- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 4/11/14 at 3:12 pm to Paluka
quote:
So, when are you going to start?
------------------------------------
I already have. Care to address my first point?
Posted on 4/11/14 at 3:13 pm to Paluka
quote:
I already have.
quote:
Care to address my first point?
You REALLY think just listing an article of the Constitution is a point?
There's nothing in any of the articles that states it's Nevada's land. Every one of them says FEDERAL lands. Several court orders have already sided with the Feds.
So, again... tell me... you REALLY think just listing an article of the Constitution is a point?
Posted on 4/11/14 at 3:19 pm to Rex
So you finally looked it up? I'm impressed Rex.
This article of the constitution clearly states that the Feds cannot own land within states (except in the context of the Enclave issue). The fact that the goofy 9th circuit said the Feds own it needs to be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court. Nevada would win.
BTW, I do not expect an honest debate from you but I'm doing this anyway.
This article of the constitution clearly states that the Feds cannot own land within states (except in the context of the Enclave issue). The fact that the goofy 9th circuit said the Feds own it needs to be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court. Nevada would win.
BTW, I do not expect an honest debate from you but I'm doing this anyway.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 3:21 pm to Paluka
Do we have tigerdroppings Gold on here?
Posted on 4/11/14 at 3:22 pm to Paluka
I can almost hear Rex googling right now
Posted on 4/11/14 at 3:29 pm to Paluka
quote:
This article of the constitution clearly states that the Feds cannot own land within states (except in the context of the Enclave issue)
No, it doesn't say that. It's telling that Nevada, itself, doesn't claim ownership of that land.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 3:32 pm to Rex
Here is my second point Dog Boy:
According to public records, the rights to work the Bunkerville allotment were purchased by Cliven Bundy's grandfather in 1887. These rights were in turn sold to Cliven's father, and in 1972 the rights were passed onto our current Mr. Bundy.
Now pay attention. This is very important: The agreement in place also included the rights to built in water systems, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars.
BLM stopped managing the land and were not using the fees that Bundy was originally paying for the management of it and this is also part of the reason he decided to stop paying the fees.
So BLM violated their side of the agreement with this rancher who filed complaints that they were not doing their jobs. Like most responsible people, he said "frick them" and did things himself. He improved the land and paid his taxes (not the grazing fees since BLM failed to meet their obligation).
According to public records, the rights to work the Bunkerville allotment were purchased by Cliven Bundy's grandfather in 1887. These rights were in turn sold to Cliven's father, and in 1972 the rights were passed onto our current Mr. Bundy.
Now pay attention. This is very important: The agreement in place also included the rights to built in water systems, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars.
BLM stopped managing the land and were not using the fees that Bundy was originally paying for the management of it and this is also part of the reason he decided to stop paying the fees.
So BLM violated their side of the agreement with this rancher who filed complaints that they were not doing their jobs. Like most responsible people, he said "frick them" and did things himself. He improved the land and paid his taxes (not the grazing fees since BLM failed to meet their obligation).
Posted on 4/11/14 at 3:36 pm to Rex
quote:
No, it doesn't say that. It's telling that Nevada, itself, doesn't claim ownership of that land.
Like I said, not an honest debate at all with you. It's truly amazing that you can live with yourself.
"To exercise exclusive legislative jurisdiction 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, dockyards and other needful buildings;"
Posted on 4/11/14 at 3:41 pm to Paluka
quote:
The agreement in place also included the rights to built in water systems, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars.
Which rates a giant "so what?". Show me the document that states Mr. Bundy had PERMANENT right to use that land, regardless of subsequent statutes.
quote:
BLM stopped managing the land and were not using the fees that Bundy was originally paying for the management of it and this is also part of the reason he decided to stop paying the fees.
So he says. Sounds more like they stopped managing the land in the manner he wished. But once again... SO WHAT? Show me the document that granted Mr. Bundy permanent use of Federal lands.
quote:
Like most responsible people, he said "frick them" and did things himself.
You call that a violation of his rights? Seriously?
You're comical, dude.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 3:42 pm to League Champs
Breaking: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch
quote:
The Bureau of Land Management, whose director was Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) former senior adviser, has purged documents from its web site stating that the agency wants Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle off of the land his family has worked for over 140 years in order to make way for solar panel power stations.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 3:43 pm to Rex
quote:
You call that a violation of his rights? Seriously?
Shameful.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 3:44 pm to wickowick
quote:
has purged documents from its web site stating that the agency wants Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle off of the land his family has worked for over 140 years in order to make way for solar panel power stations.
you got a link wick?
I'll see if the wayback machine or goggle cache has them saved and burn some copies right quick.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 3:46 pm to Paluka
There are some simple unassailable facts.
1. The land at issue is the property of the federal government. If that statement confuses you, it means that the federal government owns the land and has owned the land prior to the Bundys showing up.
The federal government has held title to this land since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States of America. Nevada did not become a state until 1864, and Nevada did not acquire title to the land upon becoming a state. In short, the State of Nevada does not own the land.
2. Bundy does not own the land. Bundy does not even claim to own the land. The Bundys merely make claims that their cattle grazed on the land. However, even their claims of grazing do not precede the federal government acquiring title to the land. The Bundys also talk about walking on the land and living near the land, but they do not own it, nor do they claim to own it.
3. Bundy was afforded his day in court, multiple times, and has lost each time. There are not any issues open for debate. In a succession of court rulings, a court determined that: (1) the land is owned by the federal government, not the Bundys (Bundy did not offer any evidence or argument that he owned the land), (2) the Bundys do not have any right to have their cattle on the land, (3) the continuing presence of Bundy’s cattle on the land constituted a trespass, (4) as a result of Bundy's failure to remove his cattle, the federal government was authorized to remove the cattle,
4. This is not a recent dispute. Bundy stopped paying rent two decades ago. When he stopped paying his grazing fees, he no longer had any right to have his cattle on the property. In an order dated November 3, 1998, the United States District Court for Nevada permanently enjoined Bundy from grazing his cattle on the land, and the court ordered Bundy to remove his livestock before November 30, 1998. The court also ordered that the federal government was entitled to trespass damages from Bundy for livestock left on the property after such date.
1. The land at issue is the property of the federal government. If that statement confuses you, it means that the federal government owns the land and has owned the land prior to the Bundys showing up.
The federal government has held title to this land since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States of America. Nevada did not become a state until 1864, and Nevada did not acquire title to the land upon becoming a state. In short, the State of Nevada does not own the land.
2. Bundy does not own the land. Bundy does not even claim to own the land. The Bundys merely make claims that their cattle grazed on the land. However, even their claims of grazing do not precede the federal government acquiring title to the land. The Bundys also talk about walking on the land and living near the land, but they do not own it, nor do they claim to own it.
3. Bundy was afforded his day in court, multiple times, and has lost each time. There are not any issues open for debate. In a succession of court rulings, a court determined that: (1) the land is owned by the federal government, not the Bundys (Bundy did not offer any evidence or argument that he owned the land), (2) the Bundys do not have any right to have their cattle on the land, (3) the continuing presence of Bundy’s cattle on the land constituted a trespass, (4) as a result of Bundy's failure to remove his cattle, the federal government was authorized to remove the cattle,
4. This is not a recent dispute. Bundy stopped paying rent two decades ago. When he stopped paying his grazing fees, he no longer had any right to have his cattle on the property. In an order dated November 3, 1998, the United States District Court for Nevada permanently enjoined Bundy from grazing his cattle on the land, and the court ordered Bundy to remove his livestock before November 30, 1998. The court also ordered that the federal government was entitled to trespass damages from Bundy for livestock left on the property after such date.
This post was edited on 4/11/14 at 3:52 pm
Posted on 4/11/14 at 3:48 pm to wickowick
so it's tied to Harry Reid's donor's solar development project...they need the land for their remitigation for their solar project.
what a farce.
what a farce.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 3:50 pm to Paluka
You're ignoring at least four important things in your interpretation of 1-8-17:
First, you have to show that it was ever the state of Nevada's land in the first place.
Second, the Bureau of Land Management is an agency within the Department of the Interior, not an agency of Congress, thus your listing of Congressional authority under the Constitution is irrelevant.
Third, the Supreme Court has on multiple occasions upheld the right of the US under the Antiquities Act to hold and manage Federal lands.
Fourth, your version of constitutionality is inferior in law to that of the Supreme Court's.
First, you have to show that it was ever the state of Nevada's land in the first place.
Second, the Bureau of Land Management is an agency within the Department of the Interior, not an agency of Congress, thus your listing of Congressional authority under the Constitution is irrelevant.
Third, the Supreme Court has on multiple occasions upheld the right of the US under the Antiquities Act to hold and manage Federal lands.
Fourth, your version of constitutionality is inferior in law to that of the Supreme Court's.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 3:54 pm to Salviati
Looks to me like Bundy is a deadbeat.
Page 15 of 30
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News