I never said it was his grass. Only that it's ironic (read hypocritical) how the left is screaming over this guy letting his cattle eat wilderness grass, but somehow a mass of people disrupting an entire city of people, is somehow ok. Do I want my entire day ruined by a bunch of spoiled brat yuppy kids, or do I want some cattle eating grass in the wilderness? I'll take Cliven and the cows eating wild grass, over the poop in the park crowd blocking traffic any day.
Now if you want to talk about the grass, let's talk.
You are right, it's not Cliven's grass...... because the government has made it impossible for Cliven to get grass. Government has a monopoly on the land.
Look at Nevada. There is no state in the entire Union with a higher percentage of Federally owned land.
Do you understand now? Cliven can't get his own grass. I'm sure he'd love to have some grass land to let his cattle feed on without being harassed and bothered by some bureaucrats from DC.
Now granted, I still disagree with Cliven on how he's going about this, but the fact is, he's got a point.
Further, there is no provision in the Constitution for the Federal government owning state land. Period. There is none. I've looked. There is no provision allowing the Federal government to setup a land lease system. I've read it. It's not there.
Outside of the states, there is no constraint on buying land, or owning land. But inside the bounds of the constitution, the Federal government has no provision for operating leases on land.
To the point, the Federal government should not be owning any land at all, inside individual states. I understand that the Federals purchased land, and thus owned land to start with. But once each state was formed, all land within that state should have reverted to the property of the states.
Now if the states want to operate a lease system, that's totally up to the state, and is within the framework of the constitution. "all rights reserved for the state.
So based on my reading of the constitution, Cliven is right.