One Critique. He did not break a "law". He defied a regulation posed by an un-elected bureaucracy without the vote of Congress. That is not a law - that is one man (Harry Reid's former chief of staff) head of the BLM who has power over another man - the antithesis of freedom

I found them very racist, so if the issue at hand had any anything to do with racism, he would have no credibility with me. It has nothing to do with outlawing words. He has a right to be an idiot, which he exercising on the subject of race.

None of this has to do with the heavy-handed law enforcement tactics, which are the issue for me.

Robbie;

Under the interpretation favored by both of you the Louisiana Purchase, Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, The Gadsden Purchase, and Seward's purchase of Alaska would all have been unconstitutional and all lands west of the Mississippi River would have remained colonies or possessions of France, Mexico and Russia; meaning - not only would there be no Federal lands, but no State of Nevada and no Bundy family therein.

I had hope for this website, but I'm losing it. Your claim that the Constitution forbids the acquisition and ownership of land by the US Federal Government means the country would have remained what it was in 1802. While people questioned Jefferson's wisdom in buying the Louisiana Territory and the moral justification for going to war against Mexico and the wisdom of making the Gadsden Purchase and buying Alaska from Russia, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution to say these purchases could not be made.

Read my longer explanation to Strug below. If you still think the Federal Government has no right to own land, fine, waste your life trying to overturn 212 years of precedent and, depending on where you live, start working on you French, Spanish, or Russian, because without the legal right to own land, most of the US would not be a part of the US.

it's sensitive when a blowhard like the Clippers owner says outrageous things about not associating with a person(s) because of their ethnicity. That's offensive. I think the team (which has been shaken by this) is handling it with dignity.

Strug;

Read about The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and The Gadsden Purchase. The US Federal Government bought the land from Mexico, guaranteeing the continued property rights of all Mexican and other private landowners. All land not privately owned at that time would become the property of the US Federal Government. These purchases were similar to Jefferson's acquisition of the Louisiana Territory from France, It's what happened afterward that is different.

In 1812 the General Land Office was formed to grant or sell most of the 828,000 square miles Jefferson bought from France. Within 30 years most of the land we now call the Midwest had been sold and much of it had subsequently been organized into states.

It appears the Federal Government's attitude toward land changed sometime between 1842 and 1848. Texas freed itself from Mexico in 1836, and in 1845 the independent Republic of Texas negotiated statehood without ceding any land to the US Federal Government. In 1848 the US fought what was probably an unjust war against Mexico and, after winning, bought about 30% of that country for 3 cents an acre (Jefferson paid France 4 cents an acre for the Louisiana Purchase). In 1853 the Federal Government acquired another 30,000 square miles of Mexico for a similar price.

From 1803 to 1842 the US Government acquired huge amounts of land and sold much of it to private citizens. After that land sales slowed. Was it Texas's insistence on retaining ownership of its land that changed the Federal attitude, or was it the discovery of gold in California in 1848? I don't know, but even now, some of the land Jefferson acquired through the Louisiana Purchase has not been sold and most of the land acquired from Mexico, along with its minerals remains the property of the US Government.

It's as though somewhere around 1848 the US Government realized North America was finite, there was a west coast and we were fast approaching it and - decided to quit selling land to the public.

So, you see, the principle has been the same since 1803, the US Federal Government has the right to purchase land not already within the boundaries of the United States but, as time went by, the willingness of the Government to distribute those lands to private owners changed dramatically. Settlers were prevented from owning land in Oklahoma until 1898 and the Federal Government still owns half of the land inside Wyoming's borders.

We westerners were victimized not by changing laws, but by a changing Federal attitude. The land that lies within Illinois' borders was acquired at the same time as the land within Wyoming's borders but almost all of Illinois is private land, while most of Wyoming belongs to the US Government, because Illinois was settled before the Federal Government's change in attitude and Wyoming was settled afterward.

Bundy's real complaint is the US Federal Government won't sell him the land his family was not wise enough to, or not allowed to buy in 1848, unlike lands that were sold on demand to pioneer families just like his. He cannot state this coherently because there is no legal or moral imperative behind "we wish we'd stopped in Texas or kept going to California, where we could have bought all the land we wanted, instead of stopping in Nevada and leasing land we could never own."

Perhaps; this is a multi faceted issue. If we lived in a libertarian society and any person who chose to do harm to himself could freely do so and not having the rest of the society to pay for it, then, yes, I agree with you. Since we don't and have to pay for other people's screw ups, then we can control their behavior. In any case, I don't see any racism in this. Wrong government policies, wrong societal values, many other wrongs, yes, but racism?

I was not aware that NV entered the Union with the fed gov continuing to own the land. If that is a fact, then they have legal ground as a landlord. Of course, for what purpose our tax money is being spent is another, moral question. But if NV entered without the fed gov expressly owning much of the land bound by the state lines, then my points are valid. Having a huge missile range is a "reasonable" extension of the "forts" clause; having a turtle habitat is not.

Strug;

I keep writing, and you keep not reading. The Federal Government owned the land prior to statehood and specifically refused to cede it to the states when they were created. That doesn't mean Nevada isn't a state. It means the Federal Government is the largest landowner and landlord in Nevada and, as long as it stays within the terms of its contracts as a landlord, it has the right to do with its land as it sees fit. Had the Bundy family tried to purchase that land a century ago, when the Federal Government was more inclined to sell, they might now own it and have legal standing to run as many cattle as they want. They didn't, so the Federal Government is their landlord.

I believe your narrow reading of the Constitution "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings" would be laughed at by EVERY current Supreme Court Justice. Is White Sands Missile Range needful? Is it a building? Hanford Nuclear Reserve?

No, the Federal Government has an established and agreed upon right to acquire land for its needs, whether they be buildings or not. If we didn't understand the Constitution to allow the purchase of land the United States of America would have stopped east of the Mississippi.

I think your take is not only legally incorrect and without moral force (we all knew prior to accepting statehood the Federal Government would own much of our states) it is pointless. Waving your interpretation of the Constitution in the air doesn't move the matter forward. Arranging a sale of Federal lands would. For that there is legal and moral precedent.

Nevada, as any other State that entered the Union, was accepted with all state rights as any other state. The Constitution, Article 1, Section 8: “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;” Furthermore, The Bill of Rights, Amendment X: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In other words, federal government ownership of the land is limited and specified for certain purposes only – “needful Buildings,” not de-industrialization or special habitats for turtles. I think that it is very clear that the federal government is way outside of the Constitutional boundaries, but certainly well inside it’s un-Constitutional precedents.

Strug;

Ask the question: Does the US Federal Government own the White House (DC), the Capitol (DC), the Pentagon (VA), West Point (NY), Fort Jefferson (FL), the Presidio (CA)?

If not, what entity owns those real properties and what entity owned the land surrounded by Nevada's borders between 1848, when the US Federal Government bought it from Mexico and 1864, when Nevada became a state?

If so, we've established that the US Federal Government can acquire and own land in existing states and land not within existing states. Once you accept this, Federal ownership of 85% of Nevada follows.

I am a westerner. We despise the Federal Government. It has retarded our economic and social development. It takes much more from us than we get back but, trillions of dollars of mineral royalties and land fees because we were late to the party. We came into statehood AFTER being purchased by the US Federal Government. The provenance is clear. They owned the land before we existed as states and granted us statehood under those conditions. The US Federal Government is not taking land away from Nevada. The US Federal Government owned those lands before there was a Nevada.

We'd love to get rid of them. Put all Federal lands up for sale and I guarantee every western state would mortgage future generations just to get out from under the burden of Federal land ownership. But, wishing it doesn't make it so, and if Cliven Bundy's family had owned that land prior to 1848 their claim would have been recognized, as were all other Mexican landowners. If Cliven Bundy's family showed up after 1848, they don't own the land, no matter what they think.

I agree with your point regarding the precedent. However, the precedent itself was outside of the specific powers allowed to the federal government in the Constitution. So, the question becomes, do we live under the Constitution, or under the ever-changing laws that are straying further and further from the Constitution. That way, little wrongs, accepted for the sake of expedience and any other reason, add up to the point that the Constitution is now no more than a hallowed museum item.

Strug;

The US Federal Government retained ownership of those lands not specifically ceded to the states at the time of statehood. The US Federal Government determines what, if any activities are permitted on Federal lands. The US Federal Government, as owner, has the right to refuse to allow industrial activity or squatters on its land. For most of our history the US Federal Government was a cooperative landlord, selling grazing rights to ranchers and mining permits to industries. The Federal Government is reducing issuance of grazing rights and mining permits. This is frustrating, but fully legal. The US Federal Government owns the land. It is inside its rights to refuse use. Just exactly why the government seems to be trying to force ranchers and miners out of business, I'm not sure but, from the first day we paid the Treasury to let us graze cattle or drill on Federal land we accepted the principal and set the precedent that the US Federal Government owns and administers the land as it sees fit.

I wasn't blustering, but thanks for the information. I wasn't aware that Nevada's creation reserved specific territorial ownership to the Federal Government.

One thing I would point out, however, that would be a legal challenge to this for any State is that Courts have repeatedly held that ownership in title defers to ownership by management and improvement. If the State (or a private individual) is actively using and improving the land - even in cases of squatters - and the legal owner of the land does not do anything about it for a length of time, the land's rights actually then become those of the improver. Even George Washington lost land to squatters on his property in this manner, so this provides a strong legal framework that would challenge even the claims of the Federal Government pursuant to the creation of Nevada as a State. In the case of Bundy, his family had been ranching and improving the land long before Nevada ever became a state or before the Federal Government began demanding fees for use, so there is both legal precedent and a strong claim for "squatters' rights" in this case that would override the claims of the Federal Government. I believe that this was brought up by Bundy when the BLM initially attempted to alter the conditions of the land-use deal.

Just something to consider.

"... wielding their fully legal power to deindustrialize and depopulate large parts of the west." - that in itself is illegal and un-Constitutional. It is completely outside of the power allowed to the federal government by the Constitution. Please explain how does that make it "fully legal"?

I don't think his comments were racist at all. He used politically incorrect terms, OK, but that does not make him a racist. At his age, it is probably difficult to keep up with the latest politically correct dictionary. No doubt that many of the words that we use today will be outlawed tomorrow. By that definition, we are all racists.

Blarman;

You are factually incorrect. At statehood, all land not ceded by the US Federal Government remained Federal land. Remember, these were not existing, independent states creating a new union (the original 13 colonies) or petitioning to join an existing union (Texas); these were lands acquired by the US Federal Government through purchase, over which the only authority was the US Federal Government, which afterward created the states within, imposing on them at the time of statehood, rules persisting to this day. The State of Nevada never owned any land the US Federal Government didn't cede to it. On the question of ownership there is no doubt. The 10th Amendment does not prohibit land ownership by the Federal Government. The US Federal Government retained ownership of 85% of Nevada as a condition of statehood. The State of Nevada administers civil life on lands both private and public, but does not own those lands. The BLM may have broken a contract with Cliven Bundy, but there is no question about land ownership. Neither Cliven Bundy nor the State of Nevada own that land. Until 1848 Mexico owned it. Since 1848 the US Federal Government has owned it and all your wishing and bluster will not change that fact. The BLM, not the State of Nevada, is Cliven Bundy's landlord.

When something is prohibited, it often caries the allure of desirability. Yes, alcohol became more desirable with the Prohibition, but the important thing to keep in mind is that there was nothing wrong with moderate alcohol consumption in the first place. There is no such thing as moderate crack consumption. You can’t make a blanket statement that prohibiting something is bad because it causes that something to be more desirable. Should the society, using such logic, allow murders? Ron Paul’s statements were made on a propaganda stage (understandably); much of what he said was half-truths made for quick public consumption. That is not a logical discourse. He claims much higher black incarceration rate than for whites – but no sources sited, no analysis, no specifics. Are blacks arrested because they are black or because of the crimes that specific individuals commit? Are we supposed to overlook a certain number of crimes committed by blacks in order to artificially equate the number to the number of crimes committed by whites, just as Holder is demanding? What is this – Equal Crime Opportunity? The facts remain facts – don’t commit crimes and there will be no incarceration. Now, I’m talking about the obvious crimes here, like robberies, drugs, murders; we need to differentiate between the real crimes and what our police state is now labeling as crimes, as in the case of the Bundys.

While the land initially started out as a purchase, as soon as the individual territories were granted Statehood, all control or ownership by the Federal Government gets actually and legally transferred to that State - the Federal Government retains zero rights or control in the matter unless the State cedes it or the Federal Government appropriates it - as has happened in many western States.

I agree that the way to combat this is for the States to re-assert their sovereignty via the 10th Amendment and reject any attempts by the Federal Government to own more land or assert more control without an actual bill from Congress - not some bureaucrat's rules.