Cliven Bundy is a welfare rancher and is not a friend of Liberty

[pcosmar]

Are you saying it is unconstitutional for the federal govt to own land?

Except for what is specifically allowed by the constitution and Purchased from the states.
for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

Open Range is not an Arsenal, a Fort, a Magazine, a Dock Yard or a Needful Building, so NO,, the Federal Government is not authorized to own it.

 

[austin944]

I realize that you just don't comprehend the concept of Open Range, but is was the Law for well over 100 years before BLM even existed.
And it was the law before Nevada became a state.

It is NOT federal land,, despite any claims of such. The Federal government CAN NOT Own Land. period, save for what it is strictly allowed.

A Wiki reference,, just for a clue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_range

To my knowledge, the State of Nevada has not designated the land in dispute as Open range. Therefore, your point is moot.

Your argument was used by another welfare rancher preceding Bundy, and rejected by the Federal court in that case, in the link that I provided:

"Absent consent or cession a State undoubtedly retains jurisdiction over federal lands within its territory, but Congress equally surely retains the power to enact legislation respecting those lands pursuant to the Property Clause. [citations omitted] And when Congress so acts, the federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause."

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1061959.html

Also interesting in that case was the following footnote:

"An Amicus Brief was filed on behalf of the states of New Mexico, Alaska, Maine, Montana, Oregon, Vermont, and, significantly, Nevada supporting the position of the United States in this case."

So not even the State of Nevada has supported this other welfare rancher preceding Bundy.

 

[klamath]

If you have ever fought the feds through the court system this is almost exactly how they rule.

 

[Deborah K]

To my knowledge, the State of Nevada has not designated the land in dispute as Open range. Therefore, your point is moot.

Your argument was used by another welfare rancher preceding Bundy, and rejected by the Federal court in that case, in the link that I provided:

"Absent consent or cession a State undoubtedly retains jurisdiction over federal lands within its territory, but Congress equally surely retains the power to enact legislation respecting those lands pursuant to the Property Clause. [citations omitted] And when Congress so acts, the federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause."

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1061959.html

Also interesting in that case was the following footnote:

"An Amicus Brief was filed on behalf of the states of New Mexico, Alaska, Maine, Montana, Oregon, Vermont, and, significantly, Nevada supporting the position of the United States in this case."

So not even the State of Nevada has supported this other welfare rancher preceding Bundy.

It sickens me to think that people so easily accept that someone's family can be ranching for well over 100 years, the FedCoats can come in and change the laws on them, and somehow the RANCHER becomes the deadbeat. And when he tries to preserve his way of life, by lawfully going through the court systems, only find out the system is rigged against him - he then commits civil disobedience and HE'S the bad guy!!

 

[Weston White]

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/grazing/pdfs/Bundy_I_Notice7-26-13.pdf

So, the federal government is just now trying to enforce a court order from 1998? That being the case (that the prior order has gone unforced throughout all this time), I wonder if Mr. Bundy could simply raise laches as an affirmative defense and get relief from federal harrassment?

Also keeping in mind this other ruling: http://www.infowars.com/federal-judge-blm-engaged-in-a-criminal-conspiracy-against-ranchers/

http://www.scribd.com/doc/144609491...sions-of-Law-and-Injunction-D-Nev-May-24-2013

 

[fr33]

I do not subscribe to the principle that a property rights battle is won by making it more expensive for your opponent to win. Property rights are not justly obtained by "might makes right" on either side.

Then there is no private property and can never have been. Tell me how do you think private property magically came to be... God farted out a constitution and Americans with their city-blocks magically appeared?

 

[fr33]

If you believe that the government is obligated to keep his business profitable, then why not require the government to keep Wall Street banks profitable by giving them low-interest loans or bail-out money at taxpayer expense?

He could have moved his cattle to another chunk of land that he bought. He did not, and wants to continue to mooch from the government dole.

I don't know if you live in a large city, but if you do, please stop stealing our water. Because if you are, you are a moocher and living off the government dole.

 

[dude58677]

The courts are rubber stamps for the government and the State legislatures have to approve for ownership of federal land. To become a State, the Feds cannot make a condition that they can't own most of the land. End of the story and a comment about race taken out of context doesn't change the facts!

 

[Ender]

To my knowledge, the State of Nevada has not designated the land in dispute as Open range. Therefore, your point is moot.

Your argument was used by another welfare rancher preceding Bundy, and rejected by the Federal court in that case, in the link that I provided:

"Absent consent or cession a State undoubtedly retains jurisdiction over federal lands within its territory, but Congress equally surely retains the power to enact legislation respecting those lands pursuant to the Property Clause. [citations omitted] And when Congress so acts, the federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause."

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1061959.html

Also interesting in that case was the following footnote:

"An Amicus Brief was filed on behalf of the states of New Mexico, Alaska, Maine, Montana, Oregon, Vermont, and, significantly, Nevada supporting the position of the United States in this case."

So not even the State of Nevada has supported this other welfare rancher preceding Bundy.

The Bundy family was on the land before Nevada was made a state; in fact the section they are on was previously Arizona.

Get a clue.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Yes,, a Carbon Tax.

That, and Obama/Romney Care.

 

[phill4paul]

Yes,, a Carbon Tax.

Yes, and there will be a tax on cow farts too. Nickle and dime. Nickle and dime.

 

[Cabal]

I guess I'm just too simple-minded to give any more than zero fucks about all the red herrings in this thread.

Everything the State claims ownership over was/is stolen at gunpoint. Tell me more about how the State rightfully owns anything, let alone any land.

 

[pcosmar]

To my knowledge, the State of Nevada has not designated the land in dispute as Open range.

Once again your Knowledge is lacking.

N.R.S. 568.355 “Open range” defined. As used in N.R.S. 568.360 and 568.370, unless the context otherwise requires, “open range” means all unenclosed land outside of cities and towns upon which cattle, sheep or other domestic animals by custom, license, lease or permit are grazed or permitted to roam.

http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2010/title50/chapter568/nrs568-355.html

Ignorance can be cured.

 

[Root]

The State has no right to exist. The people, plants and animals do.

 

[otherone]

God farted out a constitution and Americans with their city-blocks magically appeared?

Given the document, it's more likely he took a chance at a fart and lost.

 

[otherone]

The State has no right to exist. The people, plants and animals do.

The State doesn't exist. It's legal fiction. That this phantom "owns" land is a queer perversity, like Sauron trying to exist materially again.
So 50 states exist AND the federal nation. Christ. Based on the federal land map...we're OCCUPIED.

 

[klamath]

A little more about federal land laws and the federal courts for people that have never been through it. There is no jury it is federal judges only. The system is very incestuous in that the federal attorneys that represent the government are in the court every day with the hundreds cases they have going against western land owners. they become friends with the judges and when court is over they get together and discuss what place they need to get together and eat at. The land owner is just some anonymous face the judge see and has no ties to.

 

[oldietech]

I'm not sure how land can be owned by a non person.

 

[otherone]

I'm not sure how land can be owned by a non person.

Corporations own land.
The USA is a corporation.
Bully for collectivism!

 

[oldietech]

Corporations own land.
Come to think of it, the good 'ol US of A is a corporation, meaning it has "rights" like actual people do! Bully for collectivism!

Right "corporations"? Just another title of nobility I suppose. Who knew that the Revolutionary War was really won by the British? People still love their Kingdoms I suppose.

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

The US is apparently the kingdom and the states are basically just fiefdoms. There are no sovereign states apparently.