Cattle Battle Widens

[theDoctorisIn]

Do you have a citation to that, and a link?

Google "Nevada State Constitution". It's in the first paragraph.

The Act of Congress Approved March Twenty First A.D. Eighteen Hundred and Sixty Four “To enable the People of the Territory of Nevada to form a Constitution and State Government and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the Original States,” requires that the Members of the Convention for framing said Constitution shall, after Organization, on behalf of the people of said Territory, adopt the Constitution of the United States.—Therefore, Be it Resolved, That the Members of this Convention, elected by the Authority of the aforesaid enabling Act of Congress, Assembled in Carson City the Capital of said Territory of Nevada, and immediately subsequent to its Organization, do adopt, on behalf of the people of said Territory the Constitution of the United States[.]

Sorry, I don't see them signing away said territory. Perhaps you can point it out and we'll discuss it?

I'm on my phone, so posting quotes is a pain in the ass. Look at the section titled "Ordinance" - specifically, the sentence after the word "Third".

 

[bendog]

You do know that we fought a Revolution over unjust revenue collected by the king....don't you?

Good luck with that. I'm sure all the militas weep for the rancher. Personally, I'm all for maximizing the economic use of public lands, and that doesn't involve subsidizing some guy who is raising cattle in a less efficient way than other guys raise cattle. Back when the gop was actually SANE, govt's purpose was to maximize efficient private markets. There was a link to cato, and I fail to see how it is OUR interest to privatize something that actually brings in more tax dollars than it costs to manage it.

What the Constitution Does Not Do

The Constitution does not give you rights. The founders considered your rights to be "God-given" or "natural rights" — you are born with all your rights. The constitution does, however, protect your rights by:

• Limiting the powers of government by granting to it only those specific powers that are listed in the Constitution; (This has not proven to be effective of late.)
• Enumerating certain, specific rights which you retain. These are listed in the Bill of Rights.

The rights deemed most important by the founders are specifically listed in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights also says that, even though a particular right is not listed in the Bill of Rights, you still retain that right. Any powers not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are retained by the states and the people (you).
So, without the Constitution, the states and the people have all the rights and there is no federal government. With the Constitution, the states and the people keep any rights not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. The Constitution states this very clearly.
Unfortunately, the government today seems to recognize only those rights specifically listed in the Bill of Rights and even these often receive little more than lip service, when your rights interfere with some government objective.

Yes, putting MONEY before ones rights, freedom, and liberty is something the Founders wanted!....LOLOL!

Here's a cyberquarter for you. The BLM is constitutional, as is the fed govt management of public land as are grazing leases.

 

[Vigilante]

Google "Nevada State Constitution". It's in the first paragraph.

The Act of Congress Approved March Twenty First A.D. Eighteen Hundred and Sixty Four “To enable the People of the Territory of Nevada to form a Constitution and State Government and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the Original States,” requires that the Members of the Convention for framing said Constitution shall, after Organization, on behalf of the people of said Territory, adopt the Constitution of the United States.—Therefore, Be it Resolved, That the Members of this Convention, elected by the Authority of the aforesaid enabling Act of Congress, Assembled in Carson City the Capital of said Territory of Nevada, and immediately subsequent to its Organization, do adopt, on behalf of the people of said Territory the Constitution of the United States[.]

Sorry, I don't see them signing away said territory. Perhaps you can point it out and we'll discuss it?

I'm on my phone, so posting quotes is a pain in the ass. Look at the section titled "Ordinance" - specifically, the sentence after the word "Third".

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; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.
I believe you are correct. Now the question is does the state have a grazing tax on it's state appropriated property, if not, then it seems by the above statement that they can't be taxed on grazing on Federal land unless provided by Congress.

 

[Vigilante]

Good luck with that. I'm sure all the militas weep for the rancher. Personally, I'm all for maximizing the economic use of public lands, and that doesn't involve subsidizing some guy who is raising cattle in a less efficient way than other guys raise cattle. Back when the gop was actually SANE, govt's purpose was to maximize efficient private markets. There was a link to cato, and I fail to see how it is OUR interest to privatize something that actually brings in more tax dollars than it costs to manage it.

What the Constitution Does Not Do

The Constitution does not give you rights. The founders considered your rights to be "God-given" or "natural rights" — you are born with all your rights. The constitution does, however, protect your rights by:

• Limiting the powers of government by granting to it only those specific powers that are listed in the Constitution; (This has not proven to be effective of late.)
• Enumerating certain, specific rights which you retain. These are listed in the Bill of Rights.

The rights deemed most important by the founders are specifically listed in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights also says that, even though a particular right is not listed in the Bill of Rights, you still retain that right. Any powers not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are retained by the states and the people (you).
So, without the Constitution, the states and the people have all the rights and there is no federal government. With the Constitution, the states and the people keep any rights not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. The Constitution states this very clearly.
Unfortunately, the government today seems to recognize only those rights specifically listed in the Bill of Rights and even these often receive little more than lip service, when your rights interfere with some government objective.

Yes, putting MONEY before ones rights, freedom, and liberty is something the Founders wanted!....LOLOL!

Here's a cyberquarter for you. The BLM is constitutional, as is the fed govt management of public land as are grazing leases.

This doesn't answer my statement. Is money a consideration anywhere within the Constitution, or is uit all about rights, freedom and liberty?

 

[The T]

You do know that we fought a Revolution over unjust revenue collected by the king....don't you?

Good luck with that. I'm sure all the militas weep for the rancher. Personally, I'm all for maximizing the economic use of public lands, and that doesn't involve subsidizing some guy who is raising cattle in a less efficient way than other guys raise cattle. Back when the gop was actually SANE, govt's purpose was to maximize efficient private markets. There was a link to cato, and I fail to see how it is OUR interest to privatize something that actually brings in more tax dollars than it costs to manage it.

What the Constitution Does Not Do

The Constitution does not give you rights. The founders considered your rights to be "God-given" or "natural rights" — you are born with all your rights. The constitution does, however, protect your rights by:

• Limiting the powers of government by granting to it only those specific powers that are listed in the Constitution; (This has not proven to be effective of late.)
• Enumerating certain, specific rights which you retain. These are listed in the Bill of Rights.

The rights deemed most important by the founders are specifically listed in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights also says that, even though a particular right is not listed in the Bill of Rights, you still retain that right. Any powers not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are retained by the states and the people (you).
So, without the Constitution, the states and the people have all the rights and there is no federal government. With the Constitution, the states and the people keep any rights not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. The Constitution states this very clearly.
Unfortunately, the government today seems to recognize only those rights specifically listed in the Bill of Rights and even these often receive little more than lip service, when your rights interfere with some government objective.

Yes, putting MONEY before ones rights, freedom, and liberty is something the Founders wanted!....LOLOL!

They project themselves very well when it is they that worships at the alter of Money, and the public trough...

 

[Flopper]

The Act of Congress Approved March Twenty First A.D. Eighteen Hundred and Sixty Four “To enable the People of the Territory of Nevada to form a Constitution and State Government and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the Original States,” requires that the Members of the Convention for framing said Constitution shall, after Organization, on behalf of the people of said Territory, adopt the Constitution of the United States.—Therefore, Be it Resolved, That the Members of this Convention, elected by the Authority of the aforesaid enabling Act of Congress, Assembled in Carson City the Capital of said Territory of Nevada, and immediately subsequent to its Organization, do adopt, on behalf of the people of said Territory the Constitution of the United States[.]

Sorry, I don't see them signing away said territory. Perhaps you can point it out and we'll discuss it?

I'm on my phone, so posting quotes is a pain in the ass. Look at the section titled "Ordinance" - specifically, the sentence after the word "Third".

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; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.
I believe you are correct. Now the question is does the state have a grazing tax on it's state appropriated property, if not, then it seems by the above statement that they can't be taxed on grazing on Federal land unless provided by Congress.

It's not a tax, it's a grazing fee. Half of the grazing fee is kept by the agency for the “Range Betterment Fund,” which includes planting, restoration, planning, and protection; weed control, and management of wild horses and burros. Half of the remainder is given to states or counties in lieu of property taxes.

 

[Vigilante]

I'm on my phone, so posting quotes is a pain in the ass. Look at the section titled "Ordinance" - specifically, the sentence after the word "Third".

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; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.
I believe you are correct. Now the question is does the state have a grazing tax on it's state appropriated property, if not, then it seems by the above statement that they can't be taxed on grazing on Federal land unless provided by Congress.

It's not a tax, it's a grazing fee. Half of the grazing fee is kept by the agency for the “Range Betterment Fund,” which includes planting, restoration, planning, and protection; weed control, and management of wild horses and burros. Half of the remainder is given to states or counties in lieu of property taxes.

Is that like the PENALTY in obumacare isn't a tax until the SCOTUS says it is?

 

[Dot Com]

then they can decline all further water transfers and subsidies Good thing you're not a lawyer OP or those people would unknowingly screw themselves.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The Act of Congress Approved March Twenty First A.D. Eighteen Hundred and Sixty Four “To enable the People of the Territory of Nevada to form a Constitution and State Government and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the Original States,” requires that the Members of the Convention for framing said Constitution shall, after Organization, on behalf of the people of said Territory, adopt the Constitution of the United States.—Therefore, Be it Resolved, That the Members of this Convention, elected by the Authority of the aforesaid enabling Act of Congress, Assembled in Carson City the Capital of said Territory of Nevada, and immediately subsequent to its Organization, do adopt, on behalf of the people of said Territory the Constitution of the United States[.]

Sorry, I don't see them signing away said territory. Perhaps you can point it out and we'll discuss it?

I'm on my phone, so posting quotes is a pain in the ass. Look at the section titled "Ordinance" - specifically, the sentence after the word "Third".

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; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.
I believe you are correct. Now the question is does the state have a grazing tax on it's state appropriated property, if not, then it seems by the above statement that they can't be taxed on grazing on Federal land unless provided by Congress.

The section you bolded prevents the State of Nevada from taxing land owned by people who live outside the state more than land owned by residents of the state. It doesn't have any relevance to the Bundy situation at all.

The Constitution of the State of Nevada doesn't have any say over what the Federal government does with land under it's control.

Kudos for the intellectual honesty, though.

 

[Vigilante]

I'm on my phone, so posting quotes is a pain in the ass. Look at the section titled "Ordinance" - specifically, the sentence after the word "Third".

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; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.
I believe you are correct. Now the question is does the state have a grazing tax on it's state appropriated property, if not, then it seems by the above statement that they can't be taxed on grazing on Federal land unless provided by Congress.

The section you bolded prevents the State of Nevada from taxing land owned by people who live outside the state more than land owned by residents of the state. It doesn't have any relevance to the Bundy situation at all.

The Constitution of the State of Nevada doesn't have any say over what the Federal government does with land under it's control.

Kudos for the intellectual honesty, though.

I took that to mean people living on the federal apportioned land. perhaps my mistake.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.
I believe you are correct. Now the question is does the state have a grazing tax on it's state appropriated property, if not, then it seems by the above statement that they can't be taxed on grazing on Federal land unless provided by Congress.

The section you bolded prevents the State of Nevada from taxing land owned by people who live outside the state more than land owned by residents of the state. It doesn't have any relevance to the Bundy situation at all.

The Constitution of the State of Nevada doesn't have any say over what the Federal government does with land under it's control.

Kudos for the intellectual honesty, though.

I took that to mean people living on the federal apportioned land. perhaps my mistake.

Aside from scientists at various secret military installations, and soldiers on various bases, no one lives on Federal land in Nevada.

 

[Flopper]

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; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.
I believe you are correct. Now the question is does the state have a grazing tax on it's state appropriated property, if not, then it seems by the above statement that they can't be taxed on grazing on Federal land unless provided by Congress.

It's not a tax, it's a grazing fee. Half of the grazing fee is kept by the agency for the “Range Betterment Fund,” which includes planting, restoration, planning, and protection; weed control, and management of wild horses and burros. Half of the remainder is given to states or counties in lieu of property taxes.

Is that like the PENALTY in obumacare isn't a tax until the SCOTUS says it is?

Apparently, you don't understand the difference between a tax, a fee, and a penalty.

 

[Dot Com]

Google "Nevada State Constitution". It's in the first paragraph.

The Act of Congress Approved March Twenty First A.D. Eighteen Hundred and Sixty Four “To enable the People of the Territory of Nevada to form a Constitution and State Government and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the Original States,” requires that the Members of the Convention for framing said Constitution shall, after Organization, on behalf of the people of said Territory, adopt the Constitution of the United States.—Therefore, Be it Resolved, That the Members of this Convention, elected by the Authority of the aforesaid enabling Act of Congress, Assembled in Carson City the Capital of said Territory of Nevada, and immediately subsequent to its Organization, do adopt, on behalf of the people of said Territory the Constitution of the United States[.]

Sorry, I don't see them signing away said territory. Perhaps you can point it out and we'll discuss it?

I'm on my phone, so posting quotes is a pain in the ass. Look at the section titled "Ordinance" - specifically, the sentence after the word "Third".

you are correct. Here it is:

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

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

 

[DriftingSand]

The federal abuse of Cliven Bundy had an unexpected turn as states started evaluating just how much of state land the federal government controls and plans to take their states back.

Western lawmakers gather in Utah to talk federal land takeover | The Salt Lake Tribune

It’s time for Western states to take control of federal lands within their borders, lawmakers and county commissioners from Western states said at Utah’s Capitol on Friday.

More than 50 political leaders from nine states convened for the first time to talk about their joint goal: wresting control of oil-, timber -and mineral-rich lands away from the feds.

Now that states are looking into federal management, they are seeing that the federal government doesn't do a very good job of it.

Great news! The Fed is like cancer ... the more it grows the deadlier it gets.

 

[DriftingSand]

The section you bolded prevents the State of Nevada from taxing land owned by people who live outside the state more than land owned by residents of the state. It doesn't have any relevance to the Bundy situation at all.

The Constitution of the State of Nevada doesn't have any say over what the Federal government does with land under it's control.

Kudos for the intellectual honesty, though.

I took that to mean people living on the federal apportioned land. perhaps my mistake.

Aside from scientists at various secret military installations, and soldiers on various bases, no one lives on Federal land in Nevada.

All the more reason why cattle should graze that land. No sense it wasting it.

 

[DriftingSand]

It's not a tax, it's a grazing fee. Half of the grazing fee is kept by the agency for the “Range Betterment Fund,” which includes planting, restoration, planning, and protection; weed control, and management of wild horses and burros. Half of the remainder is given to states or counties in lieu of property taxes.

Is that like the PENALTY in obumacare isn't a tax until the SCOTUS says it is?

Apparently, you don't understand the difference between a tax, a fee, and a penalty.

Actually ... any additional, hidden charges can be considered a "tax." It's taxing on the pocketbook of the unsuspecting victim.

 

[Vigilante]

The section you bolded prevents the State of Nevada from taxing land owned by people who live outside the state more than land owned by residents of the state. It doesn't have any relevance to the Bundy situation at all.

The Constitution of the State of Nevada doesn't have any say over what the Federal government does with land under it's control.

Kudos for the intellectual honesty, though.

I took that to mean people living on the federal apportioned land. perhaps my mistake.

Aside from scientists at various secret military installations, and soldiers on various bases, no one lives on Federal land in Nevada.

Didn't the Dann sister live on federal land?

 

[Vigilante]

It's not a tax, it's a grazing fee. Half of the grazing fee is kept by the agency for the “Range Betterment Fund,” which includes planting, restoration, planning, and protection; weed control, and management of wild horses and burros. Half of the remainder is given to states or counties in lieu of property taxes.

Is that like the PENALTY in obumacare isn't a tax until the SCOTUS says it is?

Apparently, you don't understand the difference between a tax, a fee, and a penalty.

Perhaps you can enlighten me?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I took that to mean people living on the federal apportioned land. perhaps my mistake.

Aside from scientists at various secret military installations, and soldiers on various bases, no one lives on Federal land in Nevada.

Didn't the Dann sister live on federal land?

No, they just grazed their cattle there, like Bundy.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I took that to mean people living on the federal apportioned land. perhaps my mistake.

Aside from scientists at various secret military installations, and soldiers on various bases, no one lives on Federal land in Nevada.

All the more reason why cattle should graze that land. No sense it wasting it.

No one is arguing that cattle shouldn't graze that land.