Posted on 04/10/2014 10:48:03 PM PDT by ponygirl
Watch this excellent speech given by a Bundy friend & neighbor at a town hall meeting.
Interesting. But the GOP isn’t getting a pass here. Neither is the so called tea party in congress. GOP is expressly authorizing funding for ATF and BLM. There hasn’t even benn so much as a bill authored and sponsored to stop funding them. They. Own. This. But you sure have a lot of GOP using this thuggery as a justification to give all that power to them, not to get rid of that power. You are all being played.
You happen to think the Feds have the right to own this property. I happen to believe you're wrong.
I happen to think Cliven Bundy is merely the last man standing in a battle which has gone on for over 20 years and you choose to side with the Feds. Good luck to you with that. This corruption will continue and they will move the goal posts and change the rules as they see fit to accomplish their goal of total servitude of the people. Remember whose side you were on when they get around to you.
That is a tougher question than you might think. The original bison on this continent were extirpated by hunters after the Pleistocene. The ones we had when white guys got here originated from Asia, as did the wolf.
The real problem seems to be one of legality. Who paid what when. I read here the rancher did not pay his grazing fees and the enviros did. His cattle are thus grazing on their land.
Indeed, that is a problem. Yet there is another legal problem in that the Feds have no constitutional authority to enforce their contract at gunpoint. That is up to the sheriff.
That the federal government owns the land.
Remember whose side you were on when they get around to you.
I'm not on the government's side. I've made that clear. Believing that Bundy is legally in the wrong does not equate to supporting a small-scale, armed invasion to remove cattle from federal land.
The land in question is a small portion of what is now known as the Lake Mead National Recreational Area. Even so, the land in question is over 600,000 acres. That is roughly the size of half of Delaware.
So Article 1 Section 8 says that Congress has exclusive legislative authory over lands that the government owns. If you want to look into the qualifying clause, Hover Dam (Lake Mead National Recreational Area) certainly qualifies a “... other useful building”
A break down of Article 1 section 8 by clauses:
1) To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,
2) over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,
3) and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
In #1 we see the primary clause of this section - Exclusive jurisdiction
In #2 we see the provision for the District of Columbia
In #3 we see that Congress has “like authority” referring back to #1 and then it states over what ... “all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be”.
During the creation of the state of Nevada, Congress, who already owned much of the lands of the territory of Nevada from the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, made the stipulation that certain ordinances were required in order for Nevada to be accepted as a state. One of these was that the state would give up control of lands owned by the US Government. This can be seen in the state constitution:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst.html
Under the section entitled “Ordinance”, first paragraph, clause #3 which reads:
Third. That 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; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.
I’ve not followed this story too closely. Did Mr Bundy file suit against gvt when he first stopped leasing from them? Just curious about that...if there’s a longer history to this, on his side. Thanks.
Now that is an interesting point. We have not learned how this jurisdictional legal nicety was handled.
I don’t know where the authority of Sheriff’s end or where Federal properties are involved. There are US Marshals that might actually have the authority and deputize BLM types for assistance.
I don’t know.
Sorry, you are incorrect. I have not been defending this administration. I have been defending the Constitution, the very source of all law and order in this nation. The Constitution specificly enumerates the power of Congress to decide what to do with lands owned by the US Government.
Well this isn’t going to be Waco or Ruby Ridge as Stewart Rhodes has sent out a call for Oathkeepers to gather near the Bundy ranch and he flew there yesterday. Apparently several hundred militia are going to show up so its not going to be so easy peasy this time around for the govt goons. They will actually have to fight guys who know the barrel from the butt.
“Anything else is turning our backs on private property rights”
Well actually it would be turning our backs on govt property rights. Which is a good thing. No state should have 80-90% of its land owned by the Federal govt. The Constitution never said that new states joing the union had to donate 80% of their land mass to the Federal govt. Its time for a chanbe.
How many FBI have infiltrated Oathkeepers?
Better question is how many FBI are Oathkeepers?
Events and incidents like this have a tendency to expose the motives of others and who they align themselves with.
The last several days have exposed at least 5 individuals.
While I agree that the US govenment should be restricted in it’s ownership of land, that is not the current situation under out current Constitution and laws. The way to change that is to modify the constitution.
Did you manage to fish a copy of the Constitution out of Eric Holder's toilet?
You could fool me.
Bundy did NOT stop paying it. The BLM refused to honor his payments. He then offered the State of Nevada to hold the funds for the Feds, but the State refused.
You are an uninformed fool and a mouthpiece for corruption. What the HELL are you doing on FreeRepublic spreading these falsehoods?
The Constitution does not need to be amended the clause pertaining to Federal ownership of land is very specific. There is no room for confusion. The Federal govt just needs to be pushed back into its box.
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.