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

[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.

[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

[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.]

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.

[Orruar]

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

Its public land. Just because the government didn't have a purpose for this land in the past and didn't care what he did with it doesn't mean he was legally using it. Now there is a purpose for the land that the government owns. I fail to see why people are not seeing this. This has nothing to do with freedom.

If I owned property and I didn't do anything with it, does that mean its okay for someone to let their cattle graze on it? Then, if I suddenly want to develop on that land, I can't because they are already grazing on it?

If the government has use for the land, they can just use it? If they want to build a solar farm on it, just do it and throw a fence around it so the cattle can't poop on the reflectors or whatever? This isn't about land that they suddenly want to use for other things. It's about the government wanting to collect more money in any way they can. And has been pointed out, this land really should belong to the state of Nevada.

[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."

[moklianne]

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

If the government has use for the land, they can just use it? If they want to build a solar farm on it, just do it and throw a fence around it so the cattle can't poop on the reflectors or whatever? This isn't about land that they suddenly want to use for other things. It's about the government wanting to collect more money in any way they can. And has been pointed out, this land really should belong to the state of Nevada.

Actually, it is about land. They specifically said, "They just want to be able to graze their cattle where their ancestors could." What they meant to say is for free. Others have said that these guys are assholes and after all of the recent racial slurs by them, I completely believe them. You know its bad when Hannity and the crazy right back away quickly.

[citizen1080]

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

They comparing this to Ruby Ridge or Waco

Ruby Ridge is like 45mins from where I live