Bryan should explain facts to Congress

According to the Nevada Appeal on Dec. 1, Sen. Bryan was quoted as saying, "Some want to use the bull trout as a vehicle to advance the public lands debate, but that's a broader issue."

Now Senator, please correct me if I am wrong, but was it not the USFS that requested the bull trout in the Jarbidge River be put on the endangered species list? You also said, "Let's sit down and see if we can't develop some kind of process to get this resolved." Now if memory serves me correctly, that process was created in 1787 when we the people wrote the U.S. Constitution that created a Congress and endowed them with 17 legislative powers (aka the enumerated powers) that would be supreme over local legislative powers (and would limit the supremacy of Congress's law to those 17).

Now, only four or five of the original 13 states would join this new union until a constitutional convention was agreed upon. Then the rest joined and in 1791, four years later, the Bill of Rights were added and the ninth article says if it ain't in the enumerated powers given Congress, they ain't got it, and the resources are not there. Now do you get it?

The FS consists of people hired to grow trees for the people because the people need wood, the creating act said.

They are not elected, they are under the Executive Branch that is forbidden to legislate by Article 1, Sec. 1, Clause 1 and pg. 1 "(All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the U.S., which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives,") which legislates within the intent of and its constitutionally delegated authority and cannot delegate or relinquish its legislative authority to the Executive Branch or to anyone else.

Now, Senator, I believe that you were hired by the people of the State of Nevada to look out for the interests of the people of Nevada, not the Clinton administration.

Senator, I believe that we, meaning me, and the constitution, have established that Congress was not given legislative authority over the resources (within the borders of a sovereign state) and that, I'm sure, you will agree that your job in this matter is to explain this to your comrades in D.C. (about the fish, the water they swim in and the tree growers) and if they don't seem to understand the first time you explain it, turn up the jets and explain it again and again until you get it.

Senator, when you were attorney general of Nevada, you were asked to go to the Supreme Court to settle this land dispute between the Feds and Nevada, and the Supreme Court said, "According to the Attorney General of the State of Nevada, the Feds own 87 percent of Nevada." Can you please explain?

Well, Senator, this discussion is not limited to Elko County. It is all over the West and is not about who owns the land. It is about who has constitutional jurisdiction over the resources on and under the land. I am at your service. Please don't hesitate to call or write.