Posted on 04/13/2014 2:31:16 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
You mean those guys who try to give technical help when you call your TV provider?
Considering the amount of internet traffic watching this story I would not be surprised. Many, many Americans are watching closer than ever before the criminals running the District of Criminals plus the State subsidiaries.
The people who ordered them are the ones who need to be strung up.
I have read and it appears the court has done a rare thing in bypassing the Marshall’s service in this order. Me wonders if they will be brought off the bench for the next go around.
Well it is Public Land. At the moment, the legal system deems it to be Federal Land.
As we know, The Law now is quite fluid. Much of The Law now comes from the mouth of Bammy and from the mouth of H0lder.
Why shouldn't The Law also come from the mouth of Cliven Bundy?
We save them for the vultures.
When I saw Marine One flying over us, I knew that moment that he had marked us for him enemy.
Have a care you folks in the west, that he doesn't do to you what he tried to so to us (ie IRS)
The order is permissive not mandatory.
It still gives authority. Wonder why though.
IANAL.
Interesting it mentions the Sheriff and possible resistance or conflict.
Nevada gave up the land when they became a state
http://www.c-span.org/video/?314028-1/federal-land-rights-nevada
The US govt is going to push this Agenda 21 on us until its root hog or die. They will not allow us to retreat.
Thank you.
But regardless what the courts say, do you know if the feds acquired the land via constitutional process with just compensation, or did the feds acquire it bureaucratically outside the framework of the Constitution?
Next, if the feds do own the land in which case Hanity is wrong, then did they acquire it by proper compensation according to either the Constitution's Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I, or the eminent domain clause of the 5th Amendment?Acquired in the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo in 1848, known as the Mexican Cession, approve and verified by the US Senate of the day. Same type of acquisition as the Louisiana Purchase, the Gadsen Purchase, Treaty of Paris, etc.
What constitutional clause am I overlooking that gives any federal agency the right to tell people what to do concerning land that the feds do not own?Well, the Feds are considered to be the clear owners of that land. In this case, it is specifically governed under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. Those two Acts are considered by the courts to have constitutional justification under the following: “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.” Property Clause, U.S. Constitution, Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2.
So, Obastard and Holder’s selective enforcement policy is shot through the entire administration. Good to know the lawlessness is universal.
Grrr
High Ground = Advantage
What needs to be done is let this settle naturally, then, take it up again enmass about two to three weeks prior to the next election. Shout it from the tops of the mountains.
The way I see it, the last polls on how well the citizens trust this government-only a few percent, it would be a real dagger in the hearts of the elites.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.