2 Nevada Counties Go ‘Constitutional’

Bumpskis.

This is important.

Yes, I think so too.

Keep an eye on Nevada. Outside of Las Vegas, Nevada is strongly constitutional.

Less than a month ago, Nye County made a similar move:


Bill of Rights Sanctuary proclaimed in Nye County

Can't post link, search the title to read the article

Last Edited by Lily o' the Valley on 06/14/2021 11:31 AM

To the poster from Netherlands:

Please stop spamming my thread with nonsense posts.

Since the government owns most of Nevada, the residents are ofter justifiably offended by federal actions.



I believe that it is over 90% federal land now.

Didn't Hairy Reed sell the rare-earth mineral rights in those two counties to the Chinese CCP?

If so, the Chinese constitution might supersede all else.

https://imgur.com/a/moPEiby

Could you provide a link to that? He was behind the BLM actions that prompted the Bundy Ranch situation which I believe finally ended with the gtanting of a large tract of land to the Chinese to build a giant solar installation. But that wasin south east Nevada.

As to who has jurisdiction in that sale, I doubt that either of us has the exlertise to settle international jurisdictional disputes. But it is an interesting question. If the Chinese were using that land for activities illegal under US laws, say drug smuggling or gun running, which country's laws would take precedence.

I hear there was a permit for a massive highway interchange in the middle of nowhere with no connected roads that served to freeze mineral rights so the CCP could obtain the rare earths for that land..

Something very fishy along those lines, but this info is always buried with time, then its difficult to find again.

That sounds like the kind of criminal activity that has been SOP in a lot of federal actions in the West. especially in the SW, for eons. The War Against the West has been going on a long time, especially during Democrat administrations.

5 Stares

bigbump

The Bill of Rights is only available to State Citizens.

The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with U.S. citizenship,

as U.S.citizens did not exist until 1868 !
U.S. citizens are NOT We the People.



The Unites States Supreme Court inTwining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99 (1908)said:

The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90 , 23 L. ed. 678), and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2d Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 , 29 L. ed. 615, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment against abridgment by the states, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guaranty against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 , 28 L. ed. 232, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 111, 292), [211 U.S. 78, 99] and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment (West v. Louisiana, 191 U.S. 258 , 48 L. ed. 965, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 650). In Maxwell v. Dow, supra, where the plaintiff in error had been convicted in a state court of a felony upon an information, and by a jury of eight persons, it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and the trial by jury, guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the 14th Amendment. The discussion in that case ought not to be repeated. All the arguments for the other view were considered and answered, the authorities were examined and analyzed, and the decision rested upon the ground that this clause of the 14th Amendment did not forbid the states to abridge the personal rights enumerated in the first eight Amendments, because those rights were not within the meaning of the clause 'privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.' If it be possible to render the principle which governed the decision more clear, it is done so by the dissent of Mr. Justice Harlan. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of national citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the 14th Amendment against abridgment by the states.

"...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.

"The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights, nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship." Jones v. Temmer, 89 F. Supp 1226 (1993)
The case was reversed on appeal. Jones v. Temmer, 57 F.3d 921 (10th Cir. 1995).

US citizens have ONE Right:
"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957(D.P.R.1968)

“A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)

"The persons declared to be citizens are, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject..." Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94, 101, 102 (1884)

"Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity." - Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.

Wait for MSM to be disgusted or call them home grown terrorists