Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After effects and unintended consequences of not being able to pass the 13th amendment, are in full effect.
One only has to look how and why AZ. was made a state to see, 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(there was not enough people residing in the state, to become a state), 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.
In 1845 the Supreme Court ruled this could not happen. https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/u...n-nevada-nope/
Who bought the land that became Nevada and Arizona? The United States' government. It was part of the territory the Louisiana Purchase president Jefferson bought from Spain. Jefferson's vision was both accurate and very far into the future at a time when the United State's boundaries were stretched only as far as what's now our mid-West.
We paid for it as a people, so our descendants wouldn't be immigrating into a foreign country when they moved westward. From that time on, the new land was both the responsibility of our federal government, and up to how our representatives decided how it was to be best managed for the good of our citizens.
It was never up to the pioneers who settled the empty expanses and lived out their lives in them. The pioneers always sought the management, the protection, and the citizenship only the federal government could provide.
In turn, when a wilderness became settled enough to manage it's own local affairs adequately, a territory was created in a 2-way process, with input from the locals taken in consideration with the needs of the nation. During the Civil War, when this process was undergoing great political strain, it was to the government's advantage to hold title to the mineral wealth of the west, and deny it to the Confederacy.
Arizona and Nevada weren't the only states that produced the gold and silver needed to fill the government coffers. Idaho, California, Wyoming, Montana, and Utah also had those riches, and both the Confederacy and the Union wanted them badly.
The civil 'war in the west' was fought mostly within the boundaries of that time. In the far west, only Arizona sided with the Confederacy, as it was the only far west state where cotton was grown, and it was the only far west state that was fought over militarily.
The fight never changed Arizona's position as a territory, though. If the Confederacy had won the only large battle that decided Arizona's outcome, it still would have been under federal control; the Confederacy would have maintained the same control the Union had. The only exception would be that control was settled by the force of arms, one nation against the other. That's the oldest way of all of settling who has control of a contended piece of land.
And that is why the Supreme Court has turned down all attempts at local control of government lands ever since.
Our government bought that land, and until our government decides to change that, they will remain the property of the U.S. Government, whether a minuscule group of slob ranchers agree with that fact or not.
Since the government bought it, the government gets to make the rules. Just like any landowner gets to make the rules on his own property.
Who bought the land that became Nevada and Arizona? The United States' government. It was part of the territory the Louisiana Purchase president Jefferson bought from Spain. Jefferson's vision was both accurate and very far into the future at a time when the United State's boundaries were stretched only as far as what's now our mid-West.
We paid for it as a people, so our descendants wouldn't be immigrating into a foreign country when they moved westward. From that time on, the new land was both the responsibility of our federal government, and up to how our representatives decided how it was to be best managed for the good of our citizens.
It was never up to the pioneers who settled the empty expanses and lived out their lives in them. The pioneers always sought the management, the protection, and the citizenship only the federal government could provide.
In turn, when a wilderness became settled enough to manage it's own local affairs adequately, a territory was created in a 2-way process, with input from the locals taken in consideration with the needs of the nation. During the Civil War, when this process was undergoing great political strain, it was to the government's advantage to hold title to the mineral wealth of the west, and deny it to the Confederacy.
Arizona and Nevada weren't the only states that produced the gold and silver needed to fill the government coffers. Idaho, California, Wyoming, Montana, and Utah also had those riches, and both the Confederacy and the Union wanted them badly.
The civil 'war in the west' was fought mostly within the boundaries of that time. In the far west, only Arizona sided with the Confederacy, as it was the only far west state where cotton was grown, and it was the only far west state that was fought over militarily.
The fight never changed Arizona's position as a territory, though. If the Confederacy had won the only large battle that decided Arizona's outcome, it still would have been under federal control; the Confederacy would have maintained the same control the Union had. The only exception would be that control was settled by the force of arms, one nation against the other. That's the oldest way of all of settling who has control of a contended piece of land.
And that is why the Supreme Court has turned down all attempts at local control of government lands ever since.
Our government bought that land, and until our government decides to change that, they will remain the property of the U.S. Government, whether a minuscule group of slob ranchers agree with that fact or not.
Since the government bought it, the government gets to make the rules. Just like any landowner gets to make the rules on his own property.
We paid for the Louisiana Purchase too. and no, it was not in the same deal to get AZ. AZ. was aquire after the Mexican- American War in 1848, with the Treaty of Guadalupe.
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, 3 year prior to the Treaty of Guadalupe.
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 to the state.
We paid for the Louisiana Purchase too. and no, it was not in the same deal to get AZ. AZ. was aquire after the Mexican- American War in 1848, with the Treaty of Guadalupe.
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, 3 year prior to the Treaty of Guadalupe.
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 to the state.
No, it does not.
The decision cedes the management and ownership of the lands to the state, but the feds were still allowed to choose what they give away or keep, and they did use that choice. The valuable mining lands were reatained, and then, once financeers with enough money were able to properly exploit the ore deposits, the government made it easy for them to do it. They gave hometeading loggers and farmers similar breaks, and gave the railroads the most of all. Because all were good for a growing nation and its needs, 150 years ago.
Since it was to the benefit of the union to cede the best lands to the state for purposes of settling and agriculture, the wild lands were not so special as today when wilderness was the rule, not the exception.
Once Teddy Roosevelt settled the matter of what is federal land and what is not conclusively 50 years after the Civil War ended, was the matter put to rest formally and legally. And that settlement remains intact by law today.
This has been defended in the Supreme Court, and, as always, the most recent decision supersedes earlier decisions.
And that's why the Bundys have no legal defense for their scabby sucking on the public teat. If there had been any legality in their position, Cliven would never have been charged with a federal or state crime in the first place. Remember both entities have charges against him.
Last edited by banjomike; 03-20-2016 at 04:33 PM..
No, it does not.
The decision cedes the management and ownership of the lands to the state, but the feds were still allowed to choose what they give away or keep, and they did use that choice. The valuable mining lands were reatained, and then, once financeers with enough money were able to properly exploit the ore deposits, the government made it easy for them to do it. They gave hometeading loggers and farmers similar breaks, and gave the railroads the most of all. Because all were good for a growing nation and its needs, 150 years ago.
Since it was to the benefit of the union to cede the best lands to the state for purposes of settling and agriculture, the wild lands were not so special as today when wilderness was the rule, not the exception.
Once Teddy Roosevelt settled the matter of what is federal land and what is not conclusively 50 years after the Civil War ended, was the matter put to rest formally and legally. And that settlement remains intact by law today.
The only lands We The People, allowed them the government to "own" is quite clear within the bounds of the US. Constitution. The Property clause: Az. is no longer a territory. and according to the 1845 supreme court ruling, they can only temporarily Dispose of and set rules and regulations until state hood. The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Arizona.
The only lands We The People, allowed them the government to "own" is quite clear within the bounds of the US. Constitution. The Property clause: Az. is no longer a territory. and according to the 1845 supreme court ruling, they can only temporarily Dispose of and set rules and regulations until state hood. The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Arizona.
But the Bundy ranch is in Nevada, Bent. Not Arizona.
You should do your homework better. Oregon isn't Arizona, either.
And as always, deflection is not your friend. Believe it or not, there are many topics where wandering in the Constitutional weed patch will never produce an answer that's pertinent to the question being discussed.
But the Bundy ranch is in Nevada, Bent. Not Arizona.
You should do your homework better. Oregon isn't Arizona, either.
And as always, deflection is not your friend. Believe it or not, there are many topics where wandering in the Constitutional weed patch will never produce an answer that's pertinent to the question being discussed.
The only lands We The People, allowed them the government to "own" is quite clear within the bounds of the US. Constitution. The Property clause: NV. is no longer a territory and according to the 1845 supreme court ruling, they can only temporarily Dispose of and set rules and regulations until state hood. The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Arizona,Nevada, New Mexico, California, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Montana, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming......
So, in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land to the state.
We the people own the land. Not the Government.
The only lands We The People, allowed them the government to "own" is quite clear within the bounds of the US. Constitution. The Property clause: NV. is no longer a territory and according to the 1845 supreme court ruling, they can only temporarily Dispose of and set rules and regulations until state hood. The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Arizona,Nevada, New Mexico, California, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Montana, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming......
So, in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land to the state.
We the people own the land. Not the Government.
Sez you. And who are you, exactly? The great decider of all rights and wrongs? Who appointed you? God?
We. As in all of us. ALL of us. You walk on ground you as a citizen own that I never will set a foot on, but I own it just as much as you. And I walk on different ground that you will never tread, but you own that ground just as much as I.
And the guy who just became a U.S. citizen last week owns those grounds, too. Just as all our citizens who live abroad own them, including our citizens who have never stepped a foot upon their mother country yet. And may never.
And, do you know what? Not a one of us can lay special claim to a square foot of it without our government's assent and permission.
Despite your beliefs, you won't walk on it forever, but your great great grandkids can, as can mine or anyone else's. And that's the way it is, and that's the way it should be. Even the wealthiest person ever in the world cannot lay claim to our national treasures or our national wastelands. And, as time has proven, even our wastelands can become treasures with the passage of time.
The Bundys, despite their most fervent beliefs, just ain't all that special. Nor are their crackpot little bunch of followers and fellow believers.
However, if you want to take over that range the Bundys contested for so long, and think you can succeed where they failed, have at it. This citizen gives you my permission, for whatever that's worth.
Part of living in a democracy is the allowance for anyone to fail as they will, and/or go to jail for their beliefs. Many of our best have done both, along with many of our worst.
Sez you. And who are you, exactly? The great decider of all rights and wrongs? Who appointed you? God?
We. As in all of us. ALL of us. You want on ground you as a citizen own that I never will set a foot on, but I own it just as much as you. And I walk on different ground you will never tread, but you own that ground just as much as I.
And the guy who just became a U.S. citizen last week owns those grounds, too. Just as all our citizens who live abroad own them, including our citizens who have never stepped a foot upon their mother country.
And, do you know what? Not a one of us can lay special claim to a square foot of it without our government's assent and permission.
And despite your beliefs, you won't walk on it forever, but your great great grandkids can, as can mine or anyone else's. And that's the way it is, and that's the way it should be. Even the wealthiest person ever in the world cannot lay claim to our national treasures or our national wastelands. And, as time has proven, even our wastelands can become treasures with the passage of time.
The Bundys, despite their most fervent beliefs, just ain't all that special. Nor are their crackpot little bunch of followers and fellow believers.
Damn straight!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
