Results 1 to 7 of 7
Like Tree3Likes

Thread: Western lawmakers gather in Utah to talk federal land takeover

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895

    Western lawmakers gather in Utah to talk federal land takeover

    Western lawmakers gather in Utah to talk federal land takeover
    ‘It’s time’ » Lawmakers from 9 states gather in Utah, discuss ways to take control of federal lands.

    By Kristen Moulton

    | The Salt Lake Tribune
    First Published Apr 18 2014 03:07 pm • Last Updated Apr 18 2014 10:21 pm

    (Scott Sommerdorf | The Salt Lake Tribune) Utah Speaker of the House Becky Lockhart, right, and other western lawmakers speak about their private conversations on transfering federal land to the states, Friday, April 18, 2014. From left to right: House Speaker Mark Blasdel of Montana, Utah state Rep. Ken Ivory, Montana Sen. Jennifer Fielder, Idaho House Speaker Scott Bedke, and Lockhart.

    It’s time for Western states to take control of federal lands within their borders, lawmakers and county commissioners from Western states said at Utah’s Capitol on Friday.

    More than 50 political leaders from nine states convened for the first time to talk about their joint goal: wresting control of oil-, timber -and mineral-rich lands away from the feds.

    "It’s simply time," said Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, who organized the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands along with Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder. "The urgency is now."

    Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart, R-Provo, was flanked by a dozen participants, including her counterparts from Idaho and Montana, during a press conference after the daylong closed-door summit. U.S. Sen. Mike Lee addressed the group over lunch, Ivory said. New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington also were represented.

    The summit was in the works before this month’s tense standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management over cattle grazing, Lockhart said.

    "What’s happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem," Lockhart said.

    Fielder, who described herself as "just a person who lives in the woods," said federal land management is hamstrung by bad policies, politicized science and severe federal budget cuts.

    "Those of us who live in the rural areas know how to take care of lands," Fielder said, who lives in the northwestern Montana town of Thompson Falls.

    "We have to start managing these lands. It’s the right thing to do for our people, for our environment, for our economy and for our freedoms," Fielder said.

    Idaho Speaker of the House Scott Bedke said Idaho forests and rangeland managed by the state have suffered less damage and watershed degradation from wildfire than have lands managed by federal agencies.

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politic...deral.html.csp
    Last edited by HAPPY2BME; 04-19-2014 at 02:46 PM.
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Cliven Bundy is only one of many. BLM has been at this for years.



    Shoshone Farmer, Raymond Yowell, Set to Take on the Bureau of Land Management

    Raymond Yowell, a retired Shoshone farmer who saw the Bureau of Land Management round up his cattle and sell them at auction, is set to face the BLM in...

    INDIANCOUNTRYTODAYMEDIANETWORK.COM



    Chief Raymond Yowell

    Shoshone Farmer, Raymond Yowell, Set to Take on the Bureau of Land Management

    Thomas Mills
    2/19/12

    In the past 80 years Raymond Yowell’s ancestral homeland has had more than 900 nuclear bomb tests, 50 million ounces of gold extracted from its depths, and now, his cattle rounded up and sold to the highest bidder for past due grazing fees from land he has grazed for more than 20 years.
    He was born in Elko, Nevada in 1931. His parents lived near the Ruby Mountains, South of town, the location of the signing of the famous Ruby Mountain Treaty of 1863. This treaty guaranteed that “peace and friendship” between the White man and the Shoshone would last as long as the grass shall grow. The treaty covered some 60 million acres of land located in four states on today’s maps.
    His ancestor’s existence would seem meager by today’s standards, but their connection to Mother Earth set them apart from the new arrivals that landed on this continent. They were told by their elders that the white man was coming and that he was to be welcomed. “Do not resist when the strange ones come, they will be many. Try to adapt to their strange ways and customs. They do not have a connection with our Mother Earth as you do, but they are very strong and they leave trails for others to follow, there is no end to them, like the ants on the prairie,” the elders would say.
    To the Native Americans, animals, plants, and the earth are all living things. When an individual excepts responsibility for any of these things it is his duty to protect and respect them as you would your own child. The cattle Yowell owned were not native to this land but brought here by the white man, but still Raymond felt a deep respect for each animal in his care.
    The problem started with the buffalo. An animal that the Creator did place on this continent. The buffalo use to roam the land with freedom and dignity, no fences, water rights, grazing fees, or boundaries that restricted their movement across the land. The Native American’s knew how to exist with the buffalo, their ceremonies matched their arrival and departure, so the Shoshone’s cycle of life and the buffalo cycle of life were one in same. The animals hoofs broke up the soil and their droppings carried the seeds that regenerated the next years vegetation.
    The buffalo were bigger, faster, stronger, and better tasting than the white man’s cattle. They could jump six feet straight up in the air and run 35 to 40 miles per hour. Their meat was lower in cholesterol and had less fat then the cattle that replaced them. The only problem was they did not respect the newly constructed fences that criss-crossed and divided the country side. None of the white man’s fences could hold the mighty animal or keep them off of the new train tracks that were being constructed.
    To solve the problem, the government offered to pay $3.00 for each buffalo hide. As the going rate for a days wages was copy.00 per day, it was to no ones surprise that more than 100,000 buffalos were killed, on a daily bases, and their carcasses were left to rote, in the sun, where ever they fell.
    Yowell was not around when this event took place but his elders told him about it. He does not understand why anyone would do such a thing to a living animal or why the white man thinks he can own the land by building a fence around it. He was always taught that no one can own the land, that the land itself is a living thing. His elders cautioned him, “try and adapt to the situation and do what ever you have to do to survive,” they would say.
    Yowell (his last name was passed down from his Grandfather who was given the name by two German brothers who farmed in the area) was 20 years old when he enlisted in the United States Air Force during the Korean War. At about this same time, the Nevada Proving Grounds was established in Southern Nevada south of his ancestral home. The 1,360 square mile site conducted 928 nuclear explosions between 1951 and 1992 with 100 of these explosions taking place above ground. Mushroom clouds could be seen for hundreds of miles and dust from these clouds drifted across the Shoshone homeland and rest of the countryside. Yowell did not understand why anyone would do such a thing to Mother Earth and Father Sky but again he was told to adapt, do what ever you have to do to get by.
    Yowell was 30 years old when gold was discovered just west of his home in South Fork, Nevada. The discovery was called the Carlin trend and contained some of the largest gold producing ore in North America. By 2002, more than 50 million ounces of gold were produced by grinding the ore into a fine powder, mixing this powder with a mild solution of cyanide and water, and leaching the gold out of the stone. Some of the largest open pit mines in the world are located in this area. As the price of gold goes up, the mines go deeper and wider. Again Yowell does not understand why anyone would do such a thing to Mother Earth for a shiny metal and again he was told to adapt.
    Now at 81, Yowell can adapt no more. His Livestock Association questioned why he and the Shoshone had to pay a grazing fee for their own land and request a copy of the permit. They had been paying a fee every year since 1940 but none of them had ever signed any document. The mater was turned over to the Bureau of Land Management and no one there could provide any document to support the fee, so Yowell and his Livestock Association quite paying the bill in 1984.
    The grass was still growing and the cattle were still grazing 19 years later when on May 24, 2002 the BLM sent armed rangers and three semi’s to confiscate all of the cattle. To add insult to injury, the BLM sent Yowell a bill for copy80,000 for his part of the total $2.5 million in unpaid grazing fees and fines that the BLM said they were owed. When Yowell told them he was retired and his cattle were his only income, the BLM garnished 15 percent of his small social security check. He never received any money from the sale of his cattle.
    At the present time Yowell is preparing his case for a hearing in Reno, Nevada on February 21. He has filed a $30 million lawsuit against the BLM and the Treasury Department. With no money for attorney fees, or the fight, he only hopes someone will come to his aid. This case could change the fundamentals of the Federal Indian Law’s concerning grazing rights, treaties, and the fees charged to Native Americans now and in the future.

    http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/02/19/shoshone-farmer-raymond-yowell-set-take-bureau-land-management-98837

    Last edited by AirborneSapper7; 04-19-2014 at 02:46 PM.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #3
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895
    HATTIP TO AirBorneSapper7

    -----------------------------------------

    Joe the Plumber

    BREAKING NEWS: More than 50 political leaders from nine states convened for the first time to talk about wresting control of oil-, timber -and mineral-rich lands away from the feds. (READ)



    Western States to Take Control of Land Back From Feds - Joe For America

    We’re seeing some push-back against these Feds with their dogs, mace, snipers and small-penis complex. Yeah, I’m talking to you, Harry. I suppose these State...

    JOEFORAMERICA.COM

    Good Luck with that... All that land now belongs to the United Nations Agenda 21 Project ..... ask Obama


    Western States to Take Control of Land Back From Feds?

    Posted by Rodney Lee Conover on Apr 19, 2014 in Breaking Stories

    It’s time for Western states to take control of federal lands within their borders, lawmakers and county commissioners from Western states said at Utah’s Capitol on Friday.

    Hat tip Salt Lake Tribune:

    More than 50 political leaders from nine states convened for the first time to talk about their joint goal: wresting control of oil-, timber -and mineral-rich lands away from the feds.


    “It’s simply time,” said Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, who organized the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands along with Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder. “The urgency is now.”

    Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart, R-Provo, was flanked by a dozen participants, including her counterparts from Idaho and Montana, during a press conference after the daylong closed-door summit. U.S. Sen. Mike Lee addressed the group over lunch, Ivory said. New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington also were represented.

    The summit was in the works before this month’s tense standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management over cattle grazing, Lockhart said.

    “What’s happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem,” Lockhart said.


    continue reading..

    Perhaps Cliven Bundy will go down in history as the rancher who started the second Revolution?
    They say heroes are just people who ran out of patience. I’m just glad we’re seeing some push-back against these Feds with their dogs, mace, snipers and small-penis complex.
    Yeah, I’m talking to you, Harry. I suppose these State lawmakers are domestic terrorists too?


    http://joeforamerica.com/2014/04/wes...and-back-feds/
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  4. #4
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895
    Western lawmakers strategize on taking control of federal lands

    Published April 19, 2014FoxNews.com

    April 12, 2014: The Bundy family and their supporters fly the American flag as their cattle were released by the Bureau of Land Management back onto public land outside of Bunkerville, Nev.AP/Las Vegas Review-Journal

    Officials from nine Western states met in Salt Lake City on Friday to discuss taking control of federal lands within their borders on the heels of a standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management.

    The lawmakers and county commissioners discussed ways to wresting oil-, timber- and mineral-rich lands away from the feds. Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart said it was in the works before this month's standoff.

    The BLM rounded up hundreds of Bundy's cattle, saying he hasn't paid more than $1 million in grazing fees he owes for trespassing on federal lands since the 1990s. But Bundy does not recognize federal authority on the land, which his family has used since the 1870s.

    The BLM released the cattle after a showdown last weekend with angry armed protesters whom Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid referred to as "domestic terrorists."

    "What's happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem," Lockhart said, according to The Salt Lake Tribune.

    The Legislative Summit on the Transfer of Public Lands, as it was called, was organized by Utah state Rep. Ken Ivory and Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, addressed the group over lunch, the Tribune reported.
    "It’s simply time," Ivory told reporters. "The urgency is now."

    Fielder said federal land management is hamstrung by bad policies, politicized science and severe federal budget cuts.

    "Those of us who live in the rural areas know how to take care of lands," said Fielder, a Republican who lives in the northwestern Montana town of Thompson Falls. "We have to start managing these lands. It's the right thing to do for our people, for our environment, for our economy and for our freedoms."

    Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington also were represented, but none of the other states has gone as far as Utah, where lawmakers passed a measure demanding that the federal government extinguish title to federal lands.

    The lawmakers and Gov. Gary Herber have said they're only asking the federal government to make good on promises made in the 1894 Enabling Act for Utah to become a state. The intent was never to take over national parks and wilderness created by an act of Congress, said Lockhart, a Republican from Provo.

    "We are not interested in having control of every acre," she said. "There are lands that are off the table that rightly have been designated by the federal government."

    Ivory said federal government's debt threatens its management of vast tracts of the West and its ability to make payments in lieu of taxes to the states, the Tribune reported. He said the issue is of interest to both urban and rural lawmakers.

    "If we don’t stand up and act, seeing that trajectory of what’s coming … those problems are going to get bigger," Ivory was quoted as saying.

    The University of Utah is conducting a study called for by the legislation to analyze how Utah could manage the land now in federal control.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...federal-lands/

    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  5. #5
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    New Documents Reveal BLM, Feds Planning More Land-Grabbing, States Respond

    Posted on 19 April, 2014 by Rick Wells



    The momentum is building in the west for the federal government to “take a hike” from managing and controlling public lands. The recent events in Nevada have fueled a fire which has been burning for a long time.
    New information in the form of internal BLM documents has been obtained by Utah Congressman Rob Bishop illustrating a potential imminent threat of further federal land acquisition. The 22 page report reveals discussions have taken place within BLM regarding federal government seizure of additional Western state lands, either legislatively or through the Antiquities Act. That act gives a president the authority to designate national monuments unilaterally.
    The BLM described the documents as being “just brainstorming sessions” within BLM, with no decisions made “as to which areas, if any, might merit more serious review and consideration.”
    On Friday a meeting of lawmakers and policymakers from eight Western states took place in Salt Lake City with the goal of ultimately removing the federal government from the management of state lands.
    Idaho House Speaker Scott Bedke (R-Twin Falls) said, “It is time states in the West came of age. We are every bit as capable of managing the lands within our boundaries as are the states to our east, those states east of Colorado.”



    Not only are those in the west fully capable of managing their own lands, they make compelling arguments that they are more capable than the federal government. Bedke highlighted degraded forest ecosystems which have occurred as a result of federal mismanagement as an example. Federal mismanagement has endangered watersheds and led to calamitous wildfires.
    Bedke said, “We are burning up each summer in Idaho.” He compared the degradation and stress of state-managed lands to those of the federal managed areas, which show the state lands in much better condition under exposure to virtually identical hazards.
    Those in attendance included officials from Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, Oregon and Utah.
    Montana Sen. Jennifer Fielder, who co-organized the summit, said “There is a distinct difference in the way federal agencies are managing the federal lands today. They used to do a good job, but they are hamstrung now with conflicting policies, politicized science and an extreme financial crisis at the national level. It makes it impossible for these federal agencies to manage the lands responsibly anymore.”
    In Utah, The Transfer of Public Lands Act, sponsored by Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan was signed into law by Utah Gov. Gary Herbert in 2012.
    Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart said, “The majority of these states have more federal land within their borders than land of their own. It is about fairness.” She said other states are exploring enacting measures similar to those of Utah, not only in solidarity but to remedy their own versions of the same problem.
    Lockhart and Ivory pointed out that this is not a new problem. She remarked how the “great Western state of Illinois,” was once held in 90 percent federal ownership.
    Environmental groups argue that the ideas are reckless, pointing to the potential risk to pristine land being “auctioned off to the highest bidder” with little regard to environmental impacts. Those concerns are not mitigated by federal management, so true environmental should be onboard with this state action as well.
    The video below is from an interview Rep Bishop gave in 2010, showing this is not a new problem. The BLM and the feds were playing the same game then.

    Rick Wells is a conservative author who believes an adherence the U.S. Constitution would solve many of today’s problems. “Like” him on Facebook and “Follow” him on Twitter.



    http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/04/1...tates-respond/
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  6. #6
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Jul 30 2011

    Nevada Tribal Leader, 81, Sues BLM for $30 million

    Article by Scott Sonner as it appears in RGJ.com

    “The perversity that permeates Obama’s BLM runs deeper than just massacring the last of our native wild horses and burros, they target our Native American brothers, as well!” ~ R.T. Fitch, president/co-founder of Wild Horse Freedom Federation

    Violating Constitutional Rights is the Core of BLM’s Business Plan

    photo courtesy of Danny Brady

    The federal government seized Raymond Yowell’s cattle — all 132 head — and hauled them across the state and sold them at auction.
    Then the U.S. Bureau of Land Management sent Yowell a bill for $180,000 for back grazing fees and penalties, and later garnished part of his Social Security benefits.
    Now, nearly a decade later, the 81-year-old former chief of the Western Shoshone National Council is fighting back. He’s suing the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the Treasury Department and others for $30 million. Yowell claims the government violated his constitutional rights, broke an 1863 treaty and saddled him with a debt that he doesn’t owe.
    “There’s no other way,” said Yowell, a member of the Te-Moak Band of Western Shoshone, who still works a small cattle ranch with his son in northeast Nevada’s high desert.
    “I kept writing letters to them saying I didn’t have a debt with them, that I never signed a contract,” he told The Associated Press. “But they just ignored it. There’s no use talking to them.”
    Yowell said in the lawsuit filed earlier this month he was exercising his “treaty guaranteed vested rights” to be a herdsman when he turned his cattle out in May 2002 to graze on the historic ranges of the South Fork Indian Reservation.
    BLM officials said the tribe’s Te-Moak Livestock Association held a federal permit to graze cattle on the public land in northeast Nevada from 1940 to 1984, but had quit paying the fees to the BLM in 1984, claiming the tribe held title to the land.
    Despite earlier federal and U.S. Supreme Court decisions against them, the Indian leaders asserted then — as Yowell does today — that the land is still theirs as dictated by the Treaty of Ruby Valley of 1863.
    Under the treaty, the United States formally recognized Western Shoshone rights to some 60 million acres stretching across Nevada, Idaho, Utah and California. But the Supreme Court’s 1979 ruling determined the treaty gave the U.S. government trusteeship over tribal lands, and that it could claim them as “public” or federal lands.

    Click (HERE) to read the story in it’s entirety
    Related articles






    http://rtfitchauthor.com/2011/07/30/...or-30-million/
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  7. #7
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895
    Do the Fed’s Really Own the Land in Nevada? Nope!

    Posted on April 19, 2014 by Martin Armstrong

    So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.


    QUESTION
    :
    Is it true that nearly 80% of Nevada is still owned by the Federal Government who then pays no tax to the State of Nevada? This seems very strange if true as a backdrop to this entire Bundy affair.
    You seem to be the only person to tell the truth without getting crazy.
    Thank you so much
    HF

    REPLY
    :
    The truth behind Nevada is of course just a quagmire of politics. Nevada was a key pawn in getting Abraham Lincoln reelected in 1864 during the middle of the Civil War. Back on March 21st, 1864, the US Congress enacted the Nevada Statehood statute that authorized the residents of Nevada Territory to elect representatives to a convention for the purpose of having Nevada join the Union. This is where we find the origin of the fight going on in Nevada that the left-wing TV commenters (pretend-journalists) today call a right-wing uprising that should be put down at all costs. The current land conflict in Nevada extends back to this event in 1864 and how the territory of Nevada became a state in order to push through a political agenda to create a majority vote. I have said numerous times, if you want the truth, just follow the money.
    The “law” at the time in 1864 required that for a territory to become a state, the population had to be at least 60,000. At that time, Nevada had only about 40,000 people. So why was Nevada rushed into statehood in violation of the law of the day? When the 1864 Presidential election approached, there were special interests who were seeking to manipulate the elections to ensure Lincoln would win reelection. They needed another Republican congressional delegation that could provide additional votes for the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery. Previously, the attempt failed by a very narrow margin that required two-thirds support of both houses of Congress.

    The fear rising for the 1864 election was that there might arise three major candidates running. There was Abraham Lincoln of the National Union Party, George B. McClellan of the Democratic Party, and John Charles Frémont (1813–1890) of the Radical Democracy Party. It was actually Frémont who was the first anti-slavery Republican nominee back in the 1940s. During the Civil War, he held a military command and was the first to issue an emancipation edict that freed slaves in his district. Lincoln maybe credited for his stand, but he was a politician first. Lincoln relieved Frémont of his command for insubordination. Therefore, the Radical Democracy Party was the one demanding emancipation of all slaves.

    With the Republicans splitting over how far to go with some supporting complete equal rights and others questioning going that far, the Democrats were pounding their chests and hoped to use the split in the Republicans to their advantage. The New York World was a newspaper published in New York City from 1860 until 1931 that was the mouth-piece for the Democrats. From 1883 to 1911 it was under the notorious publisher Joseph Pulitzer (1847–1911), who started the Spanish-American war by publishing false information just to sell his newspapers. Nonetheless, it was the New World that was desperately trying to ensure the defeat of Lincoln. It was perhaps their bravado that led to the Republicans state of panic that led to the maneuver to get Nevada into a voting position.

    The greatest fear, thanks to the New York World, became what would happen if the vote was fragmented (which we could see in 2016) and no party could achieve a majority of electoral votes. Consequently, the election would then be thrown into the House of Representatives, where each state would have only one vote. Consequently, the Republicans believed they needed Nevada on their side for this would give them an equal vote with every other state despite the tiny amount of people actually living there. Moreover, the Republicans needed two more loyal Unionist votes in the U.S. Senate to also ensure that the Thirteenth Amendment would be passed. Nevada’s entry would secure both the election and the three-fourths majority needed for the Thirteenth Amendment enactment.
    The votes at the end of the day demonstrate that they never needed Nevada. Nonetheless, within the provisions of the Statehood Act of March 21, 1864 that brought Nevada into the voting fold, we see the source of the problem today. This Statehood Act retained the ownership of the land as a territory for the federal government. In return for the Statehood that was really against the law, the new state surrendered any right, title, or claim to the unappropriated public lands lying within Nevada. Moreover, this cannot be altered without the consent of the Feds. Hence, the people of Nevada cannot claim any land whatsoever because politicians needed Nevada for the 1864 election but did not want to hand-over anything in return. This was a typical political one-sided deal.

    Republican Ronald Reagan had argued for the turnover of the control of such lands to the state and local authorities back in 1980. Clearly, the surrender of all claims to any land for statehood was illegal under the Constitution. This is no different from Russia seizing Crimea. The Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) when Alabama became a state in 1845. The question presented was concerning a clause where it was stated “that all navigable waters within the said State shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said State, and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said State.” The Supreme Court held that this clause was constitutional because it conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.”

    The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states:
    The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.

    So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.

    Sorry, but to all the left-wing commentators who call Bundy a tax-cheat and an outlaw, be careful of what you speak for the Supreme Court has made it clear in 1845 that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with for the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minimum, it became state land – not federal.

    http://armstrongeconomics.com/armstrong_economics_blog/
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •