Cliven Bundy, called 'lawless and violent,' to stay in jail

a reply to: Leonidas

Now with this, are you required to maintain and upkeep the land and amenities?

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Xcathdra

So are states sovereign or not? There is a clear article in the constitution regarding territories. I was under the impression once a state became a state it no longer is a territory.

When you take this seriously and extend the courtesy of reading and understanding the posts come back and join us. All you are doing now is derailing the tread by asking the same questions that have already been answered over and over.

a reply to: Vector99

The short answer is yes. Except for the road right-of-ways in Montana.

The benefit to us is the grazing itself. By using BLM/Crown Land we can raise more livestock. That is what we are paying for.

a reply to: Xcathdra

With all due respect, I haven't been shown a single thing that says the government can own state land outside what the constitution defines.

Where specifically does it say the federal government can own state land beyond constitutional restrictions?

The constitution specifically states that once a territory is granted statehood, it is no longer territory, and therefore not federal property. Can you show me how I'm wrong? I mean with specifics, not opinion.

a reply to: Leonidas

Does the BLM do ANYTHING you can think of with those fees you pay?

It seems like a shaft

YOU pay a fee, YOU do the maintenance. Grass grows naturally, or did the BLM plant it?

a reply to: Vector99

You have been shown and linked to the source material.. You either ignored the info, didn't read the posts in their entirety or you are doing this to derail the conversation because you cant defend the argument you are trying to make.

Maybe you should reread this thread before making any more posts asking questions that have been answered - several times now.

a reply to: Vector99

It's not an apartment that they come in and service the dishwasher. It is fertile land that we raise cattle on for profit.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I've been shown the equivalent of opinion pieces, with links. The people that provided those links clearly did not read them, or they would understand the clearly stated policy of the US.

States have the rights over their land. I've provided court cases proving such. Federal law is universal, and cannot be applied selectively. What one state possesses as a right, ALL states must possess.

This is my last post here, I really don't care to bicker with those that cannot read the constitutional definitions on state land rights.

Congrats, you win.

a reply to: Leonidas

and what do the fees you pay help the land?

a reply to: centarix

Wrong, those ranchers simply want to be left alone and not given any hand-outs.

What do you think letting cattle graze for free is ? It's a hand out. The rest of your post is pretty much made up nonsense.

a reply to: Vector99

We benefit from using the land to raise our inventory to maturity. That is what we are paying for. How is that so hard to understand? We use that land that does not belong to us, to raise our cattle and we pay a fee/lease/license to do so.

What are you missing?

originally posted by: Leonidas

What are you missing?

T&C prevents us from answering that question.

Best of luck!

a reply to: Gryphon66

What the hell does that even mean?

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: Gryphon66

What the hell does that even mean?

My comment? You asked what someone else was "missing."

I've been trying to provide clear references from original documents for hours and I'm still being asked the same inane questions.

I have an idea, but I cannot offer an answer to your question due to "T&C."

a reply to: Gryphon66

You aren't a rancher, are you?

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: Gryphon66

You aren't a rancher, are you?

I am not, but I can read English words and understand English sentences, like the ones found in the US Constitution, Oregon Constitution, Nevada Constitution, etc.

What's your point? Do you think I am critiquing some claim you've made? I am not. My comment was intended as a humorous observation in regard to the poster you are trying to explain things to.

I do beg your pardon.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I apologize if I misunderstood. I grow weary of trying to explain what is a very, very simple concept that has existed in this area since before Montana and Alberta even existed.

In fact one of the main reasons for Crown Land/Federal BLM admin. land is that Britain and the USA were very cranky about what was American and what was British in the 19th Century. The Treaty of London had to be reaffirmed - and frankly figured out - about 70 years later with the International Boundary Treaty because nobody trusted anybody. Homesteads like ours were literally split in two with an international border run through land we had been ranching.

The border served as "mine not yours" between the US and Britain/Canada.

a reply to: Leonidas

No apology needed at all. I was trying to be funny and vague at the same time.

Trust me, I and XCathedra have tried to explain basic reality on numerous occasions here, as I said quoting directly from our original Documents and Laws ... and I've gotten precisely nowhere.

My original point reworded "I feel your pain."

Clearly you guys are not going to convince the other you are right...

Here's a better question:

Putting aside the issue of is the federal government allowed to own this land, SHOULD they own it, or why do the NEED to own it (with exception for military bases, etc)? Why should the fed own 85% of Nevada?

a reply to: CommandoJoe

If not them who?