I have seen arguments concerning the land and sovereignty in Nevada. I can certainly find much agreement in principle. Unfortunately the People of Nevada say different. I say that in sense that the State Constitution speaks for the People of Nevada: ...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.... If I believed Bundy was in the right, I would call for a repeal of the provision in their State Constitution. Now I can fully understand certain arguments made concerning how one defines unappropriated. However, the legal morass lies in the fact that such rights shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States That squarely puts any decision concerning that provision squarely in the realm and in the discretion of the Federal Courts. So I am hoping that you understand that I am not disagreeing with your overall position that all such lands should be under the domain of the counties and states that contain them, and by the people in those domains. However, I am saying that UNDER LAW (as opposed to statutes) the decision of the Federal Courts is final word UNDER LAW. There is little justification to fight this under any constitutional pretext when changing the constitutional pre-text itself should be the point of order. Nevadas Constitution yields to the Feds. Thus, the dispute is not between Bundy and the Feds who have a Constitutionally legitimate court order to enforce, but rather with the People of the State of Nevada who will not remove the onerous portion of their Constitution. I can bet someone in Nevada was coerced to add that clause. If Nevada removed this from their Constitution, I could support the Bundy case vs the Federal Government. I am NOT an anarchist, I do respect Constitutions, even as I might seek to change a provision within.
Posted on: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 23:28:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015