You know, people can read, but they don't understand a thing they read.
It means that the State will follow Federal law, and Federal law will be enforced. It's not a state thing as Bundle would have the morons believe.
It does seem that Nevada is not a sovereign state which probably explains why prostitution is still legal in Nevada that is the only state where it is.
Actually, legal prostitution law points to the fact that Nevada has control of many things, or Sovereignty. We are all a part of the United states, and the US constitution apply s and trumps state law. Only Indian reservations are mostly sovereign.
Only since the uncivil war and especially the 1920's. It wasn't that way originally nor was it meant to be that way.
I should also have added that since the Feds have shut down legal prostitution in all states except Nevada that Nevada is directly under the thumb of the nation state and that state constitution proves it. WOW I can't believe that article is in your state constitution.
Last edited by derby_dude; 04/17/14.
Don't vote knothead, it only encourages them. Anonymous
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Anonymous
"Self-reliance, free thinking, and wealth is anathema to both the power of the State and the Church." Derby Dude
I've recently seen some and tensions were much higher than I had assumed. While I still believe Mr. Bundy doesn't get to decide who owns the land and who he pays for grazing rights, The BLM made a very stupid error in judgement regarding the enforcement of the court order.
From what I've seen, that deal could have easily gotten out of hand.
I've recently seen some and tensions were much higher than I had assumed. While I still believe Mr. Bundy doesn't get to decide who owns the land and who he pays for grazing rights, The BLM made a very stupid error in judgement regarding the enforcement of the court order.
From what I've seen, that deal could have easily gotten out of hand.
No one should die over a grass eating dispute.
I see you don't live West of the Mississippi so there is no way you would understand and quite frankly until I moved West of the Mississippi I didn't either.
Water rights, grazing rights, mineral rights, surface rights, below surface rights, etc. is a foreign concept to people East of the Mississippi. Companies and lawyers make a good living dealing with the law on these rights and there are even special courts set up to deal with water and riparian rights.
Don't vote knothead, it only encourages them. Anonymous
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Anonymous
"Self-reliance, free thinking, and wealth is anathema to both the power of the State and the Church." Derby Dude
They tried storm trooper tactics in the hopes that if they showed up with enough force, it would frighten the natives.
Well we see that didn't work.
I do give them credit for realizing it was a bad situation, that they helped create it and backing off.
That kind of behavior seldom helps your cause.
That is where I am with it.
Same here ^^
It's the storm-trooper mentality that seems to be growing with the Feds over the years that really sticks in my craw.
Watching that wannabe ass hole intentionally putting that f-kin dog on an unarmed citizen had my blood boiling. Wish someone would have turned the table and shot that f-kin cops dog for a change.
Well SB there's 7 reservatons here in Montana, and I can tell you for certain that they are way more sovereign than us. They have no taxes, abide by different laws, have casino's hunt when they want, etc etc etc. They even have signs on the lake that say "ONLY TRIBAL MEMBERS ALLOWED ON BEACH"
I could go on but thats a whole other topic.
The tribes, for any practical discussion are completely beholden to the fed. They are only "sovereign" to the point the feds let them be, until they decide they're not.
As to the constitution, you need to read a little further down in Article I section 8, the part requiring purchase of any land and only when agreed upon by said state legislature, and only for very specific purposes.
When did the federal Government purchase lands in Nevada without the state legislatures approval? This is the first time I heard of such blasphemy.
So do you mean: Article IV Section 3? Because there's nothing in Article I Section 8 stating what you claim.
Quote
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
That means: Congress has charge of the public lands within the states, which in the West constitutes an enormous amount of land. Congress also governs acquired territories, which today include Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
Like I said, you need to look further down:
"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;"
The whole point being made here is the need to set up "needful" buildings etc. for the security, protection and trade of/for the individuals of the United States. Not for fed ownership of 80%+ of state lands to lease back to individuals to fill fed coffers.
“Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” ― G. Orwell
"Why can't men kill big game with the same cartridges women and kids use?" _Eileen Clarke
"Unjust authority confers no obligation of obedience." - Alexander Hamilton
The other thing that scares the schidt out of government is the attention that the control of government has on states with large percentages of public land.
Because the government has such a strangle hold on western states with government control of public land, they also pretty much control the state itself in the day to day operation and regulation of those lands. This is in direct violation of what constitutes "statehood", and actually creates a much larger, and much more powerful "Central Government" than the "illusion of statehood" that is half of the United States.
If the government OWNS and CONTROLS and REGULATES more land than the rest of the land ownership within that state, is it REALLY a sovereign state?
Are people like Reid actually elected representatives of their state, or are state officials and the state itself only a sockpuppet for men like Reid?
Makes you question things.
As Fox News reported yesterday, the name "Reid" is THE name to know in Nevada. You can get nothing done there otherwise. You can't pay off Harry directly, but you can pay the hell out of his son to make things happen.
And Harry Reid's hand picked boy and ex-staffer is now the head honcho at BLM, which controls 80% of Nevada?
No wonder Harry gets nervous when his name is brought up.
Cattle grazing on public lands in the West has not always been an issue between different segments of society. Until recently, cattle grazing was undisputed, a natural part of the culture of the West. Cowboys, Indians, tumbleweeds and cows were the first thoughts to most people's minds when thinking of the western United States. The picture is no longer so clear. For the last couple of decades, a battle has been raging between cattle ranchers and environmentalists. The battle is characterized by mistrust and misunderstanding by both environmentalists and cattle ranchers. The two views are to a large extent, irreconcilable, but there is room for compromise. The battle between these views has rarely been friendly, and has often been fierce. It is a battle fought in American public range policy.
If he indeed follows Nevada's laws, he should note this part in the Nevada State Constitution, Article 1, Section 2:
"All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the [b]Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority."[/b]
Your response is to a copy and past of the actual written law. Sorry you feel dumber! It might be a sign!
I wanted to take a scalp, but the kill was not mine.
Reminds me a bit of the folks who bought the lot to build a house on but then the EPA declared it a wetlands despite there being no water. Smart people would have cut their losses and sold. Only an idiot would have fought the EPA in a process where the only legal appeal was through the EPA - but they did and they finally won.
A lot of our history was determined by "idiots" who got themselves into situations that no rational person would have.
Geez, Calhoun, I can't believe you said that..
So, lemme get this straight.. Just suppose the EPA comes to YOUR place with some bogus BS and says, "you gotta move and we're takin' over your land/house and (whatever) because of ---- new law, and we're payin' you 5 cents on the dollar - or less if you refuse".
You gonna act like a sheep? Or an idiot? (serious question with no malice intended...)
Truthfully? I'd weigh the situation and make my decision. Would I pit my savings, retirement and house to fight against a land grab by the government? One where even if I ended up winning, there was no guarantee I'd get lawyers fees back?
For a family business going back multiple generations, yeah, there very likely would be that type of engagement on my part. To fight over a $75,000 lot that I just bought? I honestly have to say I'm sure I wouldn't risk everything. I'd stand with the guys who did fight tho, rather than just call them idiots.
The world aint' a fair place, pick the battles that matter.
“The Savage 99 Pocket Reference”. All models and variations of 1895’s, 1899’s and 99’s covered. Also dates, checkering, engraving.. Find at www.savagelevers.com
Over 200 LEOs from twenty-some agencies from the local LVMPD to the assorted state and federal 'alphabets' were reputed to be on sight and all were party to the abuses perpetrated and were there to fire on Americans if given any opportunity.
Your original post says this. Which is it?
Originally Posted by Rovering
I do want to comment about the upstanding citizens who came to show their support, including the Oath Keepers, a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders who are committed to defending the Constitution. They are honorable men and women who acted professionally and respectfully.
The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
Dunno. I can't say it's a smart thing to do, but I can't see any other path for Bundy in which he would still be ranching in 2014. Follow the court orders and he'd have had to sell out because 150 head isn't enough to keep ranching
No one placed any limits on how many animals he could own He just can't graze more than 150 on public land The court order only applied to WHERE his animals were
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
Over 200 LEOs from twenty-some agencies from the local LVMPD to the assorted state and federal 'alphabets' were reputed to be on sight and all were party to the abuses perpetrated and were there to fire on Americans if given any opportunity.
Your original post says this. Which is it?
Originally Posted by Rovering
I do want to comment about the upstanding citizens who came to show their support, including the Oath Keepers, a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders who are committed to defending the Constitution. They are honorable men and women who acted professionally and respectfully.
OK, Slowly so even a LEO can understand.
These are my words that I wrote:
Quote
Over 200 LEOs from twenty-some agencies from the local LVMPD to the assorted state and federal 'alphabets' were reputed to be on sight and all were party to the abuses perpetrated and were there to fire on Americans if given any opportunity.
These are Assemblywoman Fiore's words that she wrote:
Quote
I do want to comment about the upstanding citizens who came to show their support, including the Oath Keepers, a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders who are committed to defending the Constitution. They are honorable men and women who acted professionally and respectfully.
You not only do not understand whom wrote what, but you do not understand that Assemblywoman Fiore was not lauding, the over 200 LEOs from twenty-some agencies, the Regime's thugs that she was their to help check. She was lauding the private Oath Keepers organization and its members that were also there as private citizens on the Bundy side of the lines as a check against the Regime's thugs. The very existence of the Oath Keepers as a private organization to counter the oppression and transgressions of the government agencies and government professions of some of its members is an extremely telling commentary.
Again so you can be clear its from me:
The over 200 LEOs from twenty-some agencies from the local LVMPD to the assorted state and federal 'alphabets' that were reputed to be on duty at the Bundy Ranch were party to the abuses perpetrated and were there to fire on Americans if given any opportunity. Every last damn one of them are the tools of tyrants, petty tyrants in their own right, and glaring indictments of your profession.
Dunno. I can't say it's a smart thing to do, but I can't see any other path for Bundy in which he would still be ranching in 2014. Follow the court orders and he'd have had to sell out because 150 head isn't enough to keep ranching
No one placed any limits on how many animals he could own He just can't graze more than 150 on public land The court order only applied to WHERE his animals were
Well, it is Nevada. He can release 900 on his place and let his neighbors build the fences if they want to keep them out.
Yeah....I understand. I didn't say you said it, I said your post said it. You really should find a different hobby. Internet trolling is obviously not for you.
The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
don't we wish
