Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

[erowe1]

Sure. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11; Article II, Section 2, Clauses 1 and 2; and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2.

I.8.11

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

II.2.1-2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

IV.3.2

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.

IMHO, those clauses don't authorize the federal government to own land beyond the limits placed on it elsewhere in the Constitution.

The Republican structure that the Constitution demands is such that states exist first on their own right, and then, by their authority, delegate powers to the federal government, not that the federal government can acquire land for itself and then make states out of it.

In acquiring the land un question via treaty after winning a war with Mexico, did the federal government seek the approval of the people living in that land to be placed under its rule?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

The acquisition of the land.

Where do you see any constitutional limitation on the subject matter of treaties? Consider the following:

That the treaty power of the United States extends to all proper subjects of negotiation between our government and the governments of other nations is clear...The treaty power, as expressed in the constitution, is in terms unlimited, except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government, or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself, and of that of the states. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the states, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent. Railroad Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 541 , 5 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 995. But, with these exceptions, it is not perceived that there is any limit to the questions which can be adjusted touching any matter which is properly the subject of negotiation with a foreign country. Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 (1890)

Since the acquisition of land by the federal government is not forbidden (the Property Clause, IV.3.2, contemplates that the federal government will acquire territories), it seems clear that acquisition via a treaty is constitutional.

 

[erowe1]

Where do you see any constitutional limitation on the subject matter of treaties?

The whole Constitution limits treaties. Treaties are not a way around the limitations it places on the federal government. Congress has no authority to enter treaties giving itself unconstitutional powers.

I don't place any weight on SCrOTUS decisions. But notice that even your quote says:

It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government

 

[Sonny Tufts]

The Republican structure that the Constitution demands is such that states exist first on their own right, and then, by their authority, delegate powers to the federal government, not that the federal government can acquire land for itself and then make states out of it.

Congress was delegated the power to admit new States in IV.3.1. Where do you suppose the land constituting the new states was to come from?

 

[erowe1]

the Property Clause, IV.3.2, contemplates that the federal government will acquire territories

No it doesn't. It contemplates the states (plural) acquiring territories.

The federal government's authority to own land is bound by Article 1 Section 8.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

 

[erowe1]

Congress was delegated the power to admit new States in IV.3.1. Where do you suppose the land constituting the new states was to come from?

From the land that exists here on planet earth? What's the relevance of that question?

Notice the language that even you yourself just used: "admit" new states. Not create them. Before a state can join the union, it must first already exist.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

No it doesn't. It contemplates the states (plural) acquiring territories.

It refers to territories of "the United States", an obvious reference to the federal government.

The federal government's authority to own land is bound by Article 1 Section 8.

If I.8.17 were the sole method for the federal government to acquire land, IV.3.2 would be unnecessary.

 

[Pericles]

Also not constitutional.

Time for a history lesson. The Northwest Territory was part of the Territory ceded by Great Britain to the US at the conclusion of the Revolution. This it was acquired before there was a US Constitution, and should be instructive on how the question of territory not belonging to a state is managed in relationship to the Constitution and federal powers.

That is the purpose of this language in the Constitution:

Article IV Section 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

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.

Once a territory become a state, that state has the same powers as the other states and the territory no longer belongs to the federal government. to do otherwise, would prejudice the rightful claim of sovereignty of that state.

Note that there are no BLM lands in the two territories (now states) mentioned.

 

[erowe1]

It refers to territories of "the United States", an obvious reference to the federal government.

I'm not sure about that. Why do you see it that way? I get that that's how the name "United States" has been used since the time of the Civil War. But in my reading of the Constitution, that doesn't appear to be how it was intended in that document.

E.g.
III.3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them

Treason is not warring against the federal government, but against the states.

If I.8.17 were the sole method for the federal government to acquire land, IV.3.2 would be unnecessary.

Possibly, if it's really true that the plural "states" really means the singular "federal government." But the flip side of that is that IV.3.2 can't annul I.8.17. And even more clearly, it can't annul IV.3.1, which does not allow the federal government to create new states, but only to admit states that already exist apart from it having been formed from the bottom up, not the top down.

 

[erowe1]

Time for a history lesson.

Your quote also mentioned the Louisiana Territory, about which none of this applies, and which came about by a blatantly unconstitutional acquisition of land from France by the federal government.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Before a state can join the union, it must first already exist.

And if it is being created out of federal territory, its existence is due to a federal statute authorizing the creation of a State. In the case of Nevada, the statute begins as follows:

Section 1. Authorization for formation of state. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the inhabitants of that portion of the territory of Nevada included in the boundaries hereinafter designated be, and they are hereby, authorized to form for themselves, out of said territory, a state government, with the name aforesaid, which said state, when formed, shall be admitted into the Union upon an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatsoever.

Section 4 of the Act contains a provision pertinent to the Bundy controversy:

Sec. 4. Authorization to form constitution and state government; limitations. And be it further enacted, That the members of the convention, thus elected, shall meet at the capital of said territory on the first Monday in July next, and, after organization, shall declare, on behalf of the people of said territory, that they adopt the constitution of the United States. Whereupon the said convention shall be, and it is hereby, authorized to form a constitution and state government for said territory: Provided, That the constitution, when formed, shall be republican, and not repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and the principles of the Declaration of Independence: And provided further, That said convention shall provide, by an ordinance irrevocable, without the consent of the United States and the people of said state:—
First. That there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said state, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
Second. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship.
Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they 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; and that the lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without the said state shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/Research/Library/Documents/HistDocs/1864Act.pdf

 

[Deborah K]

Very, very interesting debate you have going here, fellas.

 

[Pericles]

And if it is being created out of federal territory, its existence is due to a federal statute authorizing the creation of a State. In the case of Nevada, the statute begins as follows:



Section 4 of the Act contains a provision pertinent to the Bundy controversy:



http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/Research/Library/Documents/HistDocs/1864Act.pdf

Except that Clark county Nevada, was part of the Arizona territory at the time.

 

[Antischism]

Has this been posted? It's the land deed as acquired by Bundy's parents in 1948. Land deed.

Got it from here.


I noticed it was stated somewhere or quoted here that no one had seen the original deed, so I found it curious that this site had it posted.

 

[AuH20]

Has this been posted? It's the land deed as acquired by Bundy's parents in 1948. Land deed.

Got it from here.

Water rights were transferred as well.

 

[AuH20]

They think that there were mercs rounding up cattle as opposed to contract cowboys. Plus, other critical info.

 

[klamath]

Has this been posted? It's the land deed as acquired by Bundy's parents in 1948. Land deed.

Got it from here.


I noticed it was stated somewhere or quoted here that no one had seen the original deed, so I found it curious that this site had it posted.

Just so the issue doesn't get confused this appears to be the title deed for the bundy ranch but not the open rangeland the feds were rounding the cattle up on.

 

[Carson]

Anyone a member of Bundy's Blog.

He's having a party tomorrow. I'm sort of thinking having a live webcam running may be a good thing to have running in the morning.

http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2014/04/party.html#comment-form

I woke up early this morning with a bad feeling about tomorrow for myself. I didn't know if that meant today, which it was, or tomorrow. Then during the day somehow I shifted from thinking of myself and flashed on Bundy and the people at the ranch. Sometimes when I get these feelings and if I talk about them nothing happens.

It wasn't a very strong feeling. More out of the blue.

Then again maybe a live webcam is a bad idea.

 

[Carson]

Anyone ever hear about how the party went?

 

[Anti Federalist]

10 years after armed standoff with federal agents, Bundy cattle are still grazing disputed rangeland

https://apnews.com/article/bundy-ranch-standoff-nevada-cattle-ffff74b4e3224fb596e6bb735cedef98

BY KEN RITTER Updated 11:43 AM GMT-5, April 13, 2024

BUNKERVILLE, Nev. (AP) — The words “Revolution is Tradition” stenciled in fresh blue and red paint mark a cement wall in a dry river wash beneath a remote southern Nevada freeway overpass, where armed protesters and federal agents stared each other down through rifle sights 10 years ago.

It was just before noon on a hot and sunny Saturday when backers of cattle rancher Cliven Bundy, including hundreds of men, women and children, made the U.S. Bureau of Land Management quit enforcing court orders to remove Bundy cattle from vast arid rangeland surrounding his modest family ranch and melon farm.

Witnesses later said they feared the sound of a car backfiring would have unleashed a bloodbath. But no shots were fired, the government backed down and some 380 Bundy cattle that had been impounded were set free.

“Since then, we’ve relatively lived in peace,” Ryan Bundy, eldest among 14 Bundy siblings, said in a telephone interview. “The BLM doesn’t contact us, talk to us or bother us.”

(snip)

Asked what would happen if the government tried again to round up Bundy cattle, he was direct.

“If we have to call people, we’ll call all our followers from YouTube and social media,” Arden Bundy said.

“There was 1,000 there last time,” Cliven Bundy said. “There’ll be 10,000 there next time.”