Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues The Legal Forum Let's check in on the cattle abusers, deadbeat grazers, wildlife squatter Bundys

Yeah, that Manifest Destiny, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny
is probably what is going to bring America down in confrontation with the rest of the world.
You know, the one that always was and never went away during American expansionism.

Note in the Wikipedia article that the idea of Manifest Destiny was contested all through the expansion, also by notable Americans.
Manifest Destiny = Illusions of Grandeur

what is clear is you do not know nor understand any American history. I recommend taking an American history course or finding several respected histories with various viewpoints to enhance your knowledge and understanding.

Some snippets for consideration:
the original colonies were land grants (rightfully or wrongly) from the King of England. When we signed the Treaty of Paris (coincidentally I had 13 ancestors who contributed to that treaty), each of those colonies became independent "states" and could be considered in essence nation states. It is for that reason they "manage" their own land and affairs. During the two phases of association with other states, no agreement infringed on the singular states to give up any lands except Washington DC.

In 1804 the Federal Government bought the Louisiana Purchase Territory. Coincidentally I had ancestors in the territory at the time. Note it was the Federal Government which bought the land, not any non-existing States.

In 1848 with the signing of the Guadalupe Hidalgo the Federal Government acquired most of the rest of the western territories. No non-existing state bought or acquired the land.
When states were created specified lands were retained by the federal government. The federal government has no obligation to transfer the land to the states but has on numerous occasions sold land through vehicles such as the Homestead Act.

In no way should this be considered as a complete history just off the top of my head and leaving out later federal acquisitions.

I don't know why you are indignant about federal land ownership disparity among the states. Are you mad because Nevada wasn't a sovereign nation prior to becoming a state in the United States (like Texas), or are you indignant because you are ignorant of the history involved? In either case I believe it is settled law. If you want to change the law, get your Congressman to write a bill.

I have always been interested in American history, although not a scholar on the subject.
The things you briefly told was known to me, not the part of your relatives.

Yes, perhaps you name it right when you call me indignant that the various states are not members of the club on equal footing.

My experiences with contacting congressmen are not of great satisfaction to me. I'll let you know if and when I decide to go that way.

I would think that most of the federal land in Nevada simply never had any interested buyer! The only use for it is for cattle grazing, and ranchers are free to get grazing rights for a few dollars per year per head of cattle. In states like Iowa, farmers wanted to homestead or buy land to clear and plant crops, so they did.

And most important of all, the state of Nevada has not been all that interested in buying federal land. There is no organized movement to get the state to buy federal land. Why should they?

And I think Bundy would resist paying Nevada grazing fees if they DID buy all that federal land around his ranch. So I think your point is pointless.

There is a bigger picture here that is not being addressed, although... again, this has been discussed way back in the thread. When ANYONE wants to use someone else's property, they have to compensate them, right? The going rate in Nevada for grazing fees is $15.00+ a month per head (called AUM). Bundy won't pay that, either. Federal grazing fees are only $1.69 AUM.

PIA is, of course, right. Nevada doesn't want the federal land. As I pointed out months ago, nobody wanted the land when the federal government offered it up a century ago, and they don't want it now. Bundy just wants to get for free what everyone else pays for. That's really all that is going on here.

I'm sure that Swede isn't really sympathetic to thieves and miscreants, he's just a little unclear on the facts and reality of the situation, and immune to persuasion.

Actually, I think Big Swede could buy that land from the federal government and then try to collect his grazing fees from Bundy. Good luck with that.

It used to be quite easy to contact Congress people, and even persuade them. The problem, now, is the volume. So many movements and organizations sponsor write-in campaigns, Congressional offices get inundated. But, a well-written, non-crank letter gets attention. Once upon a time I was an ombudsman in the Lieutenant Governor's office, and helping constituents was a very rewarding job/experience. 90+% of the time we were successful in resolving issues.

Uhhhh NWP, you may want to sit down...

Tom Cotton’s cease-and-desist letters

Well, Shut my mouth!

I laughed out loud. That, by the way, would be a potential constitutional violation. In the United States the right to petition is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

He is PO'd because liberals have caught on to his brand of politically deleterious extremism. Apparently he is much like Mr Trump and only wants constituents to adore and praise him for his idiotic extremist positions.