Posted on 04/12/2014 11:09:47 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Oh, come on. I *know* you can do better than *that* flaccid response.
The point I made is that sometimes (and increasingly often in Murrica) 'established law' is a poor fallback. Established law is demonstrably wrong, often. You claim you would back this action, military though it might become, because you are a believer in 'established law'. I rightly demonstrated two of the more egregious examples of the moral failings of 'established law'.
Then you respond with 'Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.'? Really? I mean, REALLY? THAT'S what you've got?
smh
“Check Nevada law. A patented claim in Nevada is property where the owner has both surface and mineral rights. The owner pays property taxes in the same way as a homeowner. Bundy hasn’t done that and can’t do a patent claim because of that. “
Like I said the state of Nevada has verified that Mr. Bundy has faithfully paid all state taxes and fees.
Tough crowd here.
I hope you enjoy FR. It is a bunch of fun.
5.56mm
Probably not, but we need to make them aware, just as we need to get our leaders to seases opposites like this to advance the cause and position of our states.
This is a land and resource issue and that means Lots of money is at stake. Not only for the ranchers of Nevada but the miners, developers, and water interest as well.
The leaders of Nevada would be fools not to try and take advantage of this anyway they can. If we can get Obama to give up the land it would mean huge returns for the people and State of Nevada.
“land equality” needs to be a battle cry in the west!
Like I said the state of Nevada has verified that Mr. Bundy has faithfully paid all state taxes and fees.1) He has NOT paid property taxes on that property. Bundy himself admits that. Just because he has "faithfully paid all state taxes and fees" doesn't mean a land patent has been filed!
Oh, come on. I *know* you can do better than *that* flaccid response.It's not a flaccid response. It's a truthful and honest response.
Established law is demonstrably wrong, often.And that is proved in a court of law in this country, in accordance with the Constitution. Not by personal fiat.
I rightly demonstrated two of the more egregious examples of the moral failings of 'established law'.Morality is of religion and faith. Legality is of law. Law can be moral or immoral; morality can be legal or illegal. The two are non-overlapping magisteria.
Sadly you are confusing established regulation with established law.I'm really not. Established regulations are covered under administrative law, which is a law type you can specialize in. There are three types of law in the USA: statute, criminal, and administrative. Administrative is what we refer to as regulations.
Again Mr. Bundy has broken no law. If he had he would have had a jury of his peers and been convicted of a crime.No, he violated a regulation and went to court over it. And appealed it. And lost. It was a civil administrative suit.
Mr. Bundy is arguing his pre-emptive rights to graze is cattle on the range land that has been grazed by his family for 140 years. Its called precedence.Court says he's wrong and his 'precedence' don't apply.
Welcome to FR. Tough crowd here.So I noticed. S'all right. I like a good argument.
I hope you enjoy FR. It is a bunch of fun.So it is. :)
“Court says he’s wrong and his ‘precedence’ don’t apply. “
Of course a federal court would say this.
Yes, but there must be a violator to get the law tested in that court. This may well be one of those examples.
Truth be told, I have ambivalent feelings about this particular case.
However, there are some very serious and reasonably credible rumblings that the BLM isn't making this whole deal easy for the man, that fees to be paid are artifically pumped to the point of unaffordability.
That Reid and son are involved in trying to force the man off the used land, to sell some green deal to the Chinese.
There is the undercurrent, that Americans have been so abused by Big Government these days that even a borderline case like this one is garnering massive support on the part of the citizen.
And finally, that the BLM is acting outside of the acceptable response levels of American agencies. They are arming up with MRAP military vehicles and buying way too much ammunition for normal training needs. Americas agencies are militarizing, and this was an interesting test-case (facts of the Bundy payments/non-payments aside) of what can happen if we muster in numbers and just say no.
I side with the citizenry against aggressive and overbearing, totalitarian government. Which side do YOU side with?
Bundy abdicated his grazing permit in 1994 due to lack of payment. In 1998 Clark County, as administrator for the Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, purchased from willing sellers all the valid existing grazing leases in the Gold Butte area for $375,000 in exchange for being able to destroy a set amount of tortoise habitat on private lands to facilitate growth and development. The purchase included the revoked grazing permit, but Bundy has continued to graze on the county’s conservation land, undermining the agreement.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2014/gold-butte-roundup-04-12-2014.html
This outfit is one of the players that has largely gone unreported or misreported.
Of course a federal court would say this.But do you know WHY a federal court will say this? The conclusion was inevitable if you know the law and how the law has been interpreted in previous court cases. This is why a federal court will say that.
I didn’t ask WHY a federal court would rule as it did.
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s. Last I checked, grazing fees didn’t belong to God.”
Perhaps not, but the grass from which you grase certainly does belong to God.
The issue here is whether or not it is just for the Federal government to horde 85% of the land and resources of the State of Nevada while it holds only 1% of the State new York.
Washington shoulden’t be able to tax Navadians so unfairly with such land uses fees because they shoulder be hording the land. Nevada and Nevadian deserve an equal footing.
It doesn’t matter what the Federal Employees in black robes say anymore than it matters what your uncle says in regard to a dispute between you and me.
The underlining point of this dispute is not who owes what but why. 85% of the State of Nevada is being horded by Washington under such conditions, that is far more than any other state. To put this in contrast only 1% of New York and New Yonkers must suffer such federal Taxes and restrictions upon access to their own God Given natural resources.
This is not fair to the people of Nevada and their State should not remain silent on the issue. This is a matter of incalculable sums of money and freedom lost by Nevadian every year,
Compare to that this one farmers 1 million dollars is but a drop of water in the Nevada desert.
That is the issue here that we need to be pressing, that is the issue that really matters to the people and State of Nevada as that is the issue tat will decide their state’s future more than any other ever could.
I didn’t ask WHY a federal court would rule as it did.If you don't know why someone or something acts or rules in the way it did, then how do you know what needs to be changed and the method to change it with?
“2) He has not paid federal grazing fees on verified federally owned land. Please do not willfully ignore the facts of the case.”
Why would you keep paying grazing fees when you have been told that you can no longer graze your cattle because of the endangered tortoise? The govt does not want grazing fees from Mr. Bundy they want him gone.
Your needle is stuck on thinking that just because some govt bureacrat decides to change the rules its legal and binding. Its not.
You are going to be having a lot of these kinds of moments of angst as many more of these types of fights are coming.
Courts owned by big and powerful people have caused many range wars in our history. Some good, some bad.
Why is the government running all the ranchers off this land?
Why would you keep paying grazing fees when you have been told that you can no longer graze your cattle because of the endangered tortoise? The govt does not want grazing fees from Mr. Bundy they want him gone.He stopped paying the fees in 1993.
The Law’s an ass.
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.