Bundy Ranch - more than just cattle

[Bamz4l]

The Constitution grants the rights of ranchers to make money by grazing cattle on land owned by the government? Wow

the constitution grants the federal government to owning land for stuff like forts, not for solar farms

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Bamz4l [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

the constitution grants the federal government to owning land for stuff like forts, not for solar farms

where in the document?

Originally Posted by Nuggie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And on to other news, did you guys know harry Reid has a property outside a small town called lamoille, nv. He made an agreement with the rancher he bought the land from that the rancher could use reids lands for cattle grazing. In reids mind this qualified his property to receive smaller rancher tax rates.

Unfortunately, his property wasn't large enoigh to qualify. He didn't pay his full taxes on this property for years. Instead, he paid what he thought he owed and withheld the rest. When this hit the local newspapers he ran to the state to ask for special permissions so he wouldn't have to pay his full tax bill. Which was near a million.

Kind of the pot calling the kettle black.

but because he doesn't recognize the federal gov having authority over him then he really doesn't need to pay it

[moklianne]

Originally Posted by Bamz4l [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

the constitution grants the federal government to owning land for stuff like forts, not for solar farms

Why not? They can drill for natural gas and oil on public land, what's the difference? The person in the white house sets the energy policy. Next time, it may be oil and gas instead of allowing wind farms and solar arrays.

[myriverse]

Originally Posted by Bamz4l [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

the constitution grants the federal government to owning land for stuff like forts, not for solar farms

Wrong.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2:
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

That means the government can own any land for any purpose it deems worthy.

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by myriverse [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wrong.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2:
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

That means the government can own any land for any purpose it deems worthy.

danke for the document itself.

everyone should read the constitution then every opinion handed down by the supreme court, and then an understanding of this country's history will occur

[Raavak]

We need more power in the states, as was originally intended. The country is the united states afterall.

[Nuggie]

And on to other news, did you guys know harry Reid has a property outside a small town called lamoille, nv. He made an agreement with the rancher he bought the land from that the rancher could use reids lands for cattle grazing. In reids mind this qualified his property to receive smaller rancher tax rates.

Unfortunately, his property wasn't large enoigh to qualify. He didn't pay his full taxes on this property for years. Instead, he paid what he thought he owed and withheld the rest. When this hit the local newspapers he ran to the state to ask for special permissions so he wouldn't have to pay his full tax bill. Which was near a million.

Kind of the pot calling the kettle black.

[Bamz4l]

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshal...7_12032007.pdf

The Constitution (the true Supreme Law of the Land) declares that FedGov can ONLY "own" or control that ten mile square patch of dirt next the Potomac River, military bases and ports, and post office properties (and I suppose we could include the present Federal Highway system rights of way as "post roads" and allow them as well).

NOTHING FURTHER can be owned by FedGov. So WHY is some eighty percent of the State of Nevada "owned" illegally by FedGov? Some 70% of Utah? in total, about 55% of the twelve western states, including Alaska? WHY? IF the Constitution is enforced, FedGov MUST cede ALL non-military lands back to the states within whose borders those lands lie.

Bundy is correct: those lands belong to the State of Nevada, and to Clark County. THAT is why he wanted to pay the "grazing fees" to either of those entities. Why wart over "treaty rights" when FedGov is completely outside the bounds of the Constitution in "owning" those lands?




The Almighty US Congress has done this, and only Congress can undo it... Basically, Nevada ceded huge swaths of land to the Federal Government upon obtaining statehood. Not knowing of course what would happen less than 150 years later. After reading this I was sick to my stomach

[moklianne]

Originally Posted by Bamz4l [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshal...7_12032007.pdf

Actually the highest court is the law of the land.

This looks a summary from someone else, this verbiage is not in that document. What I read is that there has been a constant battle back and fourth between the feds and the state.

This was one of the battles that was interesting:
"In 1978, the State of Nevada began its court challenge of the constitutionality of the federal land retention policy in § 102(a) of FLPMA. Nevada argued that the
federal government could only lawfully hold public lands in a temporary trust pending eventual disposal, and that retention of the lands violated the equal footing doctrine. The federal District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed the case for failure to identify a claim upon which relief could be granted. 49 The court found that any limitations on holding lands ceded by the original states did not apply to western lands acquired after the Constitution went into effect, and that the equal footing doctrine did not mean that the newer western states were entitled to the public lands."

[BigHurb]

no one here has heard of the us forest service or national parks? lol