This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Martin Armstrong Asks "Do The Feds Really Own The Land In Nevada?"

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Nevada-Protest

QUESTION: Is it true that nearly 80% of Nevada is still owned by the Federal Government who then pays no tax to the State of Nevada? This seems very strange if true as a backdrop to this entire Bundy affair.

 

Via Martin Armstrong of Armstrong Economics,

 

REPLY: The truth behind Nevada is of course just a quagmire of politics. Nevada was a key pawn in getting Abraham Lincoln reelected in 1864 during the middle of the Civil War. Back on March 21st, 1864, the US Congress enacted the Nevada Statehood statute that authorized the residents of Nevada Territory to elect representatives to a convention for the purpose of having Nevada join the Union. This is where we find the origin of the fight going on in Nevada that the left-wing TV commenters (pretend-journalists) today call a right-wing uprising that should be put down at all costs. The current land conflict in Nevada extends back to this event in 1864 and how the territory of Nevada became a state in order to push through a political agenda to create a majority vote. I have said numerous times, if you want the truth, just follow the money.

The “law” at the time in 1864 required that for a territory to become a state, the population had to be at least 60,000. At that time, Nevada had only about 40,000 people. So why was Nevada rushed into statehood in violation of the law of the day? When the 1864 Presidential election approached, there were special interests who were seeking to manipulate the elections to ensure Lincoln would win reelection. They needed another Republican congressional delegation that could provide additional votes for the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery. Previously, the attempt failed by a very narrow margin that required two-thirds support of both houses of Congress.

1864-Elections

The fear rising for the 1864 election was that there might arise three major candidates running. There was Abraham Lincoln of the National Union Party, George B. McClellan of the Democratic Party, and John Charles Frémont (1813–1890) of the Radical Democracy Party. It was actually Frémont who was the first anti-slavery Republican nominee back in the 1940s. During the Civil War, he held a military command and was the first to issue an emancipation edict that freed slaves in his district. Lincoln maybe credited for his stand, but he was a politician first. Lincoln relieved Frémont of his command for insubordination. Therefore, the Radical Democracy Party was the one demanding emancipation of all slaves.

With the Republicans splitting over how far to go with some supporting complete equal rights and others questioning going that far, the Democrats were pounding their chests and hoped to use the split in the Republicans to their advantage. The New York World was a newspaper published in New York City from 1860 until 1931 that was the mouth-piece for the Democrats. From 1883 to 1911 it was under the notorious publisher Joseph Pulitzer (1847–1911), who started the Spanish-American war by publishing false information just to sell his newspapers. Nonetheless, it was the New World that was desperately trying to ensure the defeat of Lincoln. It was perhaps their bravado that led to the Republicans state of panic that led to the maneuver to get Nevada into a voting position.

The greatest fear, thanks to the New York World, became what would happen if the vote was fragmented (which we could see in 2016) and no party could achieve a majority of electoral votes. Consequently, the election would then be thrown into the House of Representatives, where each state would have only one vote. Consequently, the Republicans believed they needed Nevada on their side for this would give them an equal vote with every other state despite the tiny amount of people actually living there. Moreover, the Republicans needed two more loyal Unionist votes in the U.S. Senate to also ensure that the Thirteenth Amendment would be passed.  Nevada’s entry would secure both the election and the three-fourths majority needed for the Thirteenth Amendment enactment.

1864-vote

 

The votes at the end of the day demonstrate that they never needed Nevada. Nonetheless, within the provisions of the Statehood Act of March 21, 1864 that brought Nevada into the voting fold, we see the source of the problem today. This Statehood Act retained the ownership of the land as a territory for the federal government. In return for the Statehood that was really against the law, the new state surrendered any right, title, or claim to the unappropriated public lands lying within Nevada. Moreover, this cannot be altered without the consent of the Feds. Hence, the people of Nevada cannot claim any land whatsoever because politicians needed Nevada for the 1864 election but did not want to hand-over anything in return. This was a typical political one-sided deal.

Republican Ronald Reagan had argued for the turnover of the control of such lands to the state and local authorities back in 1980. Clearly, the surrender of all claims to any land for statehood was illegal under the Constitution. This is no different from Russia seizing Crimea. The Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) when Alabama became a state in 1845. The question presented was concerning a clause where it was stated “that all navigable waters within the said State shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said State, and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said State.” The Supreme Court held that this clause was constitutional because it conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.”

The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states:

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 to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.

So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.

Sorry, but to all the left-wing commentators who call Bundy a tax-cheat and an outlaw, be careful of what you speak for the Supreme Court has made it clear in 1845 that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with for the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minimum, it became state land – not federal.

 

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 04/20/2014 - 21:39 | 4678423 chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

The people own the land.  The federal government holds it in trust and has "primary disposal of the soil", i.e. the prerogative to grant certain sections of it to the people as per their will enacted through the Congress.

I am Chumbawamba.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 21:47 | 4678442 Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

Oye!!

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 21:50 | 4678448 chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

Also, I believe Armstrong's analysis is muddled.  The Alabama case likely (I have not read it but what he cited seems to make it clear enough to me) had more to do with the fact that Alabama was a colony and then became one of these united States, whereas Nevada was a territory and all territories were under federal government jurisdiction originally.  The case seems to be talking about merely delegated authority that the federal government took over after the union was formed.

As far as the clause about "all the navigable waterways..." that's standard language as far as I know.  That phrase is verbatim in the act to allow California into the union.  I'll bet it is also in most of the other western states.

I am Chumbawamba.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 21:54 | 4678459 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

" they’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the State Houses, and the City Halls. They’ve got the judges in their back pockets."

 

Chumba the courts will rule against the rancher for the above reason. The rancher, who seems sincere in his words, will not adhere to the court ruling. The question is, what happens after that?

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:01 | 4678469 old naughty
old naughty's picture

...b,b,but NV sovereignty bill was stalled.

http://statesstand.ning.com/

 

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:48 | 4678545 TeamDepends
TeamDepends's picture

"The Feds" own your scrotum, assuming of course you agree to this BULLSHIT.  In other words, Mr. Rothschild and/or Mr. Rockefeller, your rule is worth about as much as your phony fiat script:   A SQUIRT OF PISS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Look at you trying to push the "price of gold/silver" down!!!!  Calling you out!  Bitch!  THIS IS FIGHT CLUB, LET'S GO, RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 23:42 | 4678622 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

The question should be

"do the feds actually own ANYTHING?

Everything that is in their possession is actually ours, paid for with our tax dollars and the blood of those preceeding us.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 00:11 | 4678653 Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

Bundy owes BLM a Million bucks for grass.

 

...grass that was growing there anyway...grass!

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 01:13 | 4678710 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

Well, the abjectly corrupt Harry Reid and his bad seed Son sure the fuck don't own it.

That fucking stain on the nation and insult to the Constution called the protestors "domestic terrorists".

No dis-honorable tampon of a man Reid, that would be you!

Hang those fuckers and their ilk already patriots.

Where is the U.S. Military?  Rise.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 05:12 | 4678842 mvsjcl
mvsjcl's picture

"...Pulitzer (1847–1911), who started the Spanish-American war by publishing false information just to sell his newspapers."

 

Ummm, no Martin. Pulitzer published false information just to start a war.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 10:46 | 4679438 xavi1951
xavi1951's picture

Wait just one minute!  According to the infallible George Washington (and his blog), Bankers are Behind the Wars and All Wars Are Bankers' Wars  Could he have been wrong?  A war started by someone other than a Banker?

Wed, 04/23/2014 - 14:52 | 4687461 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

You think bankers won't be involved in the financing of fracking & solar farms on stolen Nevada land?

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 08:10 | 4678990 yrbmegr
yrbmegr's picture

The question should be, "do the feds have the power to exclude Bundy from using the land?'

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 09:26 | 4679151 hwwesq3
hwwesq3's picture

ALL military bases in the U.S., by this reasoning, are on PUBLIC land, so the gummint has no right to keep us out!

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 11:27 | 4679568 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

He who has all the guns, a legal monopoly on the initiation of force, and the obedience of the subjects, possesses whatever he desires.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 10:22 | 4679357 gcjohns1971
gcjohns1971's picture

2nd to last paragraph of Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution (which lists the powers of Congress) says:

"(Power) 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 puchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;"

So, the Federal government CAN have legislative authority over a parcel of land IF TWO OF THREE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN MET:

1) A State CEDED IT - Washington DC.

2) The Federal government BOUGHT IT FROM A STATE.

3) The purchase or cession was for the erection of a Fort, Magazine, Arsenal, dock-Yard, or other needful building.

 

As for the proposition that the Fed can DECLARE OWNERSHIP of part or all of a State by fiat - That is totally baseless if we are talking about the United States established in 1776 and the United States Government Constituted in 1791 under the document entitled "The Constitution of the United States". 

If we are talking about some other government using the same name, or PRETENDING to be the United States Government - well, that is a different matter. 

 

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 12:29 | 4679756 Flagit
Flagit's picture

 

yes, thats why they shut down all the fedeal parks and monuments back when the budget was being held up.

 

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:02 | 4678470 chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

The people have spoken.  The people are the sovereignty.

End of story.

I am Chumbawamba.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:30 | 4678508 El Oregonian
El Oregonian's picture

 

The answer is right in their name for crying out loud! Nevada!!!

Q: How much land should belong to the Federal Government?

A: Nevada = NADA, NOTHING, ZILCH!

 

Go pound sand you government domestic terrorists, disband and leave us alone!

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:57 | 4678559 Colonel Klink
Colonel Klink's picture

The District of Criminals only.  It's not a state but federal creation for government seat without a state being able to claim the capitol.

Frankly they can keep it.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 02:00 | 4678751 ebear
ebear's picture

Uh... actually Nevada means snowy or snow covered.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 08:13 | 4678995 TrumpXVI
TrumpXVI's picture

Si, senor.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 09:34 | 4679182 Keyser
Keyser's picture

Let us know how you're doing in the FEMA camp. That is if you live through the arreat and trial for those views. Not saying you are not correct, just saying that TPTB will never allow such an argument... 

 

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 11:18 | 4679534 Milestones
Milestones's picture

Good straight right hand to the ole snot locker. Rifgt to point. Good post Chumba.             Milestones

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:50 | 4678552 Greenskeeper_Carl
Greenskeeper_Carl's picture

'what happens after that'? probably nothing good. i continue to hope for a non violent solution to this, but who knows. I am silly, I keep wondring why this govt claims to own 80% of a state's land. and why some beaurocrat claims to be able to appropriate this land to a foreign company. but i guess you said it all. they have paid for the senate, congres, etc.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 13:51 | 4680129 withglee
withglee's picture

If the government owns 80% of Nevada lands, how much did they own when Nevada became a state? How much did they pay for it? If they didn't own 100% after Nevada became a state, why not? And if greater then 80% how did they deed over the land reducing holdings to 80%? ... to whom did they deed it? for what consideration? and by what authority? And how does this compare to states carved out of the northwest territory purchased by Jefferson. And to New Mexico? Is there a principle here?

Wed, 04/23/2014 - 13:44 | 4687194 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Deed? Authority?
Silly Murrikin.
America took land at gun point using mass murder.
That's how land title is transfered still.
Any other delusion is purely wishful thinking.
Guns are pointed, land title is transfered. The prior party leaves horizontally or vertically but the negotiation is non-verbal.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 10:49 | 4679447 fedupwhiteguy
fedupwhiteguy's picture

fonzy,

It means its GO TIME!!!! No more pussy footing around. If you're waiting for that one perfectly pure incident to get your juices flowing then go back to sleep. Its time to get our houses and effects in order, draw that line in the sand, and act to take back what is/was ours.

Just Fed Up

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:00 | 4678463 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

"The Supreme Court held that this clause was constitutional because it “conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.”"

This is a loaded paragraph, because the "navigable waterways" have ALWAYS been governed by admirality law, e.g., Federal law.  If you can float a boat and drift, sail or motor to the ocean on it, it's governed by federal law.  This is a simple thing that has led to much debate, but it's very simple -- the ocean affects all states, so it naturally belongs to the People as a whole instead of any given state.  It actually makes sense that a river that flows to the Gulf that flows to the ocean belongs to all of us.  What is completely missing from the analysis in this article is that We The People own these waterways. The Federal Government is supposed to be us, not them.  

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:42 | 4678537 Greenskeeper_Carl
Greenskeeper_Carl's picture

as a person who has taken the classes to get a captains license, there is a very precise definition of navigable waters. If the coast guard maintains a channel with lights and daymarkers, it is a navigable, and federal waterway.

 

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 05:10 | 4678839 Notsobadwlad
Notsobadwlad's picture

It seems that the Federal EPA has redefined navigable waterways to include anything damp, so that they can have control over all water use.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 09:22 | 4679144 sleigher
sleigher's picture

Then they just spit on the ground during an argument and game over.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 05:11 | 4678840 Notsobadwlad
Notsobadwlad's picture

If navigable waterways and the ocean are the property of the entire nation, then why not roads and airports for the same reason?

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 08:34 | 4679039 ATM
ATM's picture

Because the Feds were never supposed to own roads except for Post roads as listed in Article 1, Section 8. Remember that the Federal government was supposed to be small and limited to only those enumerated powers.

It was never given the power to build interstate roads, was never given the power to buy or own lands other than from this:

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"

Some God-foresaken desert in the far reaches of northern Nevada doesn't meet the definition does it?


Mon, 04/21/2014 - 08:36 | 4679042 ATM
ATM's picture

The Federal government is supposed to be limited and protect our individual liberties against the mob. It ain't this collective "us". It's a bulwark against the evil of democracy.

Wed, 04/23/2014 - 13:22 | 4687087 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

"protect our individual liberties against the mob. "
The mob IS the individual liberties, there's no divergence.
To refer to democracy as evil is the same as referring to oxygen, water & food as evil.
Democracy is the singular, only system in the history of all civilization which does not feature mass murder of children & everyone under the foot of tyrants.
The removal of democracy is a demand, with no exception, for child-rape & village-burning. Zero times in history has this ever been untrue.
A republic, for example, can be built on slavery only: no Republic in history ever existed without elites killing slaves & abusing them, including the Republic of the USA.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 13:52 | 4680138 withglee
withglee's picture

This is probably one of the few things the commerce clause actually does apply to ... was intended for.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 00:25 | 4678660 TheMeatTrapper
TheMeatTrapper's picture

Alabama was never a colony. It was a territory, created March 3rd 1817 and was admiited to the Union as a State in 1819. 

I am MeatTrapper - and I was born, grew up and live in Alabama. A territory turned state- not a colony.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 01:09 | 4678708 Adahy
Adahy's picture

Glad someone mentioned that.
Best place in the world to live, but maybe I'm a bit biased.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 01:33 | 4678731 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

The adjunction of the territory term is mere convenience to hide the fact that the US of A are colonial states.

A territory is a colony.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 23:42 | 4678619 dirty belly
dirty belly's picture

Think:

Native American tribes in Nevada.

and you will know who owns the land.

Why ignore events before 1492?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Native_American_tribes_in_Nevada

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 01:38 | 4678737 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Why ignore?

Because that would break the 'american' narrative.

'Americans' would like to think they own the land on legitimate ground.

Anything that might lift the illusion must be dismissed.

Theft talks between thieves, each thief trying to sell the idea that thief is the legitimate owner.

This is how it works in an 'american' world.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 06:00 | 4678868 Bearwagon
Bearwagon's picture

How it works in an american world has already been explained by a real american to us, who was far more in the know than you'll ever be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitting_Bull
You go back to your hopium-pipe ...

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 09:31 | 4679175 sleigher
sleigher's picture

I keep seeing the native american argument.  What the government did back then to the natives was wrong.  What the government is doing now is wrong too.  The trend here is the government, they are the only party that is involved in all of these fights.

Wed, 04/23/2014 - 13:37 | 4687164 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

1 more trend: support is strong by non-government beneficiaries of actions OF a government.

Wed, 04/23/2014 - 13:35 | 4687151 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

no, he nailed it: USA = stolen land
An 'american' is an illegal immigrant.

An AMERICAN is someone whose tribal roots is North American no less than 2 thousand years.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 06:52 | 4678902 Quinvarius
Quinvarius's picture

So attack Harry Reid.  He is building his solar farm on one of your reservations.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 07:01 | 4678920 overmedicatedun...
overmedicatedundersexed's picture

blm acts like it owns the plant and animal life, the ground, the water and the air above it..EPA agrees, .gov DC, also, why won't the tax units understand? Look we own it cause we well own it. while ranchers over at least 100 years, made use of the land and spent $ to  improved it , seems the Feds, can overlook those facts, to protect the land and it's poor threatened wild life. cows it seems are not wild life, but for over 100 years they were the main wild life there.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 11:34 | 4679592 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

"Your resevations?" Reservations are just another government program. FEMA camps for indians.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 08:54 | 4679085 ATM
ATM's picture

Who did the Indians take the land from?

Are all Native Tribes to be considered one group or did the fact that these peoples waged wars on each other for thousands of years, pushed out former tribes, migrated and fought for the lands matter? 

Does the first people to arrive have exclusive claim for all times?

Who were the first people? 

I own land in Wisconsin that has prehistoric burial mounds, astonomical observatory stones and other artifacts of inhabitation by peoples that show none of the signs of 'Native Americans". They tools, astronimical formations and burials most closely resemble those of far Northern Europeans from the time. Is it their land and thus mine since I can draw my lineage back to  Northern Europe (and Sothern europe and north Africa and the Middle East)?

The only answer is to accept the Law and Title. What I do know is the Federal government does not have good title to t that land. Bundy probably has the best claim as his family has supposedly used that land for over 100 years and can claim, at worst, adverse possession. 

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 14:27 | 4680245 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

"Who were the first people? "

the ones before the second

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 23:07 | 4681610 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Not if the Law and Title is built on murderous conquest, then the Law and Title is Garbage and Murder.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 10:52 | 4679019 yrbmegr
yrbmegr's picture

This is probably closest to the constitutional intent.  So, in holding land in trust, the federal government must responsibly manage that land as a trustee for ALL the people.  It is not crazy to want the taxpayer to see some benefit from private use of public land held in trust for the public.  It is therefore not crazy, or unconstitutional, to allow the federal government, as trustee, the power to exclude individuals from the land.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 21:38 | 4678425 quasimodo
quasimodo's picture

Surely this will stop the BLM or some other goons from trying THAT again

 

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 21:40 | 4678427 Robot Traders Mom
Robot Traders Mom's picture

Really good take on the situation. However, it seems like there is more than meets the eye with this dispute. The government controls what makes it to the front pages of the MSM, so I'm not sure what their exact goals are here. Surely, they are up to no good...

www.TopTheNews.com

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:05 | 4678450 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

It does not matter what pops up on the MSM about this. While it's a tiny percentage, it's a lot of people who see .gov for what it has become. Enough people see Harry Ried for the satantic alien that he is. This situation will provoke those people. When those people stand up and big brother goes to clamp down it will be the catalyst for the group of people behind them who are partially awakened to see things clearly and those people will be provoked. 

If Raid is smart he will leave this alone. If tptb are ready for the big one they will provoke this group and set something in motion that will transform this country from here out.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:23 | 4678504 Vint Slugs
Vint Slugs's picture

Senator Reid is not stupid but he will not leave this alone.  He has stated so in the Nevada press.  He and his son, Rory, have too much financial interest in the geographical area to back down on this issue.

Tylers, time to pursue this question:  What exactly does Reid mean when the local press quotes him as saying that, "a Federal task force has been formed" to deal with this issue?

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:58 | 4678560 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

i just noticed i spelled his name wrong twice by accident. Whoops, well whatever, fuck senator hairy roid

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 01:32 | 4678714 Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

Senator Raid - perfect 

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 21:53 | 4678457 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Their goal is the same as it always has been...control. Control of us and everything else, not only in America, but the whole world. The perfect symphony of fear by the masses, focused by the power of those who need to control to put the boot on the neck of every living person.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 21:52 | 4678455 Laughinggrizzley
Laughinggrizzley's picture

For over 20 years, the Bureau of Land Management engaged in a “literal, intentional conspiracy” against Nevada ranchers to force them out of business, according to a federal judge whose court opinion exposes the BLM’s true intent against rancher Cliven Bundy.

 

http://www.infowars.com/federal-judge-blm-engaged-in-a-criminal-conspira...

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 21:55 | 4678462 Elliptico
Elliptico's picture

Actually, the land does not belong to states or the feds, but to the native peoples.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:07 | 4678465 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

the native peoples own the local casino industries that cater to the exploding free shit army. They ended up getting a good deal after all. They just had to wait it out a bit.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:34 | 4678520 Blues Traveler
Blues Traveler's picture

"exploding free shit army", laughing out loud, great pull

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:56 | 4678558 DOT
DOT's picture

Ever been to Pine Ridge?

Ain't no Casinos, just poverty and desperation that continues to punish a people that resisted the Feds for too long.

Every Treaty has been broken and you call it "a good deal". 

How do you accept the idea that taking the childeren so that they would never learn the truth was justified?( a discount on future value that only a small percentage would ever be able to claim? )

I'm sure the Feds have a "good deal" in mind for our grandchildren.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 01:21 | 4678720 woolly mammoth
woolly mammoth's picture

If your talking about Pine Ridge South Dakota the casino is called, Prairie Winds Casino. It's near Oelrichs. Alot of the poverty there is self inflicted, corruption and all. Nice newer Hospital though. Free of course, And one of the many reasons the housing looks so bad is because it's hard to keep a house looking nice after you pound a fucking hole in the side of it so your god damn horse can drink out of the bathtub. But who fucking cares, some other Eastcoast dumb fuck will always show up and give you another house. Hard to develope any pride if everything is given to you. And ya I've been to Pine Ridge. Don't brake down off the main Hiway.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 01:35 | 4678733 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

It is good to be an American.

Signed: an American.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 06:02 | 4678872 Bearwagon
Bearwagon's picture

Evil is good!

Signed: Dungeon Keeper

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 08:12 | 4678994 quasimodo
quasimodo's picture

Having been born west river near Winner,SD, I grew up knowing firsthand what it was like living amongst the native population. 

One always knew when the .gov checks came because crazy Joe would be walking down the main drag with a brown bag special barely able to stand upright. An old lady who lived with her two boys would walk two miles once a week to gpa and gma's place to use the phone. 

For the most part, I as taught to respect them and not sterotuype them, but there were times when all one could do was just say "pull your head out of your ass". 

Yes, they did actually put those holes in the homes for the horses, saw them more than once. 

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 10:02 | 4679272 DOT
DOT's picture

Well I'll be damned, looks like the Ogalala took the advice of the Ho Chunk and put up a casino. I wonder who is running it for them. As to your comment that the poverty, or much of it is "self inflicted", I must disagree.

And yeah, you are spot on about the East coast dumb fucks.  

The Pine Ridge Res is what dependancy looks like. This is the model for our grand children's future. 

 

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 07:25 | 4678946 StychoKiller
Mon, 04/21/2014 - 09:10 | 4679117 ATM
ATM's picture

"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him, better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Ford

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 03:59 | 4678798 are we there yet
are we there yet's picture

Arlio Guthrie thinks this land belongs to you and me. Not Harry Reed.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 09:30 | 4679168 Theosebes Goodfellow
Theosebes Goodfellow's picture

~"Actually, the land does not belong to states or the feds, but to the native peoples."~

I am so sick of this shit. So here, Elliptico, is my uncensored and unvarnished response.

"Go fuck yourself. I can trace my heritage back 300 years on these lands on BOTH SIDES OF MY FAMILY TREE! When the fuck do I get to be a "Native American"?" Native Peoples my ass.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 22:52 | 4681566 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Go fuck yourself. 300 years is nothing compared to THOUSANDS.

Less than 1000 years of family on this land and you're an illegal immigrant.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:04 | 4678473 TheObsoleteMan
TheObsoleteMan's picture

All of these points are"nice" and fine, but the fact of the matter is this: If you want your soverignity back from the Feds, you must speak their language: BY FORCE OF ARMS. Sorry, but there is no other way. It's all they understand.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 02:07 | 4678754 G-R-U-N-T
G-R-U-N-T's picture

From your linked article Mr. nevadan: "These police-inspectors are notoriously violent, are rarely investigated or punished for their crimes, and are terrorizing people making a living."

I find it ironic that these "police-inspectors" thugs are not much different than the BLM, Mr. Reid and his alien looking son thugs. They are, indeed, terrorizing Bundy for making a living.

Isn't this what it is all about, I mean, progressive religious, fanatical, unelected bureaucrats, save Mr. Reid and the rest of the insane elected Politicians, destroying a mans ability to make a living??? And our brilliant politicians still can't figure out why our country is broke!!!

Government's motive is to hunt down revenue to feed the monstrous beast they've created, sucking and pumping, while blaming the people that employ them, never themselves. It's quite sick to witness!

 

 

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 08:54 | 4679079 nevadan
nevadan's picture

Isn't this what it is all about, ... destroying a mans ability to make a living?

I agree 100%.  Freedom at its basic level is economic.  Life, liberty , and the persuit of happiness is at its basic level the ability to enjoy the fruits of one's labor.  The fine line is how much can be taken from the people before they go postal.  Evidently on that day the powers that be crossed the line and were met in kind.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 14:21 | 4680225 Flagit
Flagit's picture

wow, that was really fucked up. that bus looked like something out of the Walking Dead.

if that were to happen to the BLM guys, the story would get its own network, satellite, and print publication.

The American Terrorist

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:09 | 4678484 knowshitsurelock
knowshitsurelock's picture

Gee Whizz, the more you look the curiouser and curiouser the Nevada saga gets. Not only did the Federal Government breach their contract in Nevada as a territory under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, but it also breached the public trust when Nevada was formed as a state and went against the 1845 US Supreme Court Case Pollard V Hagan.


1845 the U.S. Supreme Court, in Pollard vs Hagan, a case dealing with the admission of Alabama to the Union under almost identical language, had held that such conditions were in violation of the U.S. Constitution and therefore void.

"We think the proper examination of this subject," said the court, "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...[italics added]"

As soon as new states were formed out of the territory, "the power of the United States over these lands as property was to cease," wrote the court. Thus the provision requiring the people of Alabama to release all title to public lands to the United States, the court said "..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 cases in which it is expressly granted..." by the Constitution, such as the District of Columbia, land purchased by the federal government from a state with its consent, and land of a territory before it is divided into states.

Of the latter, said the court, "as soon as these purposes could be accomplished, the power of the United States over these lands was to cease."

There is also very specific language in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. In that treaty, Mexico ceded to the United States over 338 million acres, out of which Nevada (along with California, Arizona, Utah and part of New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming) was formed. The United States government pledged that the territory given up by Mexico "shall be formed into free, sovereign, and independent states and incorporated into the Union of the United States as soon as possible, and the citizens thereof shall be accorded the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities as citizens of the original states."

Total scumbags. No jurisdiction, no rights, liars, thieves. This crap has been going on there since the beginning. Small wonder Nevada has had enough.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:23 | 4678498 are we there yet
are we there yet's picture

The faimous Humphrey Bogart movie quote 'Badges, I don't need no stinkin badges'. The feds are starting to look more like bandits here than good guys.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 23:56 | 4678636 QQQBall
QQQBall's picture

"Wild Bunch"????

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 00:28 | 4678662 TheMeatTrapper
TheMeatTrapper's picture

Treasure of the Sierra Madre FTW

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 14:35 | 4680274 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

best interpreted in Blazing Saddles 

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 04:26 | 4678816 Fiat Ziggurat
Fiat Ziggurat's picture

I guess it depends which side of the transaction you're on. Because this is mainly how USA was formed, and it's always been either lauded, ignored, or both.

Welcome to the reservation Bundy!

Ironic too, the timing of that argument about Alabama. The same area, and soon after the Trail of Tears...

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 14:34 | 4680264 Crash Overide
Crash Overide's picture

"The feds are starting to look more like bandits here than good guys."

They are the enemy of the people, look at their track record. Makes me sick to know so called American's are carrying out unconstitutional orders.

 

Does this even mean anything anymore?

But when a long train of abuses and usurpation's, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 22:20 | 4681503 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Perhaps that's the difference between an American and 'anamerican'

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 14:34 | 4680267 Flagit
Flagit's picture

 

 

Gee Whizz, the more you look the curiouser and curiouser the Nevada saga gets.

oh, its gets better.

http://usnvrepcan.blogspot.com/2014/04/blm-bundy-ranch-clark-county-las-...

where exactly IS all this land going. looks rather newsworthy.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:09 | 4678485 Reaper
Reaper's picture

The Supreme Court usually decides on ideological, venal and other corrupt grounds. It's time for the anti-government crowd to threaten to reveal Judge Roberts' misconduct the same way as Roberts was threatened for Obamacare. What's good for Obama is good for the rest of us.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:14 | 4678490 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

I don't know about you guys but I just sold all my gold and that is why it just dropped $15 while i took a piss.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:29 | 4678514 Vint Slugs
Vint Slugs's picture

The precious metals markets are entering the "despair and disillusion" phase that must precede all major price lows.  Time to make the bulls, particularly the mis-informed ZH silver bulls, ask themselves the $64k question:  What am I going to do if the price of silver goes into single digits?"  Until that viewpoint becomes pervasive, the market, at least silver, doesn't have a hope in hell of turning up.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:36 | 4678526 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

single digit silver would get me back in buying again. $19 silver month after month while the stock market climbs higher won't get me to sell silver, but i won't be buying either.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 23:00 | 4678563 Greenskeeper_Carl
Greenskeeper_Carl's picture

I would welcome single digit silver. I am young, and want to save money, but i just cannot put money into most of the stock market and , i am still down around 15-20% on the mining stocks i own. I figure no matter what, silver and gold are going to go up over the long term, probably more than any stocks or bonds, so I take that extra money, and i buy physical silver. even if I am paying 23/oz cash and carry at my LCS. One day, we will all be wishng we had bought more silver around this level

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 23:11 | 4678576 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

consider some cash too. i don't see how we get massive inflation without wage inflation and i'm not sure that is in the cards. i am planning for it, but it's not a given. I can see the scenario continuing where people are starved for dollars. Companies are shedding human labor for robots anywhere possible and we are getting a gigantic welfare state with 95% of the people 1 step above complete poverty. Unless those people group together and demand significantly higher wages there will be no Weimar scenario.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 09:06 | 4679110 GlobalCtzn
GlobalCtzn's picture

I do not disagree with your idea to hold cash right now. It will have its day soon I think. That day will be a short one I am guessing. The coming 'inflationary' event we all wonder about will be a psychological event, not a wages induced event. When they devalue the Dollar, and then they do it again 90 days later, and average people start really waking up to the toilet paper they are holding onto it will be game on. Velocity will pick up like a tornado as people look for ANYTHING but paper to sit in...................

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 22:10 | 4681485 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

I see it. It's called slavery. Wage inflation won't happen but if someone would like a bigger debt to handle higher prices certain offers will become available, some sacrifices of rights, liberties, changes in laws about work-safety, etc., Or, you can starve.

Zimbabwe's prices went insane without wage inflation looking anything like it.

see, price inflation from currency failure is not at all to do with wage inflation.

It's to do almost entirely with confidence in the currency.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 09:41 | 4679195 Theosebes Goodfellow
Theosebes Goodfellow's picture

~"single digit silver would get me back in buying again. $19 silver month after month while the stock market climbs higher won't get me to sell silver, but i won't be buying either."~

See, I agree with your sentiment but for one thing, fonz. We both know that this economy is rigged and that it all hinges on a ridiculously adulterated currency. Knowing this, To not continue to stack is to me much more foolhardy than to wait for some predetermined price. As I opine to my local PM dealer, "What? You're still taking pieces of paper for real money?"

I would like to note that this statement tends to piss him off, (though we are friends), because he and I both know that it is true.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 00:15 | 4678655 IndyPat
IndyPat's picture

What am I going to do if the price of silver goes into single digits?"

That's easy.
Buy, like a motherfucker!

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 01:00 | 4678697 WAMO556
WAMO556's picture

Your kidding right???

Sheet, this country ass boy would be buying "single digit silver" hand over fist, faster then you can say CAT IN THE HAT!!!! The lower it gets the MOAR I'sa goin ta buy!!!

And that ain't no joke!

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 08:34 | 4679040 LooseLee
LooseLee's picture

Single digits? I have bought all of my silver at single digits and if the opportunity again presents itself I will have to buy more. My question to you, non-believer and follower of fools, is "What will you do if silver drops to single digits?

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 09:15 | 4679127 ATM
ATM's picture

I sold almost all my silver at $46. Silver isn't monetary. gold is. Silver may rise but in th eend gold is going to be where it is at if you are looking at preserving wealth.

Silver is a trade.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 09:26 | 4679152 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Actually, silver is monetary if you are a US citizen. Read the Constitution. The "dollar" is defined as silver. Gold was a convenience metal that made large transactions easier. "Pieces of Eight" by Edwin Vieira Jr.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 21:30 | 4681396 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

pretty sure when paper fails to be money anymore the first barter metal in the street for food will be silver coin. Most likely quarters or half-dollars, possibly dimes and silver maples or eagles.
Gold will be for larger barter purchases

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 11:49 | 4679633 fedupwhiteguy
fedupwhiteguy's picture

Slugs, I prefer gold coin over silver. But single digit silver? Hell yeah!!!! I'd be buying lika mofo!!

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 21:27 | 4681390 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

I came up with another trend-equation R2 being 0.97. ln(silver) = gold / 916.174 + Phi

data : daily, gold & silver, 2013 may to 2014 march

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:17 | 4678493 are we there yet
are we there yet's picture

Control, power, force, secrecy, misdirection.  You are the pawn, the tiny morcel on a hidden giants fork. Find the hidden giant and take away his fork.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:19 | 4678496 Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

I don't care which tyrant claims it.
The fact that the "Bureau of Land Management" (not authorized by the constitution) has employed snipers, effectively threatening Americans with death, means this shit has gotten out of hand.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 04:11 | 4678806 cherry picker
cherry picker's picture

This comment is true.  I read the other day a comment backed by a link which proved the BLS had made the airspace a non flyover during their operation.

What were they preparing for?  War against their own people and Obama and Biden have the nerve to criticize Russia?

The system is screwed.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 04:33 | 4678818 Fiat Ziggurat
Fiat Ziggurat's picture

Welcome to the reservation!

This is how USA was formed...

Never bothered you till now ehh? 

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:24 | 4678506 hooligan2009
hooligan2009's picture

Herein lies the nub of the matter.

It should not matter whether a state or the federal government owns the land because either should be controlled by a democratic process. It does matter because the machine of the federal government considers itself to be above (and way beyond) the law that affects ordinary people and is its own judge, jury and executioner with no redress to any other body of legsilature or democratic process. In other words, federal offices tend to think they govern depsite the will of ordinary people, not because of the will of ordinary people.

This is what happens when a mobocracy is elected and impinges on the wealth creating abilities of those who create and control wealth. Those in power retreat into security bunkers (gated communities etc) to protect themselves from the wealth destruction of people trying to spend their money on drugs and benefits.

The gap here is that the mentality is "You must lose for me to win" rather than "How can I win and make you win at the same time". Politics corrupts and political systems (of all sorts) corrupts (a country) absolutely. 

How can a Federal employee (civil servant) interpret and act on a law without an instruction from a properly qualified and appointed legal body? Sounds to me that legal bodies are not properly constituted and are acting beyond their authority. 

The other part is, nobody knows a right answer that works for all; people (Feds and individuals) act first and apologize later. 

 

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 09:18 | 4679138 ATM
ATM's picture

It does matter whether the land is owned by the state or the Feds since the Feds are not authorized by law to own any lands other than 10 square miles for DC and for all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.


Mon, 04/21/2014 - 21:24 | 4681380 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

no such thing as a mobocracy.
No one's competing for use of the land: government thugs want to sell it to another country to grease bribery & influence.
Everyone else who wants to benefit from the land, e.g. cattle = meat + milk, is happy to do so & Bundy's happy to provide it. It's not like he's stopping others from grazing there too.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:25 | 4678510 q99x2
q99x2's picture

Secession is an answer.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:25 | 4678511 rsnoble
rsnoble's picture

Fuck Reid!

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 23:26 | 4678605 nightshiftsucks
nightshiftsucks's picture

And fuck who ever down voted you.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:32 | 4678519 Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

I can't help but to think of this - 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9uwla5RFKc

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:34 | 4678521 rosiescenario
rosiescenario's picture

Based on the article, it appears NV should never have become a state...it did not have enough people. Its formation as a state was illegal. So, is it still a territory and Harry is out of office????

 

 

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:37 | 4678529 rosiescenario
rosiescenario's picture

"The “law” at the time in 1864 required that for a territory to become a state, the population had to be at least 60,000. At that time, Nevada had only about 40,000 people. So why was Nevada rushed into statehood in violation of the law of the day? When the 1864 Presidential election approached, there were special interests who were seeking to manipulate the elections to ensure Lincoln would win reelection."

 

....wow special interest groups got Congress to do something illegal....

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:44 | 4678540 knowshitsurelock
knowshitsurelock's picture

Not only was the state of Nevada formed illegally, the cronies in Washington ignored the Supreme Court in Pollard v Haggan, breached the public trust by dishonoring the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and retaining all of the land as if Nevada was still a territory, against the Constitution and the sovereignty afforded the original 13 states, and the Fed's also removed all redress from the people living in the newly illegally formed state.

Nothing new or different about Washington.  Same bullshit, different day.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 04:46 | 4678826 Fiat Ziggurat
Fiat Ziggurat's picture

But why cherry-pick? Lotsa things are illegal. The formation of the US as a country- a landmass- was/is illegal. Built and populated by illegal immigration.

The only question is which side of the transaction you're on - or see yourself on - which probably coincides exactly with the timing of when you start to care.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 09:33 | 4679179 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

So, the homo habilis giants that preceded the "Native Americans" should have first claim? Indians warred against them as well, but eventually won out, even acknowledging their superior culture. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Paleoarcheology is a bitch...

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 21:14 | 4681358 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

No one preceded the Native American humans except large cats.
The only other hominids were in Europe/Africa.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 06:38 | 4678891 piliage
piliage's picture

This article misses totally the main reason Nevada statehood was pushed through - gold & silver ore.

The Comstock load at Mt. Davidson, Virginia City, was producing $35 mil a year (valued at $750 mil in 2013 USD) in gold and silver. Lincoln needed that to fund the war effort. So, he jammed through statehood.

Many of the names that we connect with the wealth of early San Francisco, California; Henry Wells, William Fargo, George Hearst, James Haggin, Lloyd Tevis, Adolph Sutro, Darius Mills, William Sharon, to name a few - in many ways established their fortunes in Virginia City, Nevada.

The four owners of the "Bonanza Firm" were worth nearly 1% of US GNP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonanza_Kings

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:37 | 4678528 Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

The very idea of the "state" (i.e. your tyrant of choice, Nevada or FedGov) owning property is fucking impossible.
Everything they say is a lie and every single thing they have is stolen.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 01:30 | 4678730 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

In that, they are 'american'.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 05:39 | 4678858 Fiat Ziggurat
Fiat Ziggurat's picture

Welcome to the reservation!

Tyrant of choice. Exactly. It's all a matter of perspective...or which side of the transaction you're on. One man's tyrant is another's majestic founding father. One man's illegal immigrant is another's settler...

What if corporations or private individual(s) become the de facto... or even literal government- say, some Rockefellers, Gates, Buffets and Walthams etc, for example. Would they lose their hallowed status as private actors in the sacred, never-tyrannical market and have it become impossible for them to own property?...

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:38 | 4678530 stormsailor
stormsailor's picture

those western rifle shooters are pretty good shots, why don't they shoot the hat off his head.  send him a little message

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 08:23 | 4679007 headhunt
headhunt's picture

I think a simple vote his leftist ass out of office is much more fitting.

Make him one of the 'common' people and see how often he walks around town then.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 21:09 | 4681345 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

fascist, not leftist. They are mutually exclusive.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:41 | 4678536 yrbmegr
yrbmegr's picture

Well, an Act of Congress cannot be "against the law", so the rest of your analysis is deeply suspect.  Thanks for playing.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 23:21 | 4678595 Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

Yrbmegr
An act of congress can't be against the law?
Why then does the Supreme Court claim the power of "judicial review," in which they ascertain whether or not legislation is constitutional?
You fucking moron, legislatures all over this country break the law all the time.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 08:14 | 4678996 yrbmegr
yrbmegr's picture

Judicial review is to determine whether an Act of Congress, also known colloquially as a "law", or more technically, a "statute", is constitutional.  A previous Act of Congress, for example establishing that a territory needs 60,000 people to be turned into a state, may be changed by another Act of Congress, for example establishing that the new rule is 40,000 people.  It is not "against the law" for Congress to change a statute.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 09:27 | 4679157 ATM
ATM's picture

That does not mean the Act itself is legal. They can be changed by Congress but they may well be illegal.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 10:56 | 4679473 yrbmegr
yrbmegr's picture

Acts of Congress establish law.  Therefore, no Act of Congress is against the law.  Acts of Congress are constitutional or unconstitutional.  And it should be noted that an unconstitutional law is still law until declared unconstitutional by a federal court.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 13:54 | 4680147 Milestones
Milestones's picture

"Any lLAW pugnant to the U.S. Constitution is void and this court and all other offices are bound by that instrument."  Marbury v Madison Cranch 2. 1803. That law has never been defeated.

Milestones

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 09:43 | 4679200 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

I would say it is customary to change the law first and then draft new proposals in accordance to that new ruling.

Otherwise, it falls under the category 'making shit up as you go'.

Where is that ruling? Does it exist?

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 00:32 | 4678666 TheMeatTrapper
TheMeatTrapper's picture

@yrbmegr:

You are semantically correct. An act of Congress is technically law. Of course, such law can be un Constitutional. 

Thanks for parsing words and playing Bill Clinton with a cigar. The role suits you. We appreciate your bullshit. It adds so much to the discussion. 

Thanks for "playing".

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 08:15 | 4678998 yrbmegr
yrbmegr's picture

Did you try climbing that fence at the military base, yet?  Did you "let" them take you into custody?

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 09:39 | 4679185 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Guess that whole supreme court idea was just for fun and giggles. Really? Further, all actions of Congress are null and void if they violate the Constitution. Even The SCOTUS cannot change that nor precedant. They do and we allow it, but that is merely our slave mentality at work.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:48 | 4678546 indio007
indio007's picture

"legal" plunder is all this is.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 05:11 | 4678841 Fiat Ziggurat
Fiat Ziggurat's picture

Welcome to the reservation!

Exactly when did you start caring?

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:49 | 4678547 wagthetails
wagthetails's picture

If NV is in fact still a territory, does that mean Harry Reid can't be in congress? I'm sure even bundy would sacrifice statehood to accomplish this.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:51 | 4678551 j8h9
j8h9's picture

Though Fox News seems highly invested in doing everything possible to turn Cliven Bundy into some kind of galvanizing conservative icon (and let’s be honest, this kind of anti-government kook plays right into the hands of their audience), mainstream Republican organizations and politicians have mostly avoided the issue.

And it seems even some within the tea party are realizing that Bundy is guilty, owes this money and those supporting him clearly don’t understand the law.

The more this issue gets attention, the more the facts continue to emerge and show that Cliven Bundy is nothing more than a scumbag who doesn’t want to pay grazing fees due to his cattle grazing on land that isn’t his.   Once people learn the facts of the case, Bundy’s “anti-government” approach seems far less sexy and simply becomes a case of another person trying to avoid taking personal responsibility for their actions.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 23:04 | 4678564 Bazza McKenzie
Bazza McKenzie's picture

Ya gotta do better than this Harry.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 23:05 | 4678565 kchrisc
kchrisc's picture

Put the washing machine on "spin."

The other two settings: "Lie" and "Ignore"

 

"My guillotine has two settings: 'fast cut' and 'slow cut.'"

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 23:16 | 4678586 nightshiftsucks
nightshiftsucks's picture

Well when we stop subsidizing milk then I will agree with you,until then fuck off you stupid piece of shit.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 23:23 | 4678598 Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

J8h9
Fuck you.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 23:25 | 4678603 j8h9
j8h9's picture

Convince me you graduated high school

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!