Who actually “owns” America’s land? A deeper look at the Bundy Ranch crisis

| |

Top Tier Gear USA

Federal Land per State

Turtles and cows have absolutely no relevance to the situation in Nevada. Does the Constitution make  provision for the federal government to own and control “public land”? This is the only question we need to consider. Currently, the federal government “owns” approximately 30% of the United States territory. The majority of this federally owned land is in the West. For example, the feds control more than 80% of Nevada and more than 55% of Utah. The question has been long debated. At the debate’s soul is Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which is know as the “Property Clause”. Proponents of federal expansion on both sides of the political aisle argue that this clause provides warrant for the federal government to control land throughout the United States.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States….

Those who say this clause delegates the feds control over whatever land they arbitrarily decide to lay claim to are grossly misinterpreting even the most basic structure of the Constitution.

It is said the Constitution is “written in plain English”. This is true. However, plain English does not allow one to remove context. Article IV does not grant Congress the power to exercise sovereignty over land. Article IV deals exclusively with state-to-state relations such as protection from invasion, slavery, full faith and credit, creation of new states and so on.

Historically, the Property Clause delegated federal control over territorial lands up until the point when that land would be formed as a state. This was necessary during the time of the ratification of the Constitution due to the lack of westward development. The clause was drafted to constitutionalize the Northwest Ordinance, which the Articles of Confederation did not have the power to support. This ordinance gave the newly formed Congress the power to create new states instead of allowing the states themselves to expand their own land claims.

The Property Clause and Northwest Ordinance are both limited in power and scope. Once a state is formed and accepted in the union, the federal government no longer has control over land within the state’s borders. From this moment, such land is considered property of the sovereign state. The continental United States is now formed of fifty independent, sovereign states. No “unclaimed” lands are technically in existence. Therefore, the Property Clause no longer applies within the realm of federal control over these states.

The powers of Congress are found only in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. With the exception of the less than two dozen powers delegated to Congress found within Article I, Section 8, Congress may make no laws, cannot form political agencies and cannot take any actions that seek to regulate outside of these few, enumerated powers.

Article I, Section 8 does lay forth the possibility of federal control over some land. What land? Clause 17 defines these few exceptions.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings– (Emphasis added).

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is known as the Enclave Clause. The clause gives federal control over the “Seat of Government” (Washington D.C.) and land that has been purchased by the federal government with consent of the state legislature to build military posts and other needful buildings (post offices and other structures pursuant to Article I, Section 8). Nothing more.

Being a requirement, state permission was explicitly emphasized while drafting this clause. The founders and respective states insisted (with loud cries) that the states must consent before the federal government could purchase lands from the states. Nowhere in this clause will you find the power for Congress to exercise legislative authority through regulation over 80% of Nevada, 55% of Utah, 45% of California, 70% of Alaska, etc. unless the state has given the federal government the formal authority to do so, which they have not.

If a state legislature decides sell land to the federal government then at that point the Enclave Clause becomes applicable and the federal government may seize legislative and regulatory control in pursuance to the powers delegated by Article 1, Section 8.

In America’s infancy, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Founding Fathers’ understanding of federal control over land. Justice Stephen J. Field wrote for the majority opinion in Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1855) that federal authority over territorial land was “necessarily paramount.” However, once the territory was organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal ground, the state government assumes sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government retains only the rights of an “individual proprietor.” This means that the federal government could only exercise general sovereignty over state property if the state legislature formally granted the federal government the power to do so under the Enclave Clause with the exception of federal buildings (post offices) and military installations. This understanding was reaffirmed in Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan (1845), Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the city of New Orleans (1845) and Strader v. Graham (1850).

However, it did not take long for the Supreme Court to begin redefining the Constitution and legislating from the bench under the guise of interpretation.  Case by case, the Court slowly redefined the Property Clause, which had always been understood to regard exclusively the transferring of federal to state sovereignty through statehood, to the conservation of unconstitutional federal supremacy.

Federal supremacists sitting on the Supreme Court understood that by insidiously redefining this clause then federal power would be expanded and conserved.

With Camfield v. United States (1897), Light v. United States (1911),  Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) and multiple other cases regarding commerce, federal supremacists have effectively erased the constitutional guarantee of state control over property.

Through the centuries, by the hand of corrupt federal judges, we arrive and the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. The Founding Fathers never imagined the citizens of a state would be subject to such treatment at the hands of the federal government. Furthermore, they certainly never imagined the state legislatures themselves would allow such treatment to go unchecked. The latest updates appear to show that Bundy has won his battle against the feds– for now. However, it remains a damn shame that the state of Nevada would allow for such a situation to arise in the first place.

What does Nevada’s Constitution say about property? Section 1, titled “Inalienable Rights,” reads: All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness (Emphasis added).

In Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution, eminent domain is clarified. The state Constitution requires that the state prove public need, provide compensation and documentation before acquiring private property. In order to grant land to the federal government, the state must first control this land.

Bundy’s family has controlled the land for more than 140 years.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is an agency created by Congress, claimed that Bundy was “violating the law of the land.” Perhaps the agency has forgotten that the law of the land is the Constitution, and the only constitutional violation here is the very modern existence of the agency’s presence in Nevada.

About the author

Follow Michael Lotfi on Facebook and on Twitter.

My Twitter profileMy Facebook profileMy Google+ profileMy LinkedIn profileMy Instagram profile
Michael Lotfi is a Persian, American political analyst and adviser living in Nashville, Tennessee where he works as the executive director for the Tenth Amendment Center (TN). Lotfi founded TheLibertyPaper.org, which is an online news source that is visited daily by readers in over 135 countries. Lotfi also writes a column at The Washington Times called “American Millennial”. Lotfi graduated in the top 5% of his class with top honors from Belmont University, an award winning, private university located in Nashville, Tennessee.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Michael Lofti of BenSwann.com.

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • M_111

    It’s crystal clear. The Feds simply have no right to take it. Period.

    • Rick E.

      I hear you! But that’s what the native Americans said over and over again! And look where they are now.
      They have a very small fraction of what they once had.

      • Paul Dragotto


        • Rick E.

          You just called me a moron when you have the grasp of grammar as perhaps a 5th grader would have! The correct word to use is THEY’RE (a contraction of they are), not THERE as you stated in your above post.
          As to your comment, having the modern-day stuff like casinos is a good thing? I suppose it depends on one’s perspective. You sir, are the moron!

        • oregonstu

          Some tribes have done well with casinos, but many are still poor. And the Bundys are millionaires who have become rich grazing cattle on public lands in programs that are subsidized by other taxpayers. They sound a bit like commies, don’t you think?

  • Rick E.

    Oh really? Hung up on native American ownership of land? Their value system registered NO ownership of land, and their nomadic way of life ensured that fact.
    However they did lose almost all of their homelands, the areas where successive generations knew, loved, and lived.

    They lost because they couldn’t gather together in collective order in sufficient quantities to fight effectively.

    Also, they lost because of the sheer numbers of Europeans that displaced them with their extreme numbers of immigrants.
    Spare me your lecture,

    • Thomas Parker

      Rick: You are implying that the native Americans were socialists and since you defended them that makes you a socialist. Turn in your swastika immediately!

      • Rick E.

        Ha Ha Thomas, lol., I AM saying that the native Americans did what they had to do to survive. However, they just couldn’t band together cohesively in order to resist the European onslaught of sheer numbers of humans.
        Socialism is not what they did to stay successful at survival, practicalism (not a word, I know), was the order of the day. Everything they did was practical, real, and done for a specific purpose.

    • Paul Dragotto


      • Rick E.

        You cannot rationally compare what the Indians had “then” to what they “have” now! You’re implying that they’re better off now? That’s an imbecilic assumption irregardless of what some of them prefer now.
        Now they have rampant alcoholism, structured and regulated housing with shit hole reservations in some places, comparatively little freedom just like you and I. (i know, i live in close proximity to the Navajo, Hualapai, and Yavapai nations). And now, they are much like we non-Indians-money dependent and socially structured in a manner that’s adversarial.

        BACK THEN, they had true freedom, and they could move freely where they may.
        So lets hear your intelligent banter, I can’t wait to hear a true cretin like yourself express his opinion.

  • Thomas Parker

    Is the concept of the common good so alien to you idiots that you can’t conceive of the idea of public land?

    • Rick E.

      Sure. Public land is supposedly owned by all of we citizens. But controlled by an elite and comparative few! THEREIN is the problem!

      • Thomas Parker

        Throughout recorded history, the educated alite have always most of the land. It’s like cream rising to the top

        • Chris Maddox

          More like the big chunks rising to the top of the cesspool.

      • I think this joker Parker is a plant, a potted plant attempting to rile the locals

  • oregonstu

    It’s crystal clear. The Bundy’s are a classic example of red neck ranchers that have come to believe that public lands that they once had grazing allotments on belong to them personally. And then you have all the other red necks out there still fighting the civil war, claiming to believe in a purist “strict interpretation” of the constitution. Until it comes time to take a strict interpretation of clauses they don’t like, such as those mandating a separation of church and state.

    Here is a question for all you red neck idiots out there – if the public is not allowed to own property, then who has the right to it? Whoever has the biggest militia? So if I go in there with 10,000 half witted goons and kill off all of Bundy’s militia buddies, then now it’s mine, right? Back to the wild west days, eh?

    There are thousands of reasons to get furious about what our corporate government is getting up to these days, and it just blows my mind to see how many stupid people there are out there who see this issue as one worth getting all bent out of shape over. And any stupid fuck who thinks he is going to take on the United Corporate Fascist State Government with small arms and WIN is truly delusional. You brainless fools are infiltrated up the wazzoo, and every damned word you utter is being monitored. Get rid of your fucking cell phones at least, boyz.

    • Undecider

      On that note, if the UN rolls in with a million Chinese, I suppose the land will belong to them.

      • oregonstu

        LOL. I think that the NWO invasion by Ruskies and a million Chinese is going to be delayed for a few millenia by the looming nuclear conflagration being pushed by the western cartel/NATO block empire over their “silk road strategy” to invade a huge swath of territory from Syria to the Caspian Sea (Iran) and fence the Russians and Chinese out of the world’s largest remaining reserves of light sweet crude oil and natural gas.

      • Maybe with a billion commies to join the 200 million already in the USA CORP

        • oregonstu

          Ain’tcha heard about the new bogeyman on the block? Commies are the OLD bogeyman, the corporate gummint has invented a new one for dim wits like you – they’s called terraists. You gotcher towell head Muslim type terraists, and you gotcher domestic terraists, all different sorts of them ones. You and me both, I reckon.

    • JF1962

      So smart, but has to use 4 letter words. Hmm.
      Those “Rednecks” work long hard hours to grow food and raise cattle so we might have food to feed our families. You fool! You do you think all of our food comes from?
      Who cares if Bundy and other ranchers graze on some federal land. We must have food to survive. Think about that next you visit a fast food joint to get yourself a cheeseburger.

      • oregonstu

        Golly, did I offend your delicate sensibilities with those bad words? I’m awfully sorry about that. But did you know bubba, not all ranchers are ignorant red necks? I grow most of my own food, and raise my own meat.

        By the way, my point about the Bundys grazing their cattle on public land is very simple: they land, and the minerals under it, do not belong to them. They once had grazing allotments, but refused to observe the limits (which were already too high) on the number of cattle per acre to be grazed on that public land, so they lost their grazing lease due to their own pig headed stupidity. AND, the BLM let them get away with this for YEARS.

        • Mark Meyers

          Bundy may not have been smart, but the BLM has driven ranchers out with higher grazing fees combined with lower cattle/area limits which cannot handle it’s own cost of business.

          • oregonstu

            But the fact is that the government has been subsidizing these ranchers for years by charging them less per head of cattle per acre than they spend on “improvements” for the ranchers, like putting in holding ponds and “chaining” huge areas. which means stretching a chain between two bulldozers and driving across huge swaths of desert ripping out juniper and pinion pine trees to grow more grass for the damned cows.

            On top of that they let the ranchers graze too many cattle for years and years (or looked the other way when they did so illegally, like the Bundys did) and overgrazed the fragile sage desert to the point that they had no choice but to reduce the amount of cattle on the land. The BLM has let these idiots get away with murder for way too long.

          • Mark Meyers

            I wonder how true that is, because there are desert tortoises in the Bundy area, but they’ve been grazing there for 140 years. Would that happen with unsustainable practices? We’re talking 900 head on 1,000 square miles.

          • oregonstu

            I don’t have an opinion about the effect of overgrazing on the desert tortise, but this isn’t the only criteria to determine whether an area is overgrazed. I’ve seen photos of the damage on that land, and it is pretty severe. I have seen the effects of overgrazing and riparian damage on dry public lands all over the West in my work as a forestry contractor, and most of these heavily impacted areas are not nearly as arid as the Nevada desert.

          • Mark Meyers

            A forestry guy in the desert?
            The BLM kills off wild horses and burros in the area to preserve the desert tortoise. I came across this guy, Allan Savory. Interesting stuff.
            Allan Savory: How to green the world’s deserts and reverse climate change

            UN: Reversing Desertification with Livestock

          • oregonstu

            Dude, the whole west is a virtual desert, and I cross plenty of desert type country en route to forested areas. I don’t do my work in Nevada, but I have driven across it more times than I care to think.

          • Mark Meyers

            Gee. I live in Nevada. Did you miss the links?

          • oregonstu

            LOL. Not at all, you’d never catch me dead on a golf course.

        • Claudiatvl

          Hey STUPID “oregonstu” have you ever heard of the HOMESTEAD ACT? Look it up if you are so smart and let it sink into your fogged brain. Many people HOMESTEADED lands because the Gov’t at the time wanted them to do it lawfully and even went out of its way to help them get provisions to make the journey to get to those lands that they agreed to homestead, so that the growth of the United States of America would continue to the final Western reaches of land to the ocean. The payment for the land to the gov’t was the act of producing something or making something and IMPROVING that very land on that land that had a viable support feature for the other people around it to help all of them survive. GET A BRAIN IN YOUR HEAD, you stupid IDIOT, and learn how to use it with that fancy education you say/think you have or are building. You certainly aren’t learning anything that speaks to the real truth up there in Oregon State…… maybe too much Common Core, eh??

          • oregonstu

            Yep, I think pretty much everyone knows about the homestead act. Did you know that it had provisions for a person to lay claim to 160 acres of land? The Bundy’s former grazing allotment was for nearly 16,000 acres of land! NOBODY gets to claim that much land, and in fact the Bundys have never asserted outright ownership of those 16,000 acres outside of the land that they do own (which the government does not question, or question their right to do with as they please).

            The Bundy’s claim that these 16,000 acres belong to the state of Nevada, and that they own “grandfathered” grazing rights on the land. But they are out of luck there for two reasons: first, the state of Nevada asserts that they DO NOT own the land, the federal government does. Secondly, even if the state did own the land, the Bundy’s would still have to pay grazing fees and observe state grazing regulations. Grazing livestock on state lands, just like on federal lands, is a privilege subject to conditions, not a “right”.

          • Mark Meyers

            It’s not exactly federally owned. It’s federally managed. All uses must be approved both in state and federally. And they’ve been grazing 600,000 acres with less than 1000 head.

          • oregonstu

            You are saying there is some ambiguity between the State and the feds as to who owns the land? I was under the impression that this wasn’t the case. I would certainly be interested to see any evidence that this isn’t the case if you can provide a link.

            In either case, my main point in response to the main idea in this article is that even the Bundys do not claim they actually own the land in dispute – they claim some sort of grandfathered grazing rights that predate the Taylor Grazing Act, correct? In which case, they would never have had any claim to the mineral rights under the land, regardless of whether the land is state or federal.

            Another point I have been making is that even if the land belonged to the state, as the Bundys assert, they would still be required to pay grazing fees and observe state grazing regulations.

          • Mark Meyers

            Cliven Bundy claims some things; I don’ t really know the cause of what he’s saying, but it’s not the law. I’ve heard him maybe try to twist the constitution into something about public lands, but whatever; it’s not the law. What I am saying is that “public lands” are in a shared trust. It is required by both US and state laws that both parties agree on the policies for any of it and its use to be legal. It is not owned by anyone. The feds manage it. As far as Clark County, the State of Nevada, and the feds are concerned, they all signed off on the turtle lands. I’ve seen the docs and the signatures. In 1993, the turle scare came into play, and the number of head allowed was greatly reduced. That was when Cliven Bundy went to loggerheads over it.

          • Claudiatvl

            Thank you Mark, that is a VERY IMPORTANT point.

          • oregonstu

            It states right in the Nevada constitution that it is federal land. That sounds like, exactly, federal land.

          • Claudiatvl

            The Bundy’s DID pay STATE grazing taxes and they tried to continue to do that but the State tax Board would not take the money. And they observed the Grazing rules as they were SET when the rules were instilled in Nevada. The thing that you are forgetting is that the BLM has TAKEN many people ranches and lands for a whole plethora of reasons, most of which were imagined out of thin air, like the Sage Grouse, the Spotted Owl in California and here, the Desert Tortoise, which was totally ludicrous, the tortoise has been getting along fine with the cattle for over 150 years already, so why remove the cattle NOW?? There are many other mitigating factors that you conveniently have forgotten to add into the equation.

          • oregonstu

            The state makes it clear that the land is owned by the federal government. And does anyone believe that they can expect to pay the same fees for ANYTHING as they were set decades ago? How ridiculous can they get? I would like to buy my gas for 35 cents a gallon also, that was the fee that was set years ago. That seems reasonable and realistic, doesn’t it?

            The grazing fees charged by the BLM are way too low anyway, they are subsidized by everyone else. And they refused to pay these low subsidized rates, insisted on trying to pay the “old” fees to the wrong entity, and thought they should be able to get away with it? It is incredible to me that they have been given this much leeway for all of these years.

          • Charles Elias VanPoppen

            The forfeiture of the land to the federal government as a condition of admission to the union violated the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. According to the NO all states upon being granted statehood must be given equal footing to the first 13 states. That means handing over all the land. If they wanted to aquire it under the very clear language of the consitution after that point thats fine. But they didn’t. Instead they made this bogus condition to give them the land “or else you don’t get to join the union.” And just like Marbury v Madison the case Coyle v Smith states that any law in violation of equal footing under the Northwest Ordinance is null and void. That would include the part of the Nevada State Constitution giving that land to the federal government. Follow?

          • oregonstu

            Oh MY, a clear violation of the Northwest ordinance of 1787? Scandalous! Whatever would the Western Shoshone Nation ever have made of this law of the Great White Father they had not heard rumor of at that time? http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Sword-of-Injustice-A-by-Vincent-Guarisco-Cattle_Cliven-Bundy_Militia_Political-140420-855.html

          • Charles Elias VanPoppen

            That in no way takes away from my point. And I wasn’t being contentious with you. I was merely talking with you.

          • Charles Elias VanPoppen

            Also I’m confused? Are you saying that the fact that the Northwest Ordinance is meaningless or the violation of it is somehow less meaningful because its old? It was re-enacted after the constitution was ratified. Please clarify what about the NO makes it no longer legaly binding. Coyle v Smith and many other cases had rulings based on the NO. Why is it not important in your mind? Because it shows that the congress illegally aquired land across the western half of the united states? If you trivialize it somehow that will make it not legally binding? If this isn’t what you’re getting at and I’m totally off base just let me know. Seriously. We can talk like adults here.

    • GeneralRabble

      Exactly where, in the Constitution, is the clause that mandates the “seperation of chuch and state”?

      • oregonstu

        It’s a very obscure, little known section called the First Amendment, it has something to do with this crazy idea known as the Bill of Rights, you ever hear about that one? The first words of the First Amendment are these: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Now, I realize that different folks interpret these words in different ways, which just goes to show. Something plain and simply sounding, right there in black and white – and somehow or other we ended up with “In God We Trust” written all over our funny money. Makes it easy to see how we end up with radically different interpretations of more vaguely written parts of the constitution.

        • GeneralRabble

          “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” doesn’t seem to “seperate church and state. The federalists papers dispells it as it is a collection of the writings of The Founders in which they explain,IN GREAT DETAIL, just EXACTLY what they meant when they WROTE actual real The law of this land, Our Constitution.
          The seperation of church and state was only mentioned once in colonial times. it was an idea in a letter. I’m not sure if it was Jefferson. Leftist teachers and and college professors have been indoctrinating young impressionable minds with that for 50 years. It’s in the 45 stated goals of the communist rat party of america also.

          • Thomas Parker

            Anybody who believes in god is a fucking brain dead maggot. So put that in your constitution and SMD.

          • God bless the states united on the Land He created with His voice

          • oregonstu

            God is a just a figment of your tortured imagination, bubba.

          • JF1962

            That would explain your anger. You seem to be one of those lifelong “Students”, with no real world experience.

          • Phaenius

            That is why we have guns to protect against people like you who fool around with our GOD given rights, and try to use force to seperate us from them.

          • oregonstu

            Call it what you like, but it sure SEEMS to mean what it says, that the government shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion – presumably, ANY religion.

            The Federalist papers were written primarily by one faction of the “founding fathers” – Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. The quote from the letter on the separation of church and state was from James Madison – here is the full quote: “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever
            from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of
            Europe in blood for centuries.”

            So there you have it, from one of those old communist professor founding fathers who has been indoctrinating impressionable young Americans about the intent of the US Constitution for over two centuries.

          • GeneralRabble

            You must be somewhere safe. Where you don’t have to stand in front of me right. When stupid throws the shovel into the fan you won’t do well at all. Tyrants never do.

          • oregonstu

            Ahh yeah, break out the tough guy talk when you have lost the debate and don’t know what else to say. You sound like just another ignorant phoney Christian, making threats and calling other people tyrants when you are the tyrant wannabe.

          • GeneralRabble

            What threat do you IMAGINE? I merely implied the obvious. You lack a pair and are a coward. “IGNORANT PHONY CHRISTIAN?”Now you show your hatred. Real unintelligent.

          • oregonstu

            LOL. I’d love to show you what a coward I am. Shall we say the okay corral, high noon?

          • GeneralRabble

            You are not even worth speaking with. Troll.

          • oregonstu

            Now that is FUNNY, bubba.

          • GeneralRabble

            Since teaching math to an ape is easier I’ll give it a try.

          • oregonstu

            I thought you were teaching me constitutional history? And then got all bent out of shape and started making threats when you got schooled yourself.

          • Randy Bobandy

            Religion is a mental illness of mental gymnastics performed by mental midgets.

      • Doesn’t exist.

        Can’t have a State run Church like Slave-drivers in England.

        • oregonstu

          LOL. Nope, no such thing as the First Amendment.

  • Undecider

    Who owned it before the Europeans showed up? Who will own it afterwards?

    • Rick E.

      It may be a toss up between Asians and Europeans as far as what human discovered North America.

      Who will own it afterwards you ask? After a WW3 scenario? Whatever human life form that is left will be faced with a radioactive poisoned world in which nothing else will be relevant.

  • ICBM904

    It’s not Bundy’s land. His family has never owned that land. Ranchers petitioned Congress to enact grazing rights, and Bundy’s father, grandfather, and great-grandfather paid grazing rights for that land. The State of Nevada agrees that the land is under federal control. Clark County bought the grazing rights for that land and retired them permanently. Clark County also refuses to take money from Bundy. If the U.S. government, Nevada government, and Clark County government are all in agreement, you and Bundy have no case no matter how you think the courts should interpret the Constitution.

    • don’t petition for anything from pretend gov’t . Tell them what you will do, give notice, then do it

      • oregonstu

        You might want to petition the gummint for a pretend brain, Mr Brown. Then you could pretend you have the wits to reason your way out of a wet paper bag.

    • Mark Meyers

      There are people at loggerheads here. Bundy has a little bit of developed land, but not all that free-range grazing part. They have invested in that much, and it shouldn’t be consumed by the new ACECs in itself. And maybe there could be grazing rights i the north and west directions, not in the Gold Butte turtle area. I agree with you, though; it went loggerheads in ’93.

  • DC IS the USA INC Corporation – 10 miles square , the little man behind the curtain.. Plus the arsenals, forts,blah blah.

    They don’t own OUR land. They are puke corrupt TRUSTEES of OUR PROPERTY. WAKE UP.

    DC WAS unlawfully created in the Act of 1871, plus all ‘laws’ passed by puke BAR members are completely null and void from the get-go.

    See the Original 13th amendment, never repealed, banning these scum from office or as US Citizens. GOOD NEWS.

    GREAT NEWS. NOW ACT ON IT and DEREGISTER,,,then reboot the Republic

    • Thomas Parker

      Not being a graduate of Delusional U, can you tell me what BAR mean?

      • British Accreditation Registry: ATTORNEYS. They consider themselves royalty : ESQ. after their name : Esquire.

  • junkmailbin

    a bureaucrat backed by armed government employees will make the most excessive decision knowing that his retirement is safe

  • Most of the answers to the question posed in the title of this article reflect victims of dialectical materialism: the thesis and antithesis, concluding in an intended synthesis. Neither the federal government, state governments, nor the people own the land. Yahweh, as Creator does.

    “…all the earth is mine.” (Exodus 19:5)

    “The earth is YHWH’s, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.” (Psalm 24:1)

    “The land shall not be sold [nor confiscated] for ever: for the land is mine….” (Leviticus 25:23)

    Thanks to Amendment 5 of the federal Constitution and its establishment of eminent domain, leading to the appropriation theft) of private land turned into public land, and the Constitutional Republic’s insidious property taxes, every square inch of land in America is owned by the government of the Constitutional Republic (something impossible under Biblical law) and therefore the Bundys and the protesters ultimately don’t have standing in this situation. Appealing to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights in this and similar situations is the epitome or irony!

    For more, see online Chapter 14 “Amendment 5: Constitutional vs. Biblical Judicial Protection” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt14.html.

  • He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
    He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
    He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
    For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
    For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

    Guess where that came from.

  • Mark Meyers

    I just came across this amazing reverse-take on “reverse desertification”

    Allan Savory: How to green the world’s deserts and reverse climate change

    Reversing Desertification with Livestock

  • Ariviste

    Be careful what you wish for.

  • Winston Gillies

    As is always the case, ask for the proper definition of terms. Never assume. Presumption is what kills us and allows tyranny to reign.

    Article IV section 3 clause 2 says the United States has control over the territory. In this case, what is the definition of United States? The Supreme court has already answered this by stating there are three. (1) A nation among the family of nations; (2) The Federation of States; and (3) The District of Columbia (federal government). The only place congress has exclusive power is in the District of Columbia because congress can’t legislate in the states because of the separation of powers doctrine.

    The second definition to keep in mind is the word territory. The only territory the federal government can have control over in any Sovereign state are enclaves set aside for arsenals, bases and other needful areas. It’s beyond a stretch for the federal government to hold or control ownership of anything inside state boundaries that has not been previously authorized by the states themselves.

    The issue isn’t whether the federal government is honoring the constitution, we already know the answer to that one. The real question is why are the feds obfuscating the truth using words of art and color of law and why are the states letting them get away with it? We have all been conditioned to think of the United States as a nation, not a separate jurisdiction with separate laws and regulations that typically don’t apply to the constitutional citizen or the state in which he calls home. It’s all about power and money nothing more!

  • guinnessman

    I love this constitution of ours. I wish members of our government would love it too.

  • Frank Zheng

    You are contradicting your self. If the land is Federal owned, then it cannot be public. Bundy’s cows have been grazing on those public lands before the Federal government stole it to “protect” some turtles.

  • LG

    Now you’re getting it! Welcome to America, here’s your complimentary Visa.

  • Paul Dragotto


  • TennSeven

    Not a single thing you said about native american ownership of land is even close to to the truth. Native americans had no concept of land ownership. They did not “keep” only what they were strong enough to possess; in fact, they did not “keep” land at all in the sense that we defined it today. They used the land for their needs and allowed everyone else to do the same, cohabiting geographical areas without conflict.

    Try reading a book on the subject sometime, assuming you have the ability to read.

    • Charles Elias VanPoppen

      Uhhhh no. I’m from South Dakota. Here we have the Sioux Indians. They kicked out the Pawnee with brutal and violent force. And before that the Pawnee kicked out another tribe. Native Americans were always fighting over land, they just didn’t have a word for owning it. They didn’t have contracts or anything like that. It was just kind of like “well, we kicked your asses, get out of dodge or we’ll continue to kick your asses.” This is straight from the mouths of Sioux Natives that I know personally. I don’t know where you heard this fairytale shit.

  • chthompson

    I bet MalboroStan is a paid shill for the criminal regime in DC.

  • mr_wilson47

    duuhhhh……. do you have a comprehension problem Mr. Lofti – it was YOU that asked “What does the Nevada constitution say about property?” – and then it appears ya can’t even read or understand the meaning of the THIRD ordinance up top in the very link you provided??????

    Here it is, (and while I do NOT have a clue as to why folks in Nevada would would allow for such asinine verbiage to be placed in a state’s constitution; this Texan here certainly can read and comprehend it’s meaning)

    Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.

    [Amended in 1956. Proposed and passed by the 1953
    legislature; agreed to and passed by the 1955 legislature; approved and ratified by the people at the 1956 general election. See: Statutes of Nevada 1953, p. 718; Statutes of Nevada 1955, p. 926.]

    Seems to me you have missed a critical point in your article above – PUBLIC LANDS in Nevada belong to US government, and apparently it sucks to be from Nevada if you are running cattle on government land and refuse to even acknowledge there is a US government………..

  • Charles Elias VanPoppen

    Coyle v Smith among other cases stated that any law that does not give equal footing under the northwest ordinance is null and void. Equal footing means they had to be afforded the same treatment as the first 13 states. Part of that treatment was handing over all land to a state upon granting it statehood. After that they can only aquire land with the consent of the state legislature under Article IV of the Constitution or eminent domain under the 5th amendment. Nevada was forced to give that land to the federal government as a condition of their admission to the union. But because that condition violated equal footing of the Northwest Ordinance that part of the Nevada State Constitution is rendered null and void. Coyle v Smith. Done and Done.

  • Charles Elias VanPoppen

    No one gets this. lol. They have no perspective. I live in South Dakota though and know plenty of Native Americans that agree with me. But they got away from the brainwashing of the Rez when they were very young. So that helps.