Cliven Bundy says he doesnt recognize the federal ownership of land he believes belongs to Nevada and has stated that Its a statement for freedom and liberty and the Constitution. Of course, at the writing of the Constitution,
much American land was in fact owned by the federal government. There is no Constitutionality in not recognizing federally-owned land.
Some have gone further, and incorrectly argued that the the US Constitution guaranteed that future states brought into the union would be granted full control over the territory of their borders. This is not only untrue, but the
property clause, which states that Congress has the power
to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States grants the Federal government authority over public land. This is exactly what the
Ninth Circuit decided in United States v. Gardner (107 F.3d 1314 ). Most of the arguments being made by Constitutional proponents of Bundy were denied in the above case (which also took place in Nevada).
For example, Bundy proponents have cited the equality clause which was established in 1783 would indefinitely apply to every future incorporation into the union. However in United States v. Gardner,
the 9th Circuit held that:
The claim by Gardners that it is the duty of the United States to hold public lands in trust for the formation of future states is founded on a case dealing with land acquired by the United States from the thirteen original states
.. This decision was based on the terms of the cessions of the land from Virginia and Georgia to the United States. Before becoming a state, however, Nevada had no independent claim to sovereignty, unlike the original thirteen states. Therefore, the same reasoning is not applicable to this case, in which the federal government was the initial owner of the land from which the state of Nevada was later carved.
The same distinction applies to the
enclave clause, which Bundy proponents have also invoked.
There is another problem: Until 1993 he did pay the federal grazing fees (
signed into law under Ronald Reagan). So, it would seem that he did recognize the federal government as owning the landat least up until 1993. Furthermore, the
Nevada Constitution explicitly recognizes federal ownership of this, and other land within the Nevada territory. So in effect Bundys claimed allegiance to Nevada State Law is awkward at best, since he is in fact contradicting it.