48 votes

Why the Nevada vs. BLM Land Ownership Issue is Confusing

It is a shame that Cliven Bundy is not more articulate in expressing his viewpoints. Most people think the federal government owns the land his cattle are grazing upon, and when asked he says no but does not have a clear explanation.

I did a little digging and found out why he does not have a clear explanation: because it IS confusing! But here is the gist of the story.

In 1787, the Constitution for the United States of America was written, and ratified in 1789, fully in 1791. Also in 1787, the Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance, which detailed how new states would be formed within the Northwest Territory. In that document, the concept of "equal footing" was established. The basic idea is that any new state would have equal footing (rights, powers, authority, whatever) as the original 13 states had. They would be equal partners in the union of states.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nworder.asp

In 1845, there was a dispute over land between the United States government and the newly-formed State of Alabama (formed partly from land that Georgia ceded to the United States). The case went to the United States Supreme Court in the case of Pollard vs. Hagar 44 US 212 (1845), where they decided that when a new state is formed, it must be on equal footing (the principle established in the Northwest Ordinance) and this meant that once a new state is formed from land that was a United States territory, all sovereignty turns over to the new state. Furthermore, the federal government cannot "retain" jurisdiction over land that was a federal territory and becomes a state.

... if an express stipulation had been inserted in the agreement, granting the municipal right of sovereignty and eminent domain to the United States, such stipulation would have been void and inoperative: because the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted.

Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law, to the same extent that Georgia possessed it before she ceded it to the United States. To maintain any other doctrine, is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states, the constitution, laws, and compact, to the contrary notwithstanding ... and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.

So, it was established that Congress could not "retain" property or jurisdiction within any new state, the same as it did not own property or have jurisdiction within the original 13 states, except for the express exceptions enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-4/22-doctrine-of-...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&...

In 1864, Congress passed an act to allow the people of the Territory of Nevada to create a constitution and form the State of Nevada. They did this, but there was a catch.

Remember, Lincoln was president and the war was going on. Congress (the Union, not the Confederacy) put in a clause that said that the people of Nevada must give up any rights to the land owned by the federal government within Nevada (which turned out to be over 90% of all land). But, it also said that such a condition was only valid until Congress waived it, in which case the federal government would no longer own that land.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst.html

But Congress never waived it. Not even to this day. 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. Remember, Lincoln was president and he corrupted the Congress at that time. None of them were following the Constitution or any other laws at that time. He was acting as a dictator.

This all happened during a war that saw all sorts of illegal behaviors by the federal government, and let's also not forget that silver was discovered in Nevada in 1858. The federal government wanted the land to pay for war and other debts.

Unfortunately, the state legislators of Nevada have had no backbone for more than 100 years. That land does not lawfully belong to the federal government. It never did.

In 1979, the Nevada legislature passed something -- it can't really be called a law, but it's not really a resolution, either -- that details these facts, and claims that Nevada has a "moral claim" to the lands claimed by the feds. The people in the Nevada legislature at least documented the facts, and put it into their legal code, while at the same time showing they have no guts to uphold the Constitution they claim to support and defend.

http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2010/title26/chapter321/n...

So, this is why Cliven Bundy says his cattle are not grazing on federal land. He's right. They are grazing on state land, but the state legislature has no guts to enforce their rights against the federal government. The claims by the federal government apologists that Nevada gave up that land when it was admitted into the Union is false. Such a congressional condition is not valid and has no legal force or effect.

Of course, that has not stopped the FEDERAL courts from siding with the FEDERAL government in the Bundy lawsuits. Yes, those federal courts have decided against Bundy, but they have done so in violation of the law.

This is why it seems so confusing in the media. Because it is!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Who Has The Ultimate Jurisdiction In Disputes Between American,

Citizens, and their Government ?

Well, in my pocket Constitution book is a preamble which I presume is part of the original U.S. Constitution. {The supreme law of the land}

The preamble starts out by saying; "We the People", etc. etc. who created this Constitution.

I take this to mean that "We the People" hold the ultimate jurisdiction in disputes between governmental {Appointed} agencies {BLM} and American Citizens......And I'm from one of the original 13 colonies that formed the original Constitution.

Some colonial history:

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h522.html

beesting

It says we the people establish and ordain this consitution

and art 3 of the constitution answers your question.

However, if you want to upheave the current legal system then I'm with you. But it won't be in accordance with the constitution.

The ultimate authority is the one that is able to best make violence. Unfortunately.

I like the NRC part. That

I like the NRC part. That was very informative..

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Bah, irrelevant

The Bottom line is that if a private individual made the same kind of changes to a lease agreement that the BLM has made, you could file civil charges against that person. Its exactly like a squatter that refuses to leave their house when the bank screws them over. There is a ton of contract law that prevents this, though it is very devicive depending if you are a banker or a regular land owner.

Tommy, Pretty Good Analysis But More Explanation is Needed

The federal government acquired the territory that eventually evolved into many of the western United States including the State of Nevada. They bought the land by way of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo signed with Mexico in 1848 to end the Mexican-American War (see: http://loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Guadalupe.html ).

The U.S. Constitution grants the president the power to make treaties with other nations. What is a treaty? It's nothing more than a legal contract between two or more foreign powers, where something is offered for something in exchange. The United States purchased the territory from Mexico in exchange for paying Mexico 15 million dollars.

This is one of three ways the constitution grants authority to the federal government to own land. The use of executive power to make treaties is the first part. The second part is to buy land sold to it by the States but for the strict purpose of erecting buildings in support of federal administration (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17). The third part is by claim of eminent domain via the Fifth Amendment.

In 1979 Nevada claimed by statute the land prohibited to its citizenry as a condition of statehood via the Nevada Enabling Act of 1864. In 1994 Nye County also claimed dominion over public lands within its jurisdiction based upon the Nevada State statute. The U.S. government brought suit in federal court claiming adverse legal interest and named the State of Nevada and Nye County as defendants (see: http://www.leagle.com/decision/19962028920FSupp1108_11870 ).

The issue was this; does the U.S. government retain title of the remaining public land not already ceded to it by the Nevada State legislative? The federal district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff (U.S. government) based on the following:

Within the Equal Footing Doctrine, the Supreme Court recognize that land submerged by navigable or tidal waters pass to the states as a circumstance of sovereignty (see: Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S.) because it was considered in the public trust. In contrast, the court was unaware of any Supreme Court decision holding that the original thirteen states gained title to the dry lands as a public trust, that is, to hold in common for all people. In 1913, the Supreme Court expressly held that title to dry lands does not pass to states upon admission (see; Scott v. Lattig, 227 U.S. 229, 33 S.Ct. 242, 57 L.Ed. 490).

So there you have it. The federal judiciary made a distinction between submerged land under navigable waters verses dry land as to what states can claim upon admission into the federal union. So Nevada does not have title to the remaining land inside their state lines.

The treaty does not change anything ...

... because a treaty cannot overrule the Constitution. A statute, regulation, court decision, AND a treaty are ONLY valid if they conform to the Constitution. See Article 6.

The Treaty of Guadalupe gave land to the federal government, which made up the western territories. However, once a territory (or part thereof) becomes a state, the rules regarding statehood take over, and that includes the doctrine of equal footing.

The 5th Amendment does not grant the federal government any power to take land from a state. It can use eminent domain within DC to take a house, pay the owner, and use it to build a government building. But it cannot do the same within a state, because it does not have jurisdiction within a state to enforce eminent domain (or any other powers).

Regarding the court cases you cited, thanks for pointing them out. I will take a look when I get a chance. As of 1864, and in accordance with the law at that time, the congressional string attached was null and void at inception.

Logic says that Nevada owned all its land upon statehood. But, it does not surprise me that the court would pretend otherwise by "carving out" a distinction that has no relevance to reality. The mark of true tyrants.

It would be like a court saying, "Well, yes Roe v Wade does say X about abortion, but we don't see anything in that or any other court decision about what to do if it is a Friday."

Equal footing has nothing to do with waterways. It has to do with jurisdiction, constitutional separation of powers, and being equal to the original states.

I appreciate you bringing this up. A VERY quick view looks like the Idaho case is addressing private property ownership rather than state vs. feds, but I'll read up on it later.

If the federal courts (including the Supreme Court) do not follow the Constitution and precedent, well that is something that we should not tolerate.

The states can also invalidate federal laws and court decisions by nullification. Lincoln and party politics have made it difficult for state legislatures and governors to have the balls to do so, but Nevada should.

The Nevada Enabling Act Was Constitutional

First of all, Tommy, keep calm. I hate the federal government as much as everyone else but I am relating only historical facts as documented in case law, not my opinion.

Let's begin with the understanding that under Article 4, Section 3 - New States, Clause 2 states, "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

This means the government can do whatever it wants with territory or other property it owns outside of any State jurisdiction.

At the time Nevada applied for statehood the territory was held in the public trust by the federal government as acquired in the Treaty of Guadalupe. There are certain stipulations the applicant for statehood must meet, such as creating a State Constitution and other items as long as such requirements are within the powers of the federal government to demand.

For example, when Oklahoma applied for statehood the federal government required the capital of Oklahoma to remain in the City of Guthrie until 1913. After Oklahoma was admitted to the Union the State took measures to relocate the seat of government to Oklahoma City in 1910, three years prior to what was required in the Enabling Act. A suit was filed in federal district court by a real estate developer named W.H. Coyle who charged the State had violated the terms of the Enabling Act (see: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/221/559/case.html ). The Supreme Court struck down the suit stating that movement of the seat of government was well within State authority and the U.S. Congress had no power to dictate where the seat of government should be in the Enabling Act. So here is a case where the federal government exceeded its authority in the Enabling Act by denying the same "equal footing" enjoyed by the other States within the Union.

Now back to Nevada. Article 4, Section 3 - New States, Clause 1 states, "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

As long as the State legislature agrees with the terms of the Enabling Act in its application for statehood and any requirements imposed by the Congress are within the powers of the federal government to enact then such law is constitutional. Let's examine the history of Nevada's Enabling Act and see if it passes constitutional muster (see: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Const/NVAdmActs.html ).

The article shows three parts. The first part shows the organization of the territory of Nevada which was held in public trust by the U.S. government prior to the application of statehood. The second part shows Nevada’s Enabling Act application. The third part shows Congress’s approval of Nevada’s application for statehood into the Union.

Section 1 of the application states, “ … shall be admitted into the Union upon an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatsoever.” This means the thirteen original colonies became the foundation of the equal footing doctrine. However seven of the original thirteen States ceded their territories to the federal government as a condition of statehood. That means the federal government had the right to reserve jurisdiction within the boundaries of those States that ceded territory to it as a condition of admission to the Union if it so chose.

In Nevada’s case the federal government owned all the territory prior to the application of statehood and it chose to restrict as a right or title claim, a portion of the territory from State sovereignty not claimed in the application for statehood. The crux of the issue lies in section 4, paragraph 4 of Nevada's Enabling Act application which states, ” 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; …”.

Did Nevada have to agree to this? No they did not but their application for statehood would probably have been denied by the Congress.

So the question is this; does the federal government have the power to decide that people residing within a State may not claim title to public lands owned by the federal government that are not granted to the State as a condition of statehood? The federal courts have consistently ruled the government has such power under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2.

Lastly, the right of eminent domain as described in the Fifth Amendment is the right to claim private property for public use but does not include State property.

I too agree with your position on State nullification.

There are a number of points ...

... that we might be able to debate in your two posts. I still have not read the links to the court cases you cited, but plan to do so.

If you are still reading this, then I have to take issue with one thing you wrote in particular (and there might be more topics to debate, after I have read your material).

You stated that 7 of the original 13 states were required by the federal government to cede jurisdiction to territory as a "condition of admission to the union."

This is blatantly impossible. The original 13 are the parties who ratified the Constitution. They are the parties who created the federal government. Chicken or egg, in this case it is clear: the states existed first, and then created the federal government. Therefore, the federal government did not authorize them to "join the union."

Which 7 are you referring to, and in what way do you think the feds somehow issued conditional requirements for them to "join?"

BTW, I also take issue with your conclusion regarding Article 4, Section 3, when you quote the part about states being formed out of other states. Your bold highlight and your conclusion take the clauses out-of-context.

Those clauses are stating that no new state can be formed from land belonging to existing states without the EXISTING STATE(S) agreeing. They say NOTHING about Congress' role in the matter, and NOTHING about the enabling legislation that the new state affirms. When West Virginia was created out of land belonging to Virginia, the Virginia legislature had to agree. That is what those clauses are about.

Your conclusion, that the clauses say that any strings attached by Congress are valid as long as the NEW state agrees, is not correct. The clauses say the DONATING state must agree, if a state is formed from land belonging to an existing state. That is the only topic addressed there.

Also, I DO appreciate you bringing up the points you bring up and adding to this discussion.

This Discussion is Very Educational

I've researched more about the topic we are corresponding about so that I can present a more cogent analysis of my thoughts. I will answer each of your challenges one at a time as best I can.

1. You wrote, "You stated that 7 of the original 13 states were required by the federal government to cede jurisdiction to territory as a condition of admission to the union."

I never wrote the words, " ... required by the federal government ... " I did write, "However seven of the original thirteen States ceded their territories to the federal government as a condition of statehood." I will explain my meaning as clearly as possible.

During the time when the U.S. Constitution was being conceived and subsequent drafts were written there were land claims and boundary disputes among seven of those States. Part of the resolution to those claims was to cede land to the federal government (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_cessions ).

Much of the land disputes were in the western territories but there were also land claims between the original states such as South Carolina and Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee (admitted in 1796), Georgia and Alabama (admitted in 1819), New York, New Hampshire and Vermont (admitted in 1791) and others. These disputes had to be settled before new States would apply for statehood, such as the State of Vermont (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Republic#Union ). So that is what I meant when I wrote, “. . . as a condition of statehood,” meaning the condition of statehood for new states could only be resolved by the seven original states capitulating their original land claims.

2. You wrote, “ ... I also take issue with your conclusion regarding Article 4, Section 3, when you quote the part about states being formed out of other states. Your bold highlight and your conclusion take the clauses out-of-context.”

Here is what I highlighted about that clause, “... but no new States shall be formed or erected ...” and “... without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned ...” What I simply pointed out is the fact that new States cannot be formed for any of the other reasons that follow in that clause without agreement by the State legislature(s) as principals named in the application. That should not need further explanation.

3. You followed with, “They say NOTHING about Congress' role in the matter …”.

That is incorrect. The first phrase of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1 says, "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union ...“ which clearly means Congress has the authority to consider an application of statehood into the Union. The last phrase in the clause affirms that concept again as it says, “ ... as well as of the Congress.” This means that both the State(s) involved with the application and the Congress, must all agree before a State becomes part of the United States. For example Texas and New Mexico applied for statehood many times but were denied by the Congress for a number of years until they were finally admitted into the Union..

4. You wrote as an example to your point, “When West Virginia was created out of land belonging to Virginia, the Virginia legislature had to agree.”

That is partially correct however statehood cannot be proclaimed until the Congress in its Constitutional authority agrees as well.

5, You wrote, “Your conclusion, that the clauses say that any strings attached by Congress are valid as long as the NEW state agrees, is not correct. The clauses say the DONATING state must agree, if a state is formed from land belonging to an existing state. That is the only topic addressed there.”

Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1 clearly states that Congress has to agree to a statehood application no matter what the proposed geographic boundaries are (e.g., two or more states combine together in some sort of land configuration) to become a new State. Again, Congress has the final authority.

Oooookaaaay ...

... I finally had a chance to look up your links and consider your points. Here is my response:

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is not directly relevant. It did not specify how Nevada would become a state (or even contemplate that it would). While the Nevada legislature raised the issue in their legislative finding, it is irrelevant.

Since the federal government has the constitutional authority to make war, and since land is often awarded the victor, then the federal government can acquire land via war. However, once federal territory becomes a state, then a different set of rules apply.

Going back to the War for Independence, the 13 American colonies became nation-states, and the Treaty of Paris recognized their jurisdiction. However, the land areas then were not necessarily the exact same land areas as those states have now.

The original 13 were never "admitted to the union;" rather, they formed the union, while also forming a 14th government, the federal government. In 1777, they organized under the Articles of Confederation, which was ratified in 1781. However, several states argued about each others' territorial limits.

They eventually came to an agreement, and land that was beyond their limits (by mutual agreement), but which they collectively acquired under the Treaty of Paris (1783), became the Northwest Territory, owned by the federal government, but only with the understanding that this land would ultimately be split up into new states.

Various congressional acts followed (1784, 1785, etc.) until the final version in 1787, the Northwest Ordinance, which is where we get the "equal footing" doctrine. Also in 1787, the Constitution was written, fully ratified in 1791.

So, the original 13 states had their borders determined by mutual consent, and the Northwest Ordinance defined how the first new states would be admitted, None of these states ceded any of their land to the federal government as a "condition of statehood."

While it could be argued that the original states negotiated their borders and that those negotiations affected some new states' borders (such as Vermont), that is a very different concept than what happened with Nevada. The federal government did not dictate their negotiations in the way it tried to dictate conditions to Nevada's statehood. Two completely different concepts.

It is interesting that Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution is silent regarding new states being formed from federal territory, especially since the Northwest Ordinance was written at the same time. Yes, the first clause does say that Congress will admit new states. We agree that Congress has an important role. But the section is silent about any specifics when the state is formed from federal territory. The rest of the section addresses forming new states from existing states.

I would argue that it was already understood by the people who wrote both the Constitution and the Northwest Ordinance (in the same year) that new states being formed from federal territory would follow the Northwest Ordinance blueprint, which included the equal footing doctrine. Surely, they would not mean anything else. They wrote both documents the same year! The reason for Article 4, Section 3, is because they wanted to provide also for new states being formed from existing states, in addition to making Congress the initiator of a new state being formed.

Your example of Oklahoma supports the equal footing doctrine, as did the Supreme Court case of Pollard vs. Hagar (1845). Everything supports equal footing until 1864. It was Lincoln, that rat bastard, who screwed things up. ;-)

You said:

As long as the State legislature agrees with the terms of the Enabling Act in its application for statehood and any requirements imposed by the Congress are within the powers of the federal government to enact then such law is constitutional.

The key words there are: "are within the powers of the federal government to enact." According to the doctrine established by the founders, and validated by Pollard, the Congress does not have authority to violate the equal footing doctrine. Any attempt to do so is null and void and has no legal effect.

The federal government has no authority to withhold land and/or jurisdiction when a state is formed from former federal territory. That is a violation of equal footing. Nothing you have presented shows any evidence otherwise.

Your statement that the original states did so is false. Those states (some, not all) negotiated with each other as to their borders and jurisdiction, just as they negotiated the jurisdiction of the federal government they created. Once the new government was in place, they had full jurisdiction over the land within their borders. Period. Full stop.

Later, they ceded some of their land for federal purposes, as allowed in the Constitution.

Your statement about eminent domain is a red herring. Eminent domain only applies where a government has jurisdiction. The states cannot employ it within the District of Columbia, and the feds cannot do so within the states. Period. Full stop.

Now then, let's get to the two court cases you cited in your first post. The case of Scott vs. Latting is a weird case, and it does not support the idea that the feds can withhold 90% of land from a new state.

The case involved an island in the middle of the Snake River between Idaho and Oregon. Apparently, a survey in 1868 omitted this island. Idaho became a state in 1890. Lattig and another party owned land on the east bank. They claimed that the island (within the Idaho side of the Snake River) was also theirs. However, a dude named Scott had already settled on the island and claimed ownership under the federal homesteading act.

The court ruled for Scott primarily because Idaho got jurisdiction of the land under the river (up to the Oregon border) but not the island within the river. WTF? It is a convoluted ruling, but here is the gist:

But the island, which we have seen was in existence when Idaho became a state, was not part of the bed of the stream or land under the water, and therefore its ownership did not pass to the state, or come within the disposing influence of its laws. On the contrary, although surrounded by the waters of the river and widely separated from the shore, it was fast dry land, and therefore remained the property of the United States and subject to disposal under its laws ...

This has NOTHING to do with "dry land" within the state of Nevada's borders. Even that court ruled in a way that agrees with this principle when it said:

Besides, it was settled long ago by this court, upon a consideration of the relative rights and powers of the Federal and state governments under the Constitution, that lands underlying navigable waters within the several states belong to the respective states in virtue of their sovereignty...

IOW, if the island in question was in the middle of the state, it would be Idaho property. But because it was in the middle of a navigable waterway that was between two states, it was not part of Idaho. But that was only for the purpose of HOMESTEADING, which Scott did through the feds rather than the state.

A weird case, but it does NOT support the idea that the feds can violate the equal footing doctrine or that 90% of Nevada's lands belong to the feds.

Finally, we get to the Nye case. First of all, it is not a Supreme Court case. It was a district court case. Second, Nye County and the state of Nevada could not have screwed things up any worse if they were trying to do it on purpose. Third, the court probably did not follow the law (Supreme Court precedent or the equal footing doctrine).

I say "probably" because they reference several court cases and, frankly, I'm not going to take the time to read them all.

Let's just say this: Nye County is a subdivision of the state of Nevada. In 1979, the Nevada legislature asserted ownership of all that land, except for some of it (national parks, military bases, etc.)

By 1994, the people running the state legislature and Nye County were not the same people who were doing so in 1979. By the time that court case came along, Nevada was part of the lawsuit, but they didn't want to be (the feds forced it). And Nevada (represented by the state Attorney General) AGREED WITH THE FEDS that Nevada did NOT have ownership of the land!

So, Nye County was left blowing in the wind, as a subdivision of the entity that had already agreed with the other side. That is no way to win a lawsuit!

And then, we have the court talking about previous court cases where they are taking EVERYTHING out-of-context by citing such things as navigable waterways versus "dry land" (islands within those waterways, that are parts of a state's borders) and then LYING about the concept that this somehow means ALL "dry land" within a state's borders.

If you can find a case (maybe one they cited) that overruled Pollack or the equal footing doctrine, then I would be willing to read it. But this case is just some judge twisting old court cases so that he can justify his unlawful ruling.

It proves nothing.

This is like that Alabama judge who lied about an Indiana court decision that related to Barry's fake birth certificate and not being a natural born citizen.

Some judges just outright lie about what previous court decisions were, and they often get away with it. That's what the Nye case looks like.

Plus, the Nevada Attorney General lost the case (probably on purpose) for Nye County, anyway.

Regardless, the specifics of the history of the equal footing doctrine was not even addressed. It is not a valid court decision, IMO, and if I were in the Nevada legislature I would treat it as irrelevant.

Only court decisions that are in conformance to American legal principles, and the Constitution, are valid.

So, that is my summary of the various points you made. I think we are mostly in agreement that something is rotten here. Thanks for presenting an opposing viewpoint (we know the statists certainly will!), and if you find anything incorrect in my analysis, let me know.

Nye County?

I have a question that is an interruption in a very informative and lively discourse.

Indecently, I thank you both.

My question:
Is the surname of either the Judge or the Attorney General by any possibility be "Reid"?

Sen. Harry Reid calls Bundy a 'hateful racist'
The Hill http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/204284-reid-bun...
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Thursday that Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy is a "hateful racist," after Bundy questioned ...

Victor Davis Hanson: http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_25629452/victor-davis-...
Sen. Harry Reid is the Joe McCarthy of ...
San Jose Mercury News

Sen. Harry Reid's baseless 'domestic terror' accusations
Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sen-harry-reids-basel...

http://youtu.be/hrnND0iTfjo (Knowledge is Freedom)
http://idealchoices.info Understanding Bitcoin

Our Debate Continues …

Through the Treaty of Guadalupe, the federal government purchased approximately half a million square miles which included the former Mexican territory of Alta California (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo ). Alta California (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta_California ) encompassed not only all of what was to be the State of California but other western States (e.g. Nevada) as well, whether they applied for statehood either by Enabling Acts or by statutory law. So at the time of the signing of the treaty, California was an unorganized territory of the United Stated federal government.

In 1850, Congress approved California’s admission into the Union by statutory law (see: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=00... ). As a condition of statehood, Congress placed restrictions on the use of public lands within California. Section 3 of Chapter L titled, (“An Act for the Admission of the State of California into Union”) clearly says, “And it be further enacted, that the said State of California is admitted into the Union upon the express condition that the people of said State, through their legislature or otherwise, shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the public lands within its limits, and shall pass no law and do no act whereby the title of the United States to, and right to dispose of, the same shall be impaired or questioned; …”

So what does this tell us? It says that Congress can assume control of public lands that it owns within a State boundary as a condition of statehood under the authority of Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2.

The same authority applied to Nevada which was a territory as well, when it applied for admission into the Union by an Enabling Act as opposed to statutory law. As I’ve documented before which I will repeat again here, it said under Section 4, Clause 4 of the Enabling Act, “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; …”.

So like California, Congress placed public land restrictions within the boundaries of the newly formed State of Nevada.

Now to rebut some of your positional statements.

You wrote, “So, the original 13 states had their borders determined by mutual consent, and the Northwest Ordinance defined how the first new states would be admitted, None of these states ceded any of their land to the federal government as a "condition of statehood."

Let’s examine this further. The 14th State admitted into the Union was Vermont. As I stated in my previous comment, there were boundary disputes between seven of the original 13 states such as between New York, New Hampshire and Vermont. These disputes had to be settled before Vermont would apply for statehood
(see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Republic#Union ). Virginia also ceded its territory north and west of the Ohio River to the federal government which became the Northwest Territory. Kentucky as part of the new territory, could then survey and define its land boundaries which would have been a requirement to be admitted into the Union as a Sovereign State (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_cessions ). So at the risk of repeating myself that is what I meant; these land settlements among the seven original states had to take place in order for new states to be admitted into the Union, effectively as a “condition of statehood.”

You wrote, “The federal government has no authority to withhold land and/or jurisdiction when a state is formed from former federal territory. That is a violation of equal footing. Nothing you have presented shows any evidence otherwise.”

That is incorrect. In United States v. Gardner this entire issue with public lands in Nevada is excruciatingly explained (see: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1061959.html ).

Here the federal circuit court affirmed, “The Equal Footing Doctrine, then, applies to political rights and sovereignty, not to economic or physical characteristics of the states. Moreover, the Equal Footing Doctrine applies primarily to the shores of and lands beneath navigable waters, not to fast dry lands. Therefore, the Equal Footing Doctrine would not operate, as Gardners argue, to give Nevada title to the public lands within its boundaries.”

Therefore this case clearly explains in great detail the difference between the Equal Footing Doctrine as applied to the original 13 States and federal control of public lands within State boundaries that were formally territories.

You wrote, “Your statement about eminent domain is a red herring. Eminent domain only applies where a government has jurisdiction. The states cannot employ it within the District of Columbia, and the feds cannot do so within the states. Period. Full stop.”

My comment about eminent domain as authorized in the 5th Amendment was not written to distract you away from our roaring debate :). I was simply responding to your original retort titled, “The treaty does not change anything”. There you wrote, “The 5th Amendment does not grant the federal government any power to take land from a state.”

That is correct as I pointed out and will repeat that eminent domain does not apply to State property. However it does apply to private property to be taken solely for public use with just compensation given to the owner (see: http://eminentdomain.uslegal.com/ ). Think of all the private land that’s being acquired for pipelines traversing interstate commerce. So that means, Tommy, that your house located within the great State of Liberty and Freedom can be claimed by the federal government as long as they pay you the 10 million gold doubloons the market says its worth. Of course the government would have to sue you for it (due process) in district court as also required by the 5th Amendment.

You wrote, “Finally, we get to the Nye case. First of all, it is not a Supreme Court case.”

I never wrote the Nye case was heard in the Supreme Court. What I wrote was this, “In 1994 Nye County also claimed dominion over public lands within its jurisdiction based upon the Nevada State statute. The U.S. government brought suit in federal court claiming adverse legal interest and named the State of Nevada and Nye County as defendants (see: http://www.leagle.com/decision/19962028920FSupp1108_11870 ).”

The reference to the Supreme Court that I used was to address the Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan case in furtherance of our discussion around the Equal Footing Doctrine.

Finally my dear patriotic friend, we are completely and indubitably in agreement that something is rotten in Washington.

It looks like ...

... Congress violated the law when they admitted California, too.

Are you suggesting that the Congress can pass any law it wants and that such is valid simply because they passed it? How do you square Pollard with the enabling acts you cite?

What is the difference between "enabling act" and "statutory law" other than semantics?

Regarding the 7 states "ceding land as a condition of statehood," you need to look at the dates to see that it is not true. The Northwest Ordinance was written in 1787, became effective in 1787, and was for the sole purpose of determining the fate of the Northwest Territory, which the states in question had already negotiated as to their boundries.

The Constitution was written in 1787, after the Northwest Ordinance, and was not effective until 1789, and not effective with all 13 states until 1791.

Your link regarding Vermont does not seem to support your position. Which specific passage on that page are you trying to point out to support your position? Looks to me like Vermont was created out of land belonging to New Hampshire and New York, not the federal government.

You have cited a number of court cases by simply posting links. Many of these take a lot (some A LOT) of time to read through and figure out what they are saying and what is relevant to their decision.

Once again, you cite another court case, United States vs. Gardner, and simply post a link and expect the reader to go read what you think is relevant.

That's a waste of time. So, explain what the case was about, and what the specific passage within that case is to support your position. As it is now, I don't knew if you've even read that case and understand it or if you are just doing a cut-and-paste job without knowing whether or not it supports your position. You did that with the Scott case. The Scott case did not support your position at all. No more wild goose chases, thank you. :-)

We disagree about "interstate commerce" regarding the pipeline, but that is a debate for another day. That clause in the Constitution was bastardized by Justice Robert Jackson during FDR's reign of terror on the Supreme Court. Justice Jackson, by the way, is the court member who Chief Justice Roberts said was his "hero" in all of US Supreme Court history. So, Bush Jr. knew when he appointed him that Roberts was not interested in following the Constitution, but rather in trying to "expand" the Constitution to whatever some dude in a black dress says. Again, a topic for a different day.

Regarding Nye, I know you didn't say it was a SCOTUS case, I was just pointing out that it was not, which means it does not trump the higher court. And if it did not follow the higher court's precedent, then it is not a valid case. That case also had other problems, which I pointed out.

In summary, it seems that your position is that Congress can attach any conditions it wants to statehood, and you think that is lawful. Is that your position? If so, how do you square that with Pollard? How do you square it with the equal footing doctrine? If it is not your position, then what conditions are prohibited to Congress in the area of approving statehood?

You also seem to be saying that circuit court cases have zeroed in on the fact that Pollard happened to be decided over a piece of land that was around Mobile, Alabama, which includes a waterway. But the land that formed Alabama was also from the Mississippi Territory, which was not distinguished in Pollard from the Mobile land.

From what you are saying, it seems that those circuit court cases have taken Pollard out of context by focusing only on the waterway. They ignore the bigger picture, where the court wrote that any decision other than a state having full jurisdiction over its borders once it becomes a state (which is the definition of equal footing) is null and void.

You seem to be claiming that lower court cases that take a SCOTUS decision out of context is somehow valid. Is that your position? If so, why? Because they can? Is it all about who has the guns? Is there a way for the states and/or the people to correct violations of the Constitution by judges? If this is not your position, what is?

Later.

The Wagon Train Keeps On A’ Rollin

Tommy, you ask so many questions. However I believe you to be a gentleman of manners and of principle with no agenda other than to seek the truth of the matters at hand. Therefore I am compelled to try and offer some measure of relief, as I understand the application of the Equal Footing Doctrine currently documented in common law cases, from the agony you, me and all good patriots of the Daily Paul endure at the hands of our abusive government.

To start off, I previously mentioned the case, United States v. Gardner. I accept you have another life and are too busy to read the minutia of this case. That is why I summarized it for you before which I can only surmise, must have escaped your perusal. I will repeat it again here with more detail, for your benefit.

The ruling in regards to United States v. Gardner (see: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1061959.html ) is separated into three main sections (I, II, III). Section II is completely devoted to the Equal Footing Doctrine as the appellate court of the 9th circuit interpreted it.

In United States v. Gardner, the court affirmed and I quote, “The Equal Footing Doctrine, then, applies to political rights and sovereignty, not to economic or physical characteristics of the states. Moreover, the Equal Footing Doctrine applies primarily to the shores of and lands beneath navigable waters, not to fast dry lands. Therefore, the Equal Footing Doctrine would not operate, as Gardners argue, to give Nevada title to the public lands within its boundaries.”

The above paragraph in verbatim, is the last one in Section II and it clearly says the Equal Footing Doctrine as you misunderstand it, does not apply to Nevada. If you don’t trust that I copied it correctly or that I redacted it to make my argument, feel free to meander to the link I provided, search on, “II. Equal Footing Doctrine” and traverse to the end of the section where you will find the paragraph in totality.

Even under the Northwest Ordinance that you summarized in your very first post you missed where the statute said under Section 14, Article 4 to wit, “The legislatures of those districts or new States, shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in such soil to the bona fide purchasers. No tax shall be imposed on lands the property of the United States; ...”

Does this not clearly say the federal government reserves title, “…on lands the property of the United States …”?

As far as the original 13 states land settlements, Virginia had to cede some of its land in the Northwest territory to the federal government as a condition of statehood for future states. That is spelled out in Section 14, Article 5, to wit, “Art. 5. There shall be formed in the said territory, not less than three nor more than five States; and the boundaries of the States, as soon as Virginia shall alter her act of cession …” Can that be any clearer to help you understand?

The first State admitted to the Union from federal territory in the Northwest was Ohio. The legal mechanism for Ohio’s admission was the Enabling Act of 1802. Again, the federal government retained ownership of some of Ohio’s land as a condition of statehood (see Section 2 of: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=00... ).

Section 2 clearly says, “Sec. 2. And it be further enacted, That the Secretary of the Treasury shall from time to time, and whenever the quarterly accounts of the receivers of public monies of the several land offices shall be settled, pay three per cent. of the nett (sic) proceeds of the lands of the United States, lying within the state of Ohio, …”

Therefore and in summary, I have demonstrated again and again and again by showing facts of historical common law, that States created from territories (e.g., Ohio, California, Nevada) with respect to the Equal Footing Doctrine applies to the political rights and sovereignty of the original 13 States, not to their economic or physical characteristics.

Whether you believe Nevada’s admission into statehood was contrived outside the authority of federal law or the federal courts misinterpreted the law is something that you will have to do further research beyond what you have already provided to make your argument that Congress exceeded it’s authority in Nevada with respect to federal land ownership within the boundaries of a State.

Maybe those wagon wheels ...

... are ready to come off. ;-)

The ruling in regards to United States v. Gardner ... The Equal Footing Doctrine, then, applies to political rights and sovereignty, not to economic or physical characteristics of the states. Moreover, the Equal Footing Doctrine applies primarily to the shores of and lands beneath navigable waters, not to fast dry lands. Therefore, the Equal Footing Doctrine would not operate, as Gardners argue, to give Nevada title to the public lands within its boundaries.

If that is what the 9th Circuit said, then they made it up out of whole cloth, and did so contrary to established legal principles. That is not valid, and should not be tolerated.

How can you say the equal footing doctrine does not apply to physical characteristics, and then in the next sentence declare that it is the physical characteristic of "dry land vs. waterways" that is determinative? That's a contradiction.

The equal footing doctrine was first established in the Northwest Ordinance (1787). The term “dry land” does not appear in that document. The term “water” only appears once, in Section 14, Article 4, where it says, “The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and St. Lawrence, and the carrying places between the same, shall be common highways and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of the said territory as to the citizens of the United States, and those of any other States that may be admitted into the confederacy, without any tax, impost, or duty therefor.”

Here, the confederation means the states and federal government under the Articles of Confederation, which were in effect in 1787 (not the Constitution).

This idea of a navigable waterway that crosses state lines (or is within federal territory) being a public good for the citizens of all the states would be a theme that would continue into the future. It applies only to the water itself as a means of travel, though, not to the land under the water. Also, it does not apply at all to waterways that (a) are not navigable or (b) are wholly within a single state's borders.

The term “equal footing” appears in Section 13, where it says, “... to provide also for the establishment of States ... and for their admission to a share in the federal councils on an equal footing with the original States ...” and in Section 14, Article 5: “... such State shall be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent constitution and State government: Provided, the constitution and government so to be formed, shall be republican ...”

Equal footing in the Northwest Ordinance had nothing to do with dry lands or waterways. It had to do with rights and powers of the state vis a vis each other and vis a vis the federal government.

It is also noteworthy that in 1787, the Articles of Confederation were in operation. The federal government at that time didn't even have its own territory for a seat of government (they had to move around from city to city). Certainly, they had no authority to own large tracts of land. Other than as a temporary measure until a territory acquired enough population to become a state, there is absolutely no way the founders intended for the feds to own large tracts of land for its own sake, indefinitely.

In the US Supreme Court case of Pollard vs Hagan (1845), the court specifically addressed a condition imposed by Congress on the new state of Alabama that some of the land within the borders of Alabama would be withheld by, owned by, and be controlled by (jurisdiction) the federal government, as a condition of statehood. The court rejected the idea that Congress had such authority.

The court said, “We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed, except for temporary purposes ...” and “... [Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution says that] Within the District of Columbia, and the other places purchased and used for the purposes above mentioned, the national and municipal powers of government, of every description, are united in the Government of the Union. And these are the only cases within the United States in which all the powers of government are united in a single government, except in the cases already mentioned of the temporary territorial governments, and there a local government exists. The right of Alabama and every other new State to exercise all the powers of government, which belong to and may be exercised by the original States of the union, must be admitted, and remain unquestioned, except so far as they are, temporarily, deprived of control over the public lands” and “Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law, to the same extent that Georgia possessed it before she ceded it to the United States. To maintain any other doctrine is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, the Constitution, laws, and compact to the contrary notwithstanding.” and “we have arrived at these general conclusions: first, the shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively. Secondly, the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States. Thirdly, the right of the United States to the public lands, and the power of Congress to make all needful rules and regulations for the sale and disposition thereof, conferred no power to grant to the plaintiffs the land in controversy in this case. The judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Alabama is, therefore, affirmed.”

That case is the controlling court case, unless it has been overturned by the Supreme Court. As far as I know, it has not. The reason the court is discussing navigable waterways is because that was the land in dispute in the case. However, the court is clear that ALL land within a state's borders are under the jurisdiction of the state, not the federal government, except for those specific powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.

Lower court cases, such as the 9th Circuit, that take a Supreme Court case out-of-context are not valid decisions. It appears from your summary that Gardner made up out of whole cloth the notion that “dry lands” means anything other than waterways, and completely ignored the Supreme Court if it said that Congress has any authority to withhold land from a state as a condition of statehood.

I do not disagree with you that some dude in a black dress might have said x, y, and z, but that does not make x, y, and z lawful. If that dude did not follow the law, then his (or their) decision is not valid. Lower courts are not allowed to disregard higher courts or the Constitution in their decisions.

Of course, many of us here realize this is one of the major problems we face today. We need to identify the usurpers when we find them.

... it clearly says the Equal Footing Doctrine as you misunderstand it ...

No, you mean as the Gardner court misunderstood it. Equal footing has nothing to do with dry lands, per se, or even waterways. Those things might, in some cases, be in dispute, but that is not what the doctrine is about primarily.

Even under the Northwest Ordinance that you summarized in your very first post you missed where the statute said under Section 14, Article 4 to wit, “The legislatures of those districts or new States, shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in such soil to the bona fide purchasers. No tax shall be imposed on lands the property of the United States; ...”

Does this not clearly say the federal government reserves title, “…on lands the property of the United States ...”?

First, the purpose of the Northwest Ordinance was to divide it into states, which would have equal footing with the original states. The ownership of land by the feds would be temporary, until new states could form. To the extend the feds owned (not just had jurisdiction) over specific parcels of land that would need to be sold, their rights would be enforced until they could sell that land.

Second, the other reason for this section was to ensure ownership rights of individuals who had homesteaded land when it was federal territory so that they would continue with their ownership rights after statehood came.

As far as the original 13 states land settlements, Virginia had to cede some of its land in the Northwest territory to the federal government as a condition of statehood for future states.

I don't know why you keep saying this. It just is not true. Virgina already had statehood by 1787. It was agreeing to cede some of its land for the greater good, but it never did so as a “condition of statehood.” It was already a state, and was a state before the federal government had any authority to grant statehood.

... the federal government retained ownership of some of Ohio’s land as a condition of statehood … Section 2 clearly says, “Sec. 2. And it be further enacted, That the Secretary of the Treasury shall from time to time, and whenever the quarterly accounts of the receivers of public monies of the several land offices shall be settled, pay three per cent. of the nett (sic) proceeds of the lands of the United States, lying within the state of Ohio, ...”

We would have to examine that more closely. You might be taking things out-of-context, because Section 2 follows Section 1, which is specifically talking about land that the Indians own within the territory. So, is Sec 2 referring to that? Further down it talks about a particular individual, all within the same part (“Fourthly”).

I do not accept your position on this without further context.

Therefore and in summary, I have demonstrated again and again and again by showing facts of historical common law, that States created from territories (e.g., Ohio, California, Nevada) with respect to the Equal Footing Doctrine applies to the political rights and sovereignty of the original 13 States, not to their economic or physical characteristics.

The court cases you cited rely on physical characteristics, namely “dry land.” Further, those cases are in opposition to equal footing with respect to sovereignty.

More importantly, you have not cited anything in the Constitution or Supreme Court case which gives the federal government the authority to own land within a state, other than for a temporary period of time or for the enumerated powers (and let's not forget the 10th Amendment).

Whether you believe Nevada’s admission into statehood was contrived outside the authority of federal law or the federal courts misinterpreted the law is something that you will have to do further research beyond what you have already provided to make your argument that Congress exceeded it’s authority in Nevada with respect to federal land ownership within the boundaries of a State.

I disagree. I think that the Constitution, the Northwest Ordinance where the Constitution is silent, and the United States Supreme Court in Pollard clearly spell out that what happened in Nevada is unlawful. Further, from the summary you have provided of Gardner and my reading of Nye and Scott, the only evidence to the contrary appears to be lower court cases that did not follow the law they were sworn to uphold.

The federal government is not constitutionally allowed to own land outside of the District of Columbia, except for the enumerated powers. The legal precedent dictates that where the feds own land other than that, it is only to be for a temporary period of time while it either disposes of the property or holds it until a state is formed. Furthermore, such a territory is also supposed to have its own local government.

If you think “dry land” has anything to do with the equal footing doctrine, or that “only waterways” are areas where the federal government cannot impose conditions upon statehood, then I have to conclude you have not read Pollard at all.

The only question in my mind is this: How do we hold lawless judges accountable, and how do we get state legislatures to nullify unlawful court rulings and congressional edicts?

Good debating with you. I do appreciate your position. I think I understand where you are coming from, and I think we are at an impasse because you probably do not agree with my take, and I certainly do not agree with yours.

Friends in liberty.

Best two posts I've seen in a

Best two posts I've seen in a long time.

LIBERTY2ME's picture

question

So in 1864 - Congress approved an act that would allow the poeple of nevada to form a constitution and the new state of Nevada. which they did. But president Lincoln/congress said only if they give up thier rights to the land that is currently owned by the Fed (which was 90% of it)? And it was to be this way until Congress waived it, but of course, they never did. my shocked face...

But the fact that it was never waived doesn't matter because Congress can't own land outside of district of Columbia and had no right to add add this condition to a state that is being admitted into the Union.

So what your saying here is that when they added this clause it was illegal and therefore invalid? Is this because of the "equal footing" from 1845? It just seems like if congress said initially that they would allow nevada to be a state but only if they give up rights then that would be the new law. Or are you saying one trumps the other?

Yes ...

... if Congress tries to make a state give its land to the federal government as a condition of statehood, then that is invalid. It is null and void (it never happened, despite the fact that it is there on paper).

There are two reasons why this is not allowed:

(1) The equal footing doctrine was first established in 1787 by Congress. It was then affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1845. The American system requires that all lower courts must follow higher court precedent. So, all that SHOULD have to happen is for a state like Nevada to sue the feds and a federal court is supposed to follow the Supreme Court's ruling of equal footing. State courts would also follow it. This is all that SHOULD be necessary to sort out the fact that the federal government NEVER owned all that land in Nevada. (I say SHOULD because that is what would happen if we did not have a corrupt government.)

(2) The federal government was never granted the constitutional authority to own land or have jurisdiction within a state, except for the purposes enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. Although a military base might be large, it does not encompass 90% of the land area of Nevada. Neither do post offices.

The Enclave Clause, too

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17:

"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, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

It seems as if there are only 10 square miles allowed, Constitutionally? Unless I'm missing something...anyone have thoughts?

The Constitution says ...

... the federal government can own land, not exceeding 10 miles square, for the seat of the federal government (the District of Columbia). They did this because under the Articles of Confederation, the Congress existed but it had no permanent place to conduct its business. Some states kicked it out, and they were always on the move from one place to another. That clause gives it a permanent location.

In DC, the federal government has jurisdiction. The states cannot tell it what to do within that area. The federal government cannot violate the Constitution, such as making slavery legal, but it can make speed limit laws, drug laws, eduction laws, or any laws that do not violate the Constitution, and the states cannot overrule them. But those laws can ONLY apply to the District of Columbia (because the federal government has jurisdiction within DC).

However, outside of DC, the federal government can only own property (and can only have jurisdiction over that property) within a state's borders if it meets three criteria:

(1) It must purchase the land from the state, and
(2) The state must agree by vote of the state's legislature, and
(3) The land must be used for a constitutional federal power, which are the items enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.

The enumerated purposes would be things like military bases, post offices, federal court buildings, etc.

Other than that, the federal government has NO AUTHORITY to own ANY LAND. Period.

Also, the American system is one of EITHER/OR jurisdiction. There is NO SUCH THING as "dual jurisdiction." EITHER the federal government has jurisdiction over a particular land area and subject matter, OR the state in that land area has jurisdiction.

There can NEVER be a situation where they BOTH have jurisdiction.

That is what the Constitution says. And the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, any thing to the contrary is null and void at inception.

No, that is for the seat of

No, that is for the seat of Government. They can purchase land outside that district.

U.S. Const. Article I, §8, Clause 17, "

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, .... 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."

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Just read right through it.

Smart. Tweeted.

Its confusing because the globalists

levied a civil war on America to implement a corporate personhood model of civil law in the United States. Real law is broken when rooted to its source of authority were born of criminal acts.

As long as we acknowledge the US corp as a lawfully valid entity the waters will only get more murky until we wake up homeless on the land our forefathers conquered.

Real law cannot have a root sourced in crime. It is impossible. Real law is clear in congruency not murky from fallacious usurpations. Notice how Lincoln's crimes and usurpations muddies the waters on the issue. The effects of usurpations of law are easy to see when one is paying attention. This here is a good example of the effects of people accepting crime as law and how it breaks down the law as consistent facts are twisted by actions that were outside honest intent to seek congruency and consistency of law.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

deleted

deleted

Gilligan's picture

This post really gets to the crux of the issue.

Wish I could hear this articulated on the MSM.

Google is government.

Share

Hi, Tommy. I would LOVE to send this to a couple of people at the Fox Cable news network. Possibly Hannity and Van Susteren. Your post is so clear and concise I can't imagine improving on it. Alright if I send it out to these folks who are usually 'okay', but don't seem to have time to research facts? I know there's no hope for most of Fox News. And I wouldn't waste my time with O'Reilly. There are a couple of misguided but well-meaning people, though, who are willing to learn. The two mentioned here, and possibly Megyn Kelly. Unfortunate that Libertarians missed jumping into the gaping hole the Tea Party took advantage of. The only 'conservative' MSM news source seems to think that if we can control other people's bad habits and kill enough foreigners, it'll be great. But they at least would love to take down Harry Reid, and the enemy of my enemy is, not necessarily my friend, but a sometime ally.

mgentles

Hey ...

... it's great to see so many people checking this out. I was pretty tired when I wrote it, and there are several parts that could read more smoothly. But since some people have already sent it out, I'll leave it as is.

For sure, send it to whomever you want.

I would make sure if the recipient is a lawyer (like Greta and Megyn), tell them to focus on the "doctrine of equal footing."

The doctrine was established by Congress, even before the Constitution was ratified, and further enshrined as legal precedent when the US Supreme Court ruled in 1845 that it is the only doctrine that could be consistent with constitutional principles.

So, make sure they are focused on the "equal footing" doctrine (which they have probably never heard of before).

Also, you might ask them to check out whether the Reid Bunkerville, LLC that owns land in the area is somehow related to Harry Reid.

More info here:

http://www.dailypaul.com/316790/reid-bunkerville-property-ow...

I think some of these people with talk shows are looking to the internet for ideas for stories. I bet some of them will at least check it out, whether or not they go on air with it.

A little interesting piece to add to the Nevada puzzle:

At that time, to become a state, a territory was required to have at least 30,000 citizens. Nevada didn't come anywhere near close to that number.

Lincoln wanted Nevada's electoral votes & the taxes the fed could levy on the mines to help fund his very war of rebellion.

Bundy Land/ BLM

thanks Tommy Paine for the very informative information

BUMP for 1st Rate Info

Great Job!
Just had to bump...see my comments below.

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!