Skip to comments.Harry Reid on the Bundy ranch standoff: 'This ainít over'
Posted on 04/15/2014 11:42:16 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
For once he’s right. John Hinderaker, who’s sympathetic to Bundy, nonetheless acknowledges that he doesn’t have a leg to stand on legally. Bundy’s theory, that land universally recognized for the past 150 years as belonging to the federal government really belongs to Nevada because it was never properly conveyed to the U.S., is DOA in court. He’ll lose his appeals and then, presumably, he’ll go on refusing to pay grazing fees to use the land. What should the feds do then? Given the publicity the case has drawn and the fact that the judiciary’s on his side, Obama can’t look the other way at Bundy’s continued defiance of the law. He’s happy to do that abroad with bad actors like Putin and Assad because Ukraine and Syria aren’t part of his jurisdiction. (Although fans of the world-policeman theory of foreign policy might disagree.) He can duck those messes, sort of. He can’t duck the one in Nevada, if only because letting Bundy off the hook there is bound to inspire copycat defiance elsewhere. So Reid’s right. This isn’t over.
My question is, how should the feds proceed once Bundy’s appeals are exhausted? What could they do to enforce the court’s order that won’t be treated as some sort of provocation by Bundy supporters? Seize his cattle that are on federal land? Let the cattle graze there but seize some of his assets to make him pay the grazing fee? (If they went the latter route, ranchers would then have a liability right to use federal land for their own purposes, which would interfere with the government’s plans for land use.) Watch the second clip below and you’ll find Glenn Beck taken aback by the violent rhetoric among some Bundy supporters, a portion of whom he thinks are clearly spoiling for a fight. Then watch the first clip, where one supporter is interviewed, and you’ll see why. (Another supporter, a former sheriff, spitballed on Fox News yesterday about placing women at the front of the protest crowd to maximize the PR damage to the feds in case shooting breaks out.) Remember, Bundy doesn’t recognize federal jurisdiction over the land at all; any interference with his cattle by the BLM, no matter how light a touch is used, will presumably be regarded by him and his fans as illegal and therefore worthy of resistance.
Maybe, since Bundy recognizes Nevada’s authority over the land, the feds could ask Nevada authorities to remove the cattle? Not sure the local cops would be up for that, though, partly because of the politics involved in siding with the feds against a native rancher and partly because it sets a precedent of doing the feds’ dirty work for them anytime someone raises an objection to federal authority. Besides, would that really appease Bundy? If the county commissioner shows up and tells him that it really is federal land, according to the government of Nevada, would that do it or would Bundy go on believing his own theory?
Legal court order and rule of law sound more and more hollow.
No, dirty Harry. It won’t be over until we have term limits so scumbags like you can’t make a lucrative career of elective office on our tax dollars, until a thorough investigation is conducted on your finances, and until a law is passed stripping you and your colleagues in crime of all your special “perks”, pensions and other illegitimate benefits.
If he is not involved, why is he commenting? Hmmm?
The big problem with this theory is that the federal government took title to this land from Mexico by the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo in 1848. Nevada didn't become a state till 1864. Bundy's family didn't show up till 1877 or some such date.
Any way you slice it, federal ownership has been around a lot longer than any of the other parties involved.
Whether that's good policy is a whole other question.
Someone has resist federal theft of public lands, and it isn’t going to be politicians or our courts. States should demand their land, and when they don’t the people need to do it. It’s way past time to bring the constitutionality of public land ownership to the attention of the public. The federal government shouldn’t own the land Bundy’s cattle are grazing on.
Well since the FedGov doesn’t seem to be enforcing immigration laws, why the hell should it be enforcing ANY law against it’s own citizens?
The Bundys have as much right to the land as Harry Reid does to his in Searchlight, also prime tortoise grounds.
Someone has resist federal theft of public lands, and it isnt going to be politicians or our courts. States should demand their land, and when they dont the people need to do it. Its way past time to bring the constitutionality of public land ownership to the attention of the public. The federal government shouldnt own the land Bundys cattle are grazing on.
I am sooo tempted everyday anything comes onth news concerning Obama to call the local EPA office near where my idiot relative lives who voted for Obama and complain that my relative is “farming over a wetland”....
Soo tempted to stick the government knife the SOB voted FOR in his own back courtesy of the EPA.....
You have no idea...
One wrong doesn’t justify a second wrong.
Not according to Glenn Beck and his followers. According to them..the law is the law no matter who writes it these days.
[ One wrong doesnt justify a second wrong. ]
I know that, and I know I am a weak person and it is taking the patience and forgiveness of a literal saint NOT to do this...
I don’t think Bundy has a leg to stand on legally either, but here’s the deal. The left routinely ignores the law when it serves THEIR purposes. Now that they’ve stacked the courts with sympathetic judges, they can pass laws that could not possibly stand constitutional scrutiny in another time. They also own the executive branch and its burgeoning bureaucracy, and it ignores all sorts of laws or interprets them with the widest possible discretion to serve its political aims.
So forgive me if I hold Senator Harry Reid and his admonition that “people can’t just break the law and walk away from it” in utter contempt. Harry Reid himself is a law breaker of the highest order. He just happens to have the power to get away with it. We understand the tyrant’s game, and that’s why my sympathies lie with Mr. Bundy regardless of what the law says. The law these days is simply a tool the powerful use to oppress the people!
Who says it is a second wrong? If the guy is farming over wetlands, then we should be using the power of the government against them as they would do us.
As Lincoln said: "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."
Of all the possible constitutional amendments being contemplated, I think term limits is THE most important. Why? Because the courts have ruled the federal government can do pretty much whatever it wants. That means a Congress favorable to us could also dismantle whatever it wants. The only way to get that Congress is to eliminate the new American aristocracy that thinks it’s their right to rule for life. Once elected, they use their political power to try and hold onto their jobs forever, and that is what must be broken!
It sounds as though Snidely Whiplash is a little upset over this land scam. Da boy wants mo money and he wants it now. LOL! You tell ‘em Snidely!!!
Your suggestion are reasonable and sensible.
And they will never happen.
This is about Federal government control of land and the Reid family finances.
This won’t be over until Bundy is driven off the land for which his family has held grazing and water rights for generations, until the Red Chinese solar company gets the land for a song, and until Reid and his son are accorded all the attendant fees and compensation for their service to ENN.
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.