I repeat again: You aren’t defending the Constitution. You are defending an increasingly lawless and corrupt administration. And you’re defending Harry Reid’s claims to these lands, too, which is truly abominable.
I’m not sure what you mean by “military installations and anything else”. Are you refering to the wording of Article 1 section 8? Please clarify.
As to the Desert Tortoise, the claim against Bundy has never been about the Tortoise. Bundy stopped paying to graze his cattle seveal years before the government decided to change the use of the government land from grazing to protecting the tortoise. The claim against Bundy stems from his failure to pay rent or leases for the grazing land he was using.
There were no established grazing rights for Bundy. The US government held title to that land BEFORE any of Bundy’s ancestors started grazing that land. Bundy’s family started to graze those lands without permission in the late 1800’s. With the passage of the Taylor grazing act, Congress allowed ranchers to legally continue to use the grazing ranges by paying a grazing fee to the public for their private use of public lands.
This is no different than a state owning the land which is a lake. Usually, at first there are no improvements on that land. Fishermen, recreationist etc come and enjoy the use of the lake. Later the state reasserts it’s ownership rights, makes some improvements and then charges a small fee to use the lake. Only this time, the fisherman who has been fishing that lake for years pays the fee for a while and then stops paying the fee but continues to fish in the lake - for years. The fisherman (rancher) is privately benefiting from a public resource (public lands) without paying the public for the use of that resource (grazing fees).
I am defending the US Government’s claim to these lands as they belong to the government. This is exactly what is allowed by the constitution.