The Legality of Federal Land. Constitutional? BLM Cliven Bundy Ranch, New BLM Whistleblower, Reid Bunkerville, Senator Harry Reid, Nevada

New Update! Federal Land.Constitutional? & New BLM Whistleblower Rusty Hill who uncovered the corporations and shady land deals connected to Reid Bunkerville LLC, Zion Bank Corp, and BLM lands surrounding the Bundy properties. New BLM Whistleblower, Bundy Ranch Magnesium rich land.

Here’s the website to search the history of lands.

Looked up property records for Clark County, Nevada. Guess what I found?

Property ownership records for entities known as Reid Bunkerville, LLC and Reid Bunkerville Trust and Reid Acquisitions, LLC.

Reid.Bunkerville. What are the odds?…

Federal Land Ownership

The Legality of Federal Land. Constitutional?

The Constitution’s Treaty Power authorizes the federal government to acquire territory.

However, land acquired—through, for example, the Treaty Power—may be held only for enumerated purposes. Land not needed for such purposes must be disposed of within a reasonable time. The federal government should have disposed of BLM grazing land long ago.

In fact, for the federal government to own a large share of American real estate (currently about 28 percent) is directly contrary to certain values the Constitution was designed to further.

Disposal” does not require handing real estate over to state government. On the contrary, in many situations doing so would conflict with federal officials’ duties of trust. In each instance, disposal should be effectuated so as to further the general welfare. In the case of some parcels, it may mean transferring to state government. But it may also require selling to the highest bidder, or, in the case of environmentally sensitive lands, transferring to perpetual environmental trusts, as is commonly done in England.

The Enclave Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17) is really more about governmental jurisdiction than ownership. The federal government can have an enclave in which much of the territory is titled to private parties—as is true of Washington, D.C. It’s just that in an enclave, federal rather than statejurisdiction is supreme. Enclaves may be held only for enumerated purposes (as signaled by the use of the 18th century legal term “needful”). State consent to creation of an enclave is required, and consent can be conditional upon the federal government honoring particular terms.

The Enclave Clause was sold to the ratifying public on the basis that enclaves would be relatively small. Holding massive tracts of undeveloped land (such as in Yosemite National Park, nearly 750,000 acres) as enclaves is not what the Founders had in mind.

This is signaled by the Constitution’s use of the word “Building.” In the 18th century, the term did not have to mean an enclosed space, but it did have to refer to a fabricated construction of some kind, since as a dockyard or (in modern terms) an airport runway.

But not every parcel of federal land need be an enclave: In fact, most are not and should not be. Non-enclave land owned by the federal government is held under the Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2), and should be held only for enumerated purposes. Grazing, for example, is not an enumerated purpose.

Non-enclave federal property within states is subject to state law. Contrary to current Supreme Court doctrine, when the federal government owns non-enclave land, the federal government usually should be treated like any other landowner, so long as the state respects the discharge of legitimate federal functions.

  • “To establish post offices and post roads;”
  • “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;”

If the Constitution is to be taken seriously and literally, Congress has no authority to acquire land except for the enumerated purposes. (As for that “other needful buildings” clause, a building can only be “needful” if it’s required for the exercise of one of the other enumerated powers.)

it was not until relatively late in the nation’s history that the federal government adopted the posture that it could exercise the rights associated with ownership of land for a purpose not mentioned in Article I, Section 8. More, the conceit is fan-danced by an exceedingly thin rationale: that “federal land” is in reality “owned by American citizens represented by the Federal government.”

Such an assertion answers to none of the usual characteristics of ownership. If We the People are the true owners of federal lands, why are we restricted in their use? Why can we not homestead portions of them, turning such portions into private property? Why does the federal government, rather than “American citizens,” possess the sole privilege of exercising the all-important power to exclude undesired aliens from access to those lands? (A fair number of persons in southern Arizona would like answers to that last question.)

There are, of course, other considerations arising from the explicitly purposive property-acquisition clauses of Article I Section 8:

  • Which of the enumerated powers of Congress authorizes its assertion of an owner’s rights over approximately 28% of the land area of the United States?
  • What “forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings,” in the context of Congress’s enumerated powers, make that 28% appropriately federal property?
  • Where in the Constitution is any branch of the federal government awarded the power to dispossess private owners for the sake of a “national monument,” or some “endangered species?”

Ultimately, the question is one of strict versus loose construction. If the Constitution permits only those exertions of authority explicitly stated in its text, then the entire federal edifice of land “management” in all its forms is unConstitutional. Alternately, if the Constitution permits the federal government to do whatever is not explicitly forbidden to it, then Congress can appropriate lands and treat them as federal property without reference to an authorized, purposeful use.

Loose constructionists seldom trouble themselves about the implications of their stance. It hallows the seizure of private property “for public use” regardless of whether the subsequent actions implied by the stated use are ever undertaken. It sanctions the internment of the West Coast Japanese during World War II. It blesses the creation of a federal penal code of indefinite length and complexity, which criminalizes actions that have been deemed legal and acceptable throughout human history.. It permits the arbitrary redefinition of who is and who is not an American citizen, and of what rights other than those explicitly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights a citizen possesses.

And it smiles upon the efforts of the Bureau of Land Management, through its armed hirelings, to dispossess a private rancher whose family business has continued uninterrupted in one place for more than a century, so that Dingy Harry Reid and his son might turn a fast buck selling that rancher’s spread.

what we are witnessing today: a war against the American citizenry. Is it any wonder then that Americans are starting to resist?

More and more, Americans are tired, frustrated, anxious, and worried about the state of their country. They are afraid of an increasingly violent and oppressive federal government, and they are worried about the economic insecurity which still grips the nation. And they’re growing increasingly sick of being treated like suspects and criminals. As former law professor John Baker, who has studied the growing problem of overcriminalization, noted, “There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime. That is not an exaggeration.”

To make matters worse, a recent scientific study by Princeton researchers confirms that the United States of America is not the democracy that is purports to be, but rather an oligarchy, in which “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy.” As PolicyMic explains, “An oligarchy is a system where power is effectively wielded by a small number of individuals defined by their status called oligarchs. Members of the oligarchy are the rich, the well connected and the politically powerful, as well as particularly well placed individuals in institutions like banking and finance or the military… In other words, their statistics say your opinion literally does not matter.

So if average Americans, having largely lost all of the conventional markers of influencing government, whether through elections, petition, or protest, have no way to impact their government, no way to be heard, no assurance that their concerns are truly being represented and their government is one “by the people, of the people, and for the people,” as opposed to being engineered expressly for the benefit of the wealthy elite, then where does that leave them?

To some, the choice is clear. As psychologist Erich Fromm recognized in his insightful book, On Disobedience: “If a man can only obey and not disobey, he is a slave; if he can only disobey and not obey, he is a rebel (not a revolutionary). He acts out of anger, disappointment, resentment, yet not in the name of a conviction or a principle.”

Similar federal grazing legal cases

Several other legal cases in Nevada run parallel to the Bundy case. They involve public domain lands that are controlled by federal agencies and ranchers who were taken to court for cattle grazing permit violations or trespass cattle.

United States v Gardner

Cliff Gardner, a defendant in an illegal cattle grazing court case in Nevada,[74] US v Gardner,[88] drew comparisons to his case when he said “I think Cliven is taking a stand not only for family ranchers, but also for every freedom-loving American, for everyone.[74] I’ve been trying to resolve these same types of issues since 1984.”[74] Gardner argued and lost on states’ rights similar to Bundy,[2][74][88] and eventually served time for ignoring court orders and contempt.[74] The Gardner case is cited in Bundy court filings. In United States v Gardner, decided in the District Court and later affirmed by United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, the Gardners did not contest that they grazed livestock without a permit, nor the amount of the fee assessed. Instead, the Gardners asserted that the lands in the state of Nevada where they grazed, did not belong to the United States, and therefore the Forest Service did not have jurisdiction to regulate use of the land or levy fees for unauthorized activities within it.[88] In March 2002, Cliff Gardner was sentenced to a month in a Reno halfway house, along with a $5,000 fine and a year of probation.[74]

United States v Hage

Elko County commissioner, Nevada rancher, and conservative Republican political activist Demar Dahl notes that Bundy might benefit from following Nye County rancher Wayne Hage, who won a protracted battle with the federal government by successfully arguing that he had the right to graze his cows within two miles of water sources he developed. In a similar case[89] to Bundy’s, ranchers in 2007 were sued by the Justice Department for trespassing on public domain lands in Nevada.[89][90] The ranchers are alleged to have repeatedly grazed livestock without federal permits despite repeated trespass notices from the BLM and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service.[90] The court found in favor of the ranchers for all other charges, including water rights,[89] grazing rights and all but two livestock trespass charges in United States v. Wayne Hage (2013). In the ruling, the judge said, “government officials … entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also of their vested water rights. This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm to support the injunction described at the end of this Order.”[91]


Bundy Ranch, New BLM Whistleblower, Senator Harry Reid, Bureau of Land Management BLM, Cattle, Conflict Showdown & Revolution

The Legality of Federal Land. Constitutional? BLM Cliven Bundy Ranch, New BLM Whistleblower, Reid Bunkerville, Senator Harry Reid, Nevada

<Part2 Bundy Ranch, BLM Abused Cliven Bundy’s Cattle, Mass Graves, PETA, Ranch Damaged


<Part1 Bundy Ranch, Senator Harry Reid, Bureau of Land Management BLM, Cattle, Conflict Showdown & Revolution ,

4 thoughts on “The Legality of Federal Land. Constitutional? BLM Cliven Bundy Ranch, New BLM Whistleblower, Reid Bunkerville, Senator Harry Reid, Nevada

  1. Pingback: Bundy Ranch, BLM Abused Cliven Bundy’s Cattle, Mass Graves, PETA, Ranch Damaged | usnewsghost

  2. Thanks for your marvelous posting! I seriously enjoyed reading it,
    you could be a great author. I will be sure to bookmark your blog and
    will come back sometime soon. I want to encourage continue your great posts, have a
    nice evening!

  3. Pingback: Recent Top News, GMOs, Edward Snowden, Ukraine, Science, Internet, Bitcoin | PicNews

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s