Georgia to the United States. Before becoming a state, however, Nevada had no independent claim to sovereignty, unlike the original thirteen states. Therefore, the same reasoning is not applicable to this case, in which the federal government was the initial owner of the land from which the state of Nevada was later carved.

Thus, as the United States has held title to the unappropriated public lands in Nevada since Mexico ceded the land to the United States in 1848, the land is the property of the United States. The United States Constitution provides in the Property Clause that Congress has the power "to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized the expansiveness of this power, stating that "[t]he power over the public land thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations." Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 539, 96 S.Ct. 2285, 2291, 49 L.Ed.2d 34 (1976); United States v. San Francisco, 310 U.S. 16, 29, 60 S.Ct. 749, 756, 84 L.Ed. 1050 (1940). See also Alabama v. Texas, 347 U.S. 272, 273, 74 S.Ct. 481, 481-82, 98 L.Ed. 689 (1954); United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19, 27, 67 S.Ct. 1658, 1662-63, 91 L.Ed. 1889 (1947); Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 92, 99, 20 L.Ed. 534 (1871); United States v. Gratiot, 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 526, 537, 10 L.Ed. 573 (1840). Moreover, the Supreme Court has noted that Congress "may deal with [its] lands precisely as an ordinary individual may deal with his farming property. It may sell or withhold them from sale." Light v. United States, 220 U.S. 523, 536, 31 S.Ct. 485, 488, 55 L.Ed. 570 (1911) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Indeed, the establishment of a forest reserve by Congress is a "right[] incident to proprietorship, to say nothing of the power of the United States as a sovereign over the property belonging to it." Id. at 537, 31 S.Ct. at 488.

The United States, then, was not required to hold the public lands in Nevada in trust for the establishment of future states. Rather, under the Property Clause, the United States can administer its federal lands any way it chooses, including the establishment of a national forest reserve.

This means the Feds own the entirety of all land not under title that essentially includes almost all of the Mountain and Pacific time zones.

They cannot become owners of land which was not previously owned. Sovereignity is not ownership.

No, just no.

right, this is why folks from the west don't really look too fondly on bureaucrats in Washington controlling such big areas. It is true that the feds own most of the mountain time zone.

interesting side note- if you look at this map, you see a weird gradient thru Nevada and Wyoming. The gov't ceded lots of land along the railroads in the 1860's to the railroaders - Union Pacific and others - in a checkerboard manner within a certain distance from the tracks as an incentive to build the railroads.

Yeah I see that, big squiggly swath right through the heart of the Rockies.

Nice slice of America they got themselves there.

 

[fatness]

Ok I read it, and frankly I find it shocking:

People in Nevada seem quite accustomed to it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ok I read it, and frankly I find it shocking:

People in Nevada seem quite accustomed to it.

Ha. Do they? Some of them apparently didn't get the memo.

But, yeah, I also saw this:

On March 21, 1864, the United States Congress enacted the Nevada Enabling Act, 13 Stat. 30 (1864), authorizing a convention to draft a state constitution for ratification by the residents of the Nevada Territory. As a condition of statehood, the Nevada Enabling Act required that the convention adopt an ordinance agreeing and declaring that Nevada would "forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States." Id., at § 4. In July 1864, the convention adopted the Nevada State Constitution and passed the Ordinance of the Constitution disclaiming all right and title to unappropriated public lands. The President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, then proclaimed Nevada admitted to the Union on October 31, 1864. See 13 Stat. 749.

On the one hand like I said this seems pretty nuts, that land was free, undiscovered, unclaimed land (except for our Indian friends' claims of course), but then again they did agree to what they agreed to. Bad move, but there it is.

 

[fatness]

It was not unusual for this country to acquire land by treaty. I don't know why that country acquiring such land makes you believe they're depriving someone of it.

 

[jon_mx]

It was not unusual for this country to acquire land by treaty. I don't know why that country acquiring such land makes you believe they're depriving someone of it.

It is not the function of our government to acquire land and power. It's purpose is to serve the people.