Bundy Water Rights (and possible grazing rights) Discovered !!

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

The "Timing" has some explanations in a different thread....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Lostinthedarkness

Have to reply to my self When it comes to contract law leases treaties ,or deeded land none of them are not worth the paper is printed on if the government really wants something

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

delete this post please.

a reply to: cenpuppie

We already know America's response to when they are in the wrong. A big fat zip...

But when they might be in the right? Hell everyone piles on board.

It's so weird.

With all the talk of being grandfathered in, I wonder how everyone is going to react when the Native Americans and Hispanics start pushing these rights, especially in the South West.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Libertygal
Horsecrap. You made the claim the grandfather laws must be written. Show the citation, or retract it.

I cited my sorces already.

Your sources did not say anything about them being automatic or them being addressed by the constitution.

They did mention that the original granfather clauses were nullified.

Either you have a reading comprehension issue, or you are being willfully ignorant, I am not sure which. However, with a statement like that, you have proven that any attempt to have a meaningfull discussion with you about this, is impossible.

Either you do not wish to read, or understand the material in the links, and the implications thereof, or, you are arguing to hear yourself talk.

Either way, it's best that if someone suspects you don't know something to remain silent, than to open ones' mouth and remove all doubt.

a reply to: Lostinthedarkness

Actually the term "grandfather caluse", maybe not the idea, dates back to Jim Crow Laws and those were nullified. The nullification is what is part of the bill of rights, the 15th amendment.

a reply to: xuenchen
www.groundzeromedia.org...

Hodges reports in his article, ‘The Bundy Affair Is The Tip of The Iceberg To What’s Coming‘:

“It is time to connect the dots on one leg of this land grab in Nevada. The I-15 Canamex Highway runs adjacent to the planned theft of the Bundy property. In this location, a new Agenda 21 land designation is emerging and it is called a “Solar Energy Zone”. Solar Energy Zones will connect the variables of the Canamex, the evisceration of private property rights, land use delineated in the Agenda 21 Wildlands, the control of all transportation corridors within the United States and the ultimate betrayal, the Chinese control of all military bases in the United States.

How do I know this? First, I have lived through the same resource theft, property rights grab with the Canamex. Additionally, in Arizona, we are also establishing a solar farm system that has all the hallmark traits of what is going on at the Bundy property. The Arizona state government is cooperating with various federal agencies to build a massive solar farm 70 miles southwest of Phoenix. The Arizona solar project is located adjacent to Luke AFB flight operations and it is near another energy resource, the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant.”

He also reports that 300 homeowners were asked to leave their homes because the government needed water in order to operate the CANAMEX international multimodal hub. They could not have 300 residents in a rural area put a drain on the reservoir that was nearby. John McCain convinced local politicians to legislate against the residents that lived near the Arizona hub and stripped them of all their property rights in an attempt to force them out over a period of time without compensating them for the loss of their homes.

This puts a lot of what is happening with the Nevada land grab into perspective.

If you want to read about proposed Agenda 21 ‘energy zones’, the Bureau of Land Management has produced this dated March of 2014:

www.blm.gov...

a reply to: Libertygal

I understand things just fine but for the sake of argument, can you point out what in your links backs your claim that grandfather clauses are automatic or where they are addressed in the constitution in the way you claim?

The term grandfather clause in its current application refers to a legislative provision
that permits an exemption based upon a preexisting condition. For example, through the
application of grandfather clauses, certain prerogatives are extended to those regularly
engaged in a particular profession, occupation, or business that is regulated by statute
or ordinance. Such a clause might allow an individual, who has been in continuous
practice in a particular profession for a specific period, to circumvent certain licensing
requirements.

grandfather clause n. 1) a clause in a statute or zoning ordinance (particularly a city
ordinance) which permits the operator of a business or a land owner to be exempt from
restrictions on use if the business or property continues to be used as it was when the
law was adopted. Upon passage of the statute or regulation, the specific property may
be referred to as "grandfathered in." Example: the city passes an ordinance which does
not permit retail businesses in a particular zone, but any existing store can continue to
function in the area, even with new owners. However, if the premises stop being a retail
outlet then the grandfather clause will lapse. 2) among the state constitutional
amendments passed by southern states in the late 1800s to keep blacks from voting,
"grandfather clauses" denied voter registration to people who were illiterate, who did not
own property or could not pass a test on citizenship obligations, unless their
grandfathers had served in the Confederate Army. Such laws are now unconstitutional.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Let's at least make an attempt here to be intellectually honest. If the discussion is going to be to attempt to discount all Granfather clauses in law because of the disenfranchisement of the black voters, you have a long way to go since then.

It is, and will continue to be, very viable in the practice of law today.

The original grandfather clause, where it got it's name, from black slavery and grandfathers, was and should have been found unconstitutional. This, however, was states' practice. Not Federal.

It still stands as a God given right, under the Constitution of the US, as can be shown in the parahraphs above. The one original example being deemed unconstitutiinal deemed the USE of the rule, not the rule, unconstitutional. The grandfather clause itself, still stands. It is all in the USAGE of the law.

Please, let's try to be honest. If people are going to make statements, please try to provide citations, lest you mislead people. Unless,of course, that is what you are trying to do.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

The "Timing" has some explanations in a different thread....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Interesting. Very interesting. That certainly sheds some new light, and answers my question on a possible why the feds suddenly have decided to go after Bundy despite doing nothing about his trespass cattle for over 20 years.

And the Harry Reid connection explains yet another piece of the puzzle: why he is the only public official in the area really frothing at the mouth over this. Everyone else on either side of the issue seem to be only mildly interested, Reid has actual horses in the race.

originally posted by: Libertygal
[You cannot write into law ones' Godgiven rights.

Land use rights are granted by government. They're not the same as the Bill of Rights. The SCOTUS decided that decades ago.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Libertygal

I understand things just fine but for the sake of argument, can you point out what in your links backs your claim that grandfather clauses are automatic or where they are addressed in the constitution in the way you claim?

You know, you keep asking me to produce things. I asked you to produce ONE citation to back your claim that Grandfather clauses are laws that must be written.

How about no. I have provided ample links and citations to back my claims. In the meantime, you, a big fat nothing. Instead, you keep attempting to move the goal posts every time I refute one of your remarks.

I am still waiting in YOU to cite your statement. In the meantime, you make demands of me to continue to answer to you? I don't think so.

Back up your statement. Still waiting.

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: Libertygal
[You cannot write into law ones' Godgiven rights.

Land use rights are granted by government. They're not the same as the Bill of Rights. The SCOTUS decided that decades ago.

It's a bit different when you are discussing State's rights vs Federal. Constitutionally speaking, the Federal Government has only very limited rights to land. This is the core of the argument.

originally posted by: Libertygal
Let's at least make an attempt here to be intellectually honest. If the discussion is going to be to attempt to discount all Granfather clauses in law because of the disenfranchisement of the black voters, you have a long way to go since then.

Not at all.

It is, and will continue to be, very viable in the practice of law today.

Never said it wasn't. I questioned your claim that they are always automatic and god given.

Please, let's try to be honest. If people are going to make statements, please try to provide citations, lest you mislead people. Unless,of course, that is what you are trying to do.

The problem is that your source is my citation. For example a grandfather clause is a "legislative provision". A clause is:

A section, phrase, paragraph, or segment of a legal document, such as a contract, deed, will, or constitution, that relates to a particular point.

It has to be written into the document. In some cases it can be written into another document which governs the lesser document. In those cases the grandfathering is automatic but only applies to those documents and must still be written somewhere. Most likely the case in your previous examples.

Now the citations that I was asking for is the clause in the constitution which would make grandfathering de facto or the applicable governing document which does the same in the Bundy case.

None of your previous citations does this and I am afraid that I can't provide something that may very well not exist. All I can say is I haven't seen anything.

a reply to: Libertygal

Here is an article that gives a legal opinion.

The guy cites some possible "errors" and "mis-interpretations" by the 9th Circuit Court in Bundy.

A Lawyer Discusses the Constitutionality of the Cliven Bundy Ranch Saga
____________


Also

Keep in mind that the two 9th Circuit cases from 2013 had two different judges.

Both have some rather obvious ties to Harry Reid.


The July 2013 case order found in favor of the BLM was signed by U.S. District Judge Lloyd D. George

Judge George has obvious ties to Harry Reid.



Then, we have U.S. District Judge Larry R. Hicks, who signed the October 2013 order against Bundy

Judge Hicks also has obvious ties to Harry Reid.

Specifically obvious is a case where a man was convicted of illegally bundling campaign money for Harry Reid and was sentenced by Judge Hicks who blatantly ignored sentencing guidelines.

Hicks said he was deviating from the sentencing guidelines that suggested a minimum of 41 months in prison partly because of Whittemore’s history of extraordinary charitable giving — an estimated $12 million over the past 20 years, much of it to promote medical research, athletics and education at the University of Nevada, Reno. But the judge the crimes were too serious to justify probation without prison time.

Developer Gets 2 Years In Nev. Campaign Cash Case

Bundy's lawyers are gonna have some fun with this case.

originally posted by: Spider879
You know I had enough of that racist, self entitled, moocher, gun wielding prick! who causally believe blacks are better off picking cotton under slavery ..his six min of fame is long past, please go away Clive enjoy your cows.

lol!! you mad bro? you must be a vegghead.

join a SWAT team and give him his what for!

a reply to: daskakik

You still don't get it. It is a Constitutional right.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.


No bill of attainder or ex-post-facto law shall be passed.

An ex post facto law (Latin for "from after the action"
or "after the facts") is a law that retroactively
changes the legal consequences (or status) of
actions that were committed, or relationships that
existed, before the enactment of the law.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Now, be original, use your own citations. I knew you were going to do that. I was waiting for it, because it proves your laziness. You are either arguing to hear yourself, as I said earlier, or, intentionally trying to deceive. Either way, it is distasteful.

Now, for a fun trivia question for those who truly wish to learn something!

Was there a second use of the Grandfather Clause in the Constitution? Yes, there was!

It's also one of the least understood, and most argumented portions of the Constitution.

Any takers?

a reply to: daskakik

The part you seem to be missing about your clauses is, when they are writing OTHER laws, they must write the laws to specifically exclude a group of people, while legislating everyone else. Now, get beyond clauses by defintion, and get to the crux of the matter.

Now, simply answer the question.

If that specific group of people is not UNDERSTOOD to already have standing rights by law, why must NEW legislation be written around them, to exclude them? The clause IS the exclusion, but by what rights so they get excluded? I know you can do this.

That is where you are intentionally being evasive. Because, they already have rights that cannot be infringed upon because some legislator comes in and makes up a law that overrides pre-existing rights!

Now. I have answered all of your questions. Please. Back your claims with something a bit more substantial than a definition of clause, because in this conversation, it doesn't mesh.

And don't forget the Constitution when doing so.

The problem is that your source is my citation. For
example a grandfather clause is a "legislative
provision". A clause is:

And, another step in some dishonesty here. I provided my source WELL after your stated claim.

How disingenuous of you.