A statement from Kena Lytle Gloeckner- a fellow rancher from Nevada.
There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following: “You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.” The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow – – not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.
The federal government has no right or claim to to own land as it does within a states borders. I am sharing this article from the Bundy’s Family blog (I hope they don’t mind) from May 2nd, 2012, it explains it from a constitutional point. I don’t believe the founding fathers expected or wanted the federal government to own or have the option to own large tracts of land within a state once it achieved statehood. You can see the outcome of that action here, too much control over the lives of people within a state, violating states rights basically.
Public Lands vs. federal policies
A synopsis by Chuck Horne
(Former Nevada State Legislator and Former Mayor of Mesquite, Nevada)
I have been asked to present a brief constitutionally oriented sketch of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of our Nations public lands policies. In order to do so we must first, firmly establish in our minds our only lawful foundation for this expose.
Marbury v. Madison, as delivered by Chief Justice John Marshall, is considered, even today, to be the “gold standard” of judicial proclamations regarding the separation of powers doctrine. Even though its declarations are Constitutionally self evident, they are almost universally ignored, just ask Congresswomen Nancy Pelosi as she and others of her “ilk” have so pontificated.
It is essential, therefore, to briefly revisit certain declarations of this “gold standard” to remind us of the lawful order of things here in America in order that as we see the light, we will be more capable of administering the heat, so to speak, giving us the courage to ignore or oppose the nonsensical musings of the politically unclean.
Consider then the following from this landmark case, “The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act. . . .”
If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply. . . .”
“Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
The 10th Amendment to the Constitution confirms the limitation of federal powers to just what the contract says it has: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Article IV, Section 3 provides the power to Congress to admit new States into the Union with restrictions that were clearly designed to protect the States reservations of powers. Clause 1 prohibited any existing State boundaries from being changed “without the Consent” of its Legislature. Why that restriction if the Federal Government could own vast tracts of land within State boundaries?
“1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”
Clause 2 was designed to protect both the Federal and State claims to lands and facilities during the westward expansion.
“2: 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.”
How is it that such “Territory or other Property” can exist within State boundaries? Can ownership of it be retained by the Federal Government when the State is admitted to the Union? Can the “Enabling Acts” of certain States, wherein the voters traded their States rights for admission supersede the Constitution? The record of the Constitutional Convention answers with a resounding negative, but for this brief the following must suffice.
The only “Places” that the States ceded legitimate authority to the Congress to own and regulate was over, “all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State”. And if that wasn’t enough protection against Federal abuse they additionally required, “Cession” by the State, which authorized use only for the following purposes; “for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power . . . Clause 17: 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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, regarded as the “foremost jurist America has produced” proclaims regarding this clause, “But if there has been no cession by the State, of a particular place, although it has been constantly occupied and used, under purchase, or otherwise, by the United States, for a fort, arsenal, or other constitutional purpose, the State jurisdiction still remains complete and perfect.”
So where is the legitimate Constitutional authority for the Federal Government to own and regulate vast acreages of land within State’s boundaries, whose resources are then denied “to the States respectively, or to the people” by said government? It does not exist, regardless of the weaknesses of the States or the people to oppose these illegitimate usurpations. What was it that Ben Franklin said? Something like, “a Republic, if you can keep it”!
Hopefully tomorrow I will have a good article that goes into the reasons Cliven bundy has taken the stand that he has. I am going to look at it from the point of view he is and see where it leads. I will admit I am biased in favor of the Bundy family, but the laws do seem to be in his favor, if read properly. Too many judges seem to read into the law what the government needs them to, for a specific agenda.
I am going to try and get a page up for photos and one for videos, for those like myself that can’t be there in person to support the Bundy’s. We can at least see what is really going on there.
Sorry I don’t really have anything new to post right now, everything seems to be quiet out there. I don’t want to post things simply for the sake of posting. Here are a few links to Bundy family blog and facebook pages though for those of you that may not be aware of them.