The Clive Bundy Fiasco

by M. Randolph Hamilton

I was talking to a friend of mine recently and asked her what she thought about the issue with the federal government invading the Nevada state in an attempt to steal cattle from Clive Bundy. We both agreed that the federal government was outside it's jurisdiction, but she did not feel that Clive Bundy had the right to graze his cattle on public lands comparing it to someone grazing his cattle on my land or some other neighbor's land.

Bundy grazing his cattle on land for which he pays a fee cannot be compared to a neighbor grazing his cattle on my land unless one would consider he would be paying me for the priviledge, like Clive Bundy is doing in Nevada. It takes a look at the whole picture to get a feel for how things are in Nevada compared to other states. In the Texas state, for example, there are no public lands except for those small areas that are state parks and sometimes national parks. All of the land is privately owned and ranchers can buy more land if they chose to do so. In Nevada, roughly 86% of the land is "public land" because Nevada has determined that everybody owns the land. Ranchers can, for a fee, graze cattle on those lands. It cannot be compared to a neighbor invading your land with his cattle without your permission, since in the Nevada case, a fee is paid for the priviledge.

In Nevada, the state and the county in which the land is located gets a fee from ranchers for grazing their cattle. This arrangement is open to any rancher who is willing to pay the fee. The United States, Inc. otherwise known as the federal government, has decided it was going to try to get a piece of the action. Without considering the United States is now a corporation, we will go into that later, the federal government is a foreign nation in relation to Nevada. They both are the same in relation to each other as Canada is to Mexico. There is no difference. The federal government does not have jurisdiction within any of the 50 states that have agreed to give the federal government specific authority within the states. Those specific authorities are inumerated in the Constitution of the united states of America, not to be confused with the United States of America, the corporation that has it's own territory that started with the "10 square miles" given it in the Constitution. All other "public lands" went with the states in which they are located. The federal government is not authorized to own land.

Just to clarify this, any time the United States Postal Servie wants to open a post office, the state legislature with the state within which the postal service want to open a post office, has to vote to approve granting the postal service to do so. The reason is because the states territory is going to shrink by the amount of property that the postal service is going to purchase and the United States territory is going to grow by that amount. Essentially, the state is ceding part of it's territory to a foreign nation. They didn't teach us that in school, did they?

It gets worse when we consider that the federal government is now a corporation. As a corporation, the federal government has waive all of its sovereignty in exchange for becoming a corporator, or someone who is in business to make money. In this case, they are in business to make money for the federal reserve bank. As a corporatoration, they have no more rights than any other corporation, such as Walm mart of Home Depot. Home Depot cannot go into Nevada and demand that Clive Bundy pay them a feee for grazing his cattle on public lands. Why should the corporation of the United States?

In the case of U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) , the dissenting opinion predicted the circumstance that would grow from the majority's opinion delivered in that case in 1875. It is merely a fact of history now. Read carefully what the dissenting opinion was and compare it to what we have today. (empasis added)

"The idea prevails with some, indeed it has found expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this country substantially two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all of the restrictions; the other to be maintained by the Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to...I take leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty, guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era legislative absolutism...It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of government outside the Supreme law of the land finds lodgement in our Constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution." Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244

They pointed out that there would be two United States, one restricted by the constitution and the other not. The constitution gives it "exclusive jurisdiction" within its territory. What it has done is commit a fraud upon the unsuspecting public over the years, hiding the fact that there are two united states and not clarifying which one the laws that it passes pertains to.

A couple of big examples are the income tax and Obamacare. Do you know where you live?