quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

fr

Nevada Revised Statute 321.596

I find these parts interesting.

2. The State of Nevada has a legal claim to the public land retained by the Federal Government within Nevada s borders because:

(a) In the case of the State of Alabama, a renunciation of any claim to unappropriated lands similar to that contained in the ordinance adopted by the Nevada constitutional convention was held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be void and inoperative because it denied to Alabama an equal footing with the original states in Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845);

(b) The State of Texas, when admitted to the Union in 1845, retained ownership of all unappropriated land within its borders, setting a further precedent which inured to the benefit of all states admitted later on an equal footing ; and

(c) The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, adopted into the Constitution of the United States by the reference of Article VI to prior engagements of the Confederation, first proclaimed the equal footing doctrine, and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, by which the territory including Nevada was acquired from Mexico and which is the supreme law of the land by virtue of Article VI, affirms it expressly as to the new states to be organized therein.


5. The attempted imposition upon the State of Nevada by the Congress of the United States of a requirement in the enabling act that Nevada disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, as a condition precedent to acceptance of Nevada into the Union, was an act beyond the power of the Congress of the United States and is thus void.

6. The purported right of ownership and control of the public lands within the State of Nevada by the United States is without foundation and violates the clear intent of the Constitution of the United States.

7. The exercise of such dominion and control of the public lands within the State of Nevada by the United States works a severe, continuous and debilitating hardship upon the people of the State of Nevada.


Bundy may have more of a case than some of you think.

Nope. This has been litigated to death. State law does not super cede federal law.

And you read this....where?

States rights (nearly) ALWAYS supersede federal rights....(there's a document....if I recall it's called the Constitution, has this shit that follows on/attached to..."Bill of Rights"....that kind of shit).

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

fr

Nevada Revised Statute 321.596

I find these parts interesting.

2. The State of Nevada has a legal claim to the public land retained by the Federal Government within Nevada s borders because:

(a) In the case of the State of Alabama, a renunciation of any claim to unappropriated lands similar to that contained in the ordinance adopted by the Nevada constitutional convention was held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be void and inoperative because it denied to Alabama an equal footing with the original states in Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845);

(b) The State of Texas, when admitted to the Union in 1845, retained ownership of all unappropriated land within its borders, setting a further precedent which inured to the benefit of all states admitted later on an equal footing ; and

(c) The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, adopted into the Constitution of the United States by the reference of Article VI to prior engagements of the Confederation, first proclaimed the equal footing doctrine, and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, by which the territory including Nevada was acquired from Mexico and which is the supreme law of the land by virtue of Article VI, affirms it expressly as to the new states to be organized therein.


5. The attempted imposition upon the State of Nevada by the Congress of the United States of a requirement in the enabling act that Nevada disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, as a condition precedent to acceptance of Nevada into the Union, was an act beyond the power of the Congress of the United States and is thus void.

6. The purported right of ownership and control of the public lands within the State of Nevada by the United States is without foundation and violates the clear intent of the Constitution of the United States.

7. The exercise of such dominion and control of the public lands within the State of Nevada by the United States works a severe, continuous and debilitating hardship upon the people of the State of Nevada.


Bundy may have more of a case than some of you think.

Nope. This has been litigated to death. State law does not super cede federal law.

And you read this....where?

States rights (nearly) ALWAYS supersede federal rights....(there's a document....if I recall it's called the Constitution, has this shit that follows on/attached to..."Bill of Rights"....that kind of shit).

Hate to tell you this, but that argument was thrown out in a previous case United States v. Gardner

And since everyone has seemed to have not noticed, the state of Nevada is not trying to push the claim by saying the BLM is out of their jurisdiction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

fr

For the moment, A Nevada cattle rancher appears to have won his week-long battle with the federal government over a controversial cattle roundup that had led to the arrest of several protesters.

He won? Looks like BLM backed down because rounding up cattle isn't worth getting people hurt. So much for the rule of law. And that shows that the right ring no longer actually believes in that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

That's $700,000 worth of cattle . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

That's $700,000 worth of cattle . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

FR

Interesting perspective: http://scgnews.com/bundy-ranch-what-youre-not-being-told

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

FR

Interesting perspective: http://scgnews.com/bundy-ranch-what-youre-not-being-told

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

FR

Interesting perspective: http://scgnews.com/bundy-ranch-what-youre-not-being-told

Except for the little detail that that energy project has been canceled for over a year! And that that conspiracy theory has been all over already.

Again with reality
http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/green-building-news/740-mw-solar-project-canceled-nevada

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

FR

Interesting perspective: http://scgnews.com/bundy-ranch-what-youre-not-being-told

Except for the little detail that that energy project has been canceled for over a year! And that that conspiracy theory has been all over already.

Again with reality
http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/green-building-news/740-mw-solar-project-canceled-nevada

Oh it's dead for now...give it some time. (your source used the word...shelved) Cal. and surrounds will likely need it down the road.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Once you pay money to the guy at the pump for gas to your car, the money is no longer yours to decide how its used within that company. Once you give your taxes to the US Government the same thing happens. It is not taxpayer money, its the US Government's money.

Now if that was a BBQ open to the public....