R-J quotes the state Constitution … up to a point

Harry Reid to the right of R-J columnist, if that is possible. (R-J photo by John Locher)

The Las Vegas Review-Journal quotes the Nevada Constitution in the story today in which Harry Reid calls armed opponents of the BLM’s confiscation of Cliven Bundy’s cattle in the Gold Butte area “domestic terrorists.”

The story states:

“Nevada’s 1864 Constitution, however, cedes rights to the vast stretches of public land to the federal government.

“’The people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States,’ the state Constitution says in the ordinance section.

“Reid noted many of the protesters care deeply about the Constitution, both state and federal.

“’Nevada’s Constitution sets out very clearly the situation,’ Reid said.”

That’s accurate, though incomplete.

The story leaves out a footnote:

” [Amended in 1956 and 1996. The first amendment was proposed and passed by the 1953 legislature; agreed to and passed by the 1955 legislature; approved and ratified by the people at the 1956 general election. See: Statutes of Nevada 1953, p. 718; Statutes of Nevada 1955, p. 926. The second amendment was proposed and passed by the 1993 legislature; agreed to and passed by the 1995 legislature; and approved and ratified by the people at the 1996 general election, effective on the date Congress consents to amendment or a legal determination is made that such consent is not necessary. See: Statutes of Nevada 1993, p. 3136; Statutes of Nevada 1995, p. 2917.]”

The Legislature and the voters — by more than 56 percent in 1996 — repealed the so-called Disclaimer Clause. But for 18 years the Congress and the courts have done nothing to carry out the will of the voters of Nevada.

So, what does the state Constitution really say now?

In reply to Reid, Bundy said it was the armed-to-the-teeth BLM agents who were the terrorists.




46 comments on “R-J quotes the state Constitution … up to a point

  1. Vernon Clayson says:

    It’s obvious the state and these state amendments run at cross currents to the federal government effort to centralize government at their level. It’s beyond odd, leading Democrat, Senator Harry Reid departed Washington to lead the government’s war against the last rancher standing in Clark County: so far the war has only caused the death of a few cattle and the dismantling of a few of their life sustaining water tanks but now that protestors are officially labeled terrorists it can be open season on them. What’s next, tanks, weapons carriers, perhaps our very own Tiananmen Square moment? The Obama government can’t afford another scandal and the media would have a difficult time ignoring the use of deadly force against citizens so they will go slow. This is bizarre but it has the usual Obama administration machinations, first it was to save the turtles, now it’s Cliven Bundy’s past due bill. Get rid of a few range roaming cows, all while illegal immigration continues unabated.

  2. nyp says:

    It is not repealable. Ask Jefferson Davis.

  3. We’re talking about the Disclaimer Clause, not statehood, Petey.

  4. Winston Smith says:

    So, they’re now demonizing Bundy. I’m shocked, shocked! (I miss Vin writing that every year or so).

    Tom, you must remember, in the leftist mindset, there is no such thing as amending a constitution. If the government needs more power, it should just take it. If it needs its power restricted…oh…well…that never happens.

    So, why bother with that silly amending when it’s anachronistic?

    War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength; Bundy is Evil

  5. nyp says:

    Your argument was that the original “disclaimer” could subsequently be withdrawn.
    No dice.

    As the idioticstatement by a 9/11 truther that “in the leftist mindset, there is no such thing as amending a constitution,” I will note the the U.S. Constitution contains a specific provision governing how it may be amended.

  6. The residents of the territory bound the residents of the state in perpetuity?

  7. Athos says:

    Harry Greid, the gift that keeps on giving. Wonder if he pays taxes on the bribes he keeps on taking?

  8. Athos says:

    Actually, isn’t the federal land owned by the people? Isn’t that how it’s supposed to work?

    Aren’t our elected officials supposed to be the servants of the people? Do they really feel they’re our trusted keepers of the common good?

    Or are there different motives for spending billion$ to be elected to a $170k/yr temporary job?

  9. Steve says:

    The feds were supposed to sell land to the state as uses were identified. Ranching, in the day, was most certainly a legitimate use.

    Any libs have any ideas as to why the lands were not sold to Nevada as promised? (Of course no one in the federal government would ever go back on their word….)

  10. Anonymous says:

    If you don’t like it, pass a law through the Congress and get the President to sign it.

  11. Steve says:

    good idea anon…tho, since the feds promised to sell the lands to the state as uses were identified…why would anyone ever need a law? Its our government…the people running it would NEVER go back on their word…would they?

  12. Winston Smith says:

    Oh, petey, let me rephrase myself so you’ll understand: “in the leftist mindset, there is no need for such thing as amending a constitution.”

    There, better?

    P.S. Thank you for remembering my views on WTC 7. And here I thought you’d forgotten…

  13. Athos says:

    Once again affirming that our liberties are given to us by the State ( via majority rules), NOT by our Creator.

    Fellas, the Declaration of Independence is not a long document, and states our position quite succinctly.

    Just because you don’t believe in God (thus making God given rights a moot point) doesn’t alter the truth that we have inalienable rights!

  14. Nyp says:

    Is there some contract in which “the Feds” promised to sell off its federal land? Some document? Some statement in the Congressional Record?

  15. Nyp says:

    Athos – as a free market kind of guy, how much are you willing to pay for the land you want to People of the United States to sell off?

  16. Nevada statehood ordinance:

    “Sec. 10. Five percent of subsequent sales of public lands by United States to be paid to state for public roads and irrigation. And be it further enacted, That five percentum of the proceeds of the sales of all public lands lying within said state, which shall be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said state into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to the said state for the purpose of making and improving public roads, constructing ditches or canals, to effect a general system of irrigation of the agricultural land in the state, as the legislature shall direct.”

    “which shall be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said state into the Union …”

  17. Athos says:

    Are you Harry Greid’s bagman now, petey?

  18. Anonymous says:

    So that is what one side said. Don’t see anything from the other side — the People of the United States of America.

  19. NYP says:

    Athos – yes. How much are you willing to pay for all that land?

  20. Steve says:

    Click to access chapter1.pdf

    Nevada is developed now and Nevada should be in full control of the lands within its borders.

  21. NYP says:

    Just name your price.

  22. Steve says:

    “Sec. 10. Five percent of subsequent sales of public lands by United States to be paid to state”

    They sell the lands and pay the state.

  23. Anonymous says:

    For how much?

  24. NYP says:

    Good to see how alike we all are. Like you and Bundy, I would like the government to give me free stuff

  25. Fair market value.

  26. The govt did not give Bundy free stuff. It took the value of his water and grazing rights and would have made his ranch worthless.

  27. Steve says:

    First things first…the FEDS are required to offer the land for sale…currently the feds are not offering any such thing. All that is happening are land swaps. The state does not get paid for any of that. The feds are not selling anything. they are not offering any lands for sale.

    The “fees” they are charging amount to “rent” and the state does not get anything from that money either.

    First things first…it is impossible to make an offer to an “owner” that is not selling.

  28. Steve says:

    Bundy failed to prove his ownership in court. That only means the feds are real good at hiding the records private party’s may or may not be very good at keeping over generations.
    This is one reason to have a government that keeps public records and is transparent and honest in all things…no way our beloved federal government would ever do anything underhanded…just ask their true believers NYP!

  29. A high ranking Interior Dept official once told an R-J editorial board that the dept’s policy was to acquire an acre of land for every acre sold so there would never be a net decline acreage.

  30. Athos says:

    ‘Anyone who thinks that letting the government take care of you is a good idea, needs to take a better look at the plight of the American Indians.’ ~ Henry Ford

  31. Nyp says:

    Nah, he doesn’t want free stuff. He just wants to make use of property that doesn’t belong to him, and not pay for it, in perpetuity.

  32. Steve says:

    Nah, he just didn’t have enough paper to prove his family owns the rights to graze that land.

    No way would anyone in the fed/gov try to keep that stuff hidden away.

  33. Nyp says:

    It’s a conspiracy

  34. Steve says:

    Nah, feds just want to railroad the ranchers.

    No conspiracy…its pretty obvious.

  35. Athos says:

    Geez, Louise, fellas. The reasons are so obvious, as plain as the nose on your face:

    Greids! Harry and Rory and a Chinese green energy company. (Plus Billion$ of future taxpayers’ money$)

    You need to feed your seeing eye dogs better!

  36. Steve says:

    Suspicion is fine Athos. Proof would be a whole bunch better.

    With anything Reid proof, if at all available, is at best…fleeting.

  37. Athos says:

    People say Vegas was better when it was run by the Mob.

    Now we got the Greids.

    “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

  38. Athos says:

    As to proof, Steve, check out a fella named Rusty Hill. And then go to


    (Clark County) and look up Reid Bunkerville LLC. Owns an awful lot of land in the middle of nowhere, that they paid $0.


    Maybe a law enforcement agency will grow a set and get to the bottom of this,eh?

  39. Steve says:

    Proving only, in Nevada all things greed lead to a Reid.
    Reid names have been tied to those lands since 1986. The properties are very close to developed land, meaning military use is unlikely.
    Nothing will stick from any of that stuff, Athos.
    Knowing the guy is a crook and proving it are two entirely different things.

  40. Athos says:

    Well, we can all dream of a day when justice gets the crooks, can’t we?

  41. Steve says:

    Like many powerful politicians before him, Harry Reid has Teflon armor. Dreaming about catching him is about we will ever see.

    Reality, like the wind, blows sometimes. But it is real.

  42. Athos says:

    My favorite movies and stories have good triumphant over evil.
    Makes me feel good, you know?

    He’s a funny from an old friend of mine, Argus Hamilton:

    The White House revealed Obama’s income tax return on Monday which show the president’s income fell twenty-one percent last year, the third year in a row he’s made less money than the year before. You can’t make it up. Even Obama is doing lousy under Obama.

  43. Steve says:

    His book sales went down…another victim of print media shrinking….or maybe it was stiff competition from that other autobiography cleverly titled “Autobiography”.

    His effective tax rate went up over 2012…from 18 to 20 percent and it was calculated under the AMT. He does not put money into stocks (his dividends were only 3$ for the year) making many wonder just where he is putting his money…mason jars buried in the rose garden?

    Though his adjusted income put him in the AMT, it did not put him over the top and into that new 39 percent bracket or he would have done even worse over last year.

    Maybe he should write a new book and title it “Book”

  44. Athos says:

    Print it in Spanish and sell 20 million copies!

  45. […] The Constitution for the past 18 years has contained a footnote: […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s