This is too much for a poor emergency physician’s head–
Could it be that the Bureau of Land Management was involved in more than just harassing a rancher?
I am not surprised.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/blm-whistleblower-exposes-clark-county-land-grab-much-bigger-thought/
I Couldn’t agree more. Can anyone explain why the state of Nevada hasn’t challenged the federal Governments claim of ownership. ? The Nevada state legislature if I’m reading the code correctly doesn’t recognize the Federal Governments claim of ownership !! The prior Supreme courts ruling seem to have clearly set a precedence , agreeing to the same !!
The tortoises are ones that cannot be released back into the wild. Where do they come from? People who buy them as pets, find out they are not supposed to have them, people who pick them up and find out they are not supposed to have them. Sure, it’s really fun to assume the government is killing tortoises because they’re mean and nasty, but that does not seem to be the case here. Blame the people that pick up the tortoises and have them as pets. There’s the problem.
According to NRS 321.596, there is a Supreme Court case that says such agreements are not:
(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);
From the Enabling Act of the State of Nevada
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 the 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.
This or similar language is in the Enabling Act of all of the western states.
Based on this statement from the dailypaul (link above)
No matter, it is irrelevant, since Congress does not have the constitutional authority to own ANY land outside of the District of Columbia, except for those properties specified in Article 1, Section 8 (military bases, post offices, federal court buildings, etc.). Congress also has NO authority to make these sorts of conditions on a state to be admitted into the Union.
I’m curious if the act are legal and if not, why they were never challened … maybe until now?
To even be more confusing:
http://www.dailypaul.com/316860/why-the-nevada-vs-blm-land-ownership-issue-is-confusing
This situation with BLM, grazing rights, land grabs, etc is far more complex than any of us realize. I’m done all of the reading I can on it and each time I view source documents, the complexity of it just goes up and up.
For instance, Mr Bundy referenced NRS 321.596 as one of the basis of his stance. If you read it, you can see a number of facts that come into play, such as a couple court prescendents. You also have appartent political players like Senator Reid pushing for solar projects in the area. Bundy is using grazing areas that are intended for environmental impact mitigation areas. You have claims of threatened tortise, while the BLM is killing the same due t lack of funding. You have 9 states trying to regain control of state lands from the federal government. What a mess.