Posted on 04/16/2014 9:56:23 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The righteous indignation burns a little brighter on this side of the Atlantic than it does in Europe and beyond the United States, per Fitzgerald, having about it still that quality of the idea. Forged in revolution, informed by soaring sentiment, and defined by acts of variously prudent dissidence, Americans of all sorts fancy themselves to be fighting the good fight. Judging by the rapturous reception that he has received from conservatives of late, Cliven Bundy is one of these sorts, and protests such as his, it seems, are how the West was won. After a longtime dispute with the federal government, the rebellious cattle rancher has forced the government to back down. Hooray?
Not quite, no. Sympathetic as I am to his plight and quietly thrilled, too, by anyone standing up to the states endless overreach I fear that Bundys champions are rather mixing up their issues. There is a veritable mountain of ugly, dangerous, and indulgent law in this country so much, indeed, that anyone seeking seriously to diminish it will need a lawnmower rather than a paring knife. And, as we learned at Waco, where Leviathan goes, trouble will inexorably follow. Certainly, Bundys predicament is the product of an unlovely changing of the guard of our statesmen having managed to transmute the unmistakable shouts of liberty or death into the convoluted edicts of power, and to substitute soaring charters of rights and untrammeled expressions of individual sovereignty with memorandums and edicts that determine the extent to which ranchers may encroach upon tortoises. Certainly, too, Bundys story is that of a family that has raised cattle in the West since before the automobile was invented being turned into a grotesque social experiment. Nevertheless, as one of the better of those statesmen once said, this is a nation with a government of laws and not of men and not the other way around and it seems to me that this principle should not be considered null and void because one of those men happens to have an agreeable tale, a photogenic complaint, and a romantic genealogical past.
History teaches us that, in all cases of rebellion, the final arbiter is success a standard that, as a matter of raw fact, has some merit. Still, History is wrong to glue success and virtue together as if they were inextricable. George Washington is a man I admire greatly, and, in his fight against the British at least, he and his contemporaries had the distinct and happy advantage of being right. But had the signatories to the Declaration paid for their treason with their sacred honor as they were greatly worried that they might would they have been rendered as fools by their loss? Or would they have been a group of men who got the morals right but the fighting wrong? Likewise, if Bundy had lost in his altercation with the feds, would that have made his cause any less noble? I rather think not.
Which is to say that the stirring defenses of Bundy to which both Powerlines John Hinderaker and National Reviews own Kevin D. Williamson have committed this week are all well and good, but that they ultimately conflate two questions that no ordered republic can have conflated for too long. Hinderaker rightly contends that the federal government has squeezed the ranchers in southern Nevada by limiting the acres on which their cattle can graze the effect of which has been to drive the ranchers out of business; that, preposterously, the federal government owns more than 80 percent of the state of Nevada, a number common in many Western states; and that, ultimately, Cliven Bundy is just one more victim of progress and changing mores. These grievances serve as an indictment of the regulatory state, yes. But they do not serve as an executioner for our ailing rule of law. If Cliven Bundys behavior is legitimized by the gravity of his circumstances, how many others may follow suit, singing his name as they go?
Hinderaker concedes at the outset that legally, Bundy doesnt have a leg to stand on, that Bundys claim that the federal government does not own the land is flagrantly incorrect, and that Bundy has been relegated to defending himself because no lawyer could make that argument. (Id quibble with the last point, but perhaps we know different lawyers.) Then he suggests that Bundy didnt have a chance in the age of Obama. This is a strange claim to make. The rule of law, as my editor Rich Lowry noted yesterday morning, has been extolled by presidents for centuries if not millennia, among them Abraham Lincoln, who hoped that reverence for the laws would become the political religion of the nation and that the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, would sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars. Are we really to believe that the governments backing up its rules with force is unique to Obama? And why would we imagine that Bundy would have a chance if he doesnt have a case?
That there is a point beyond which the state may not advance without expecting legitimate pushback is acknowledged by even the most committed of the states enablers. Indeed, this principle is baked into Americas instruction manual albeit with a caveat. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive, the Declaration reads, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. But it also chides the hotheaded among us, inviting us to remember that prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes. As far as we know, Bundy is not set on starting a revolution. (Although any shots fired would, certainly, have been heard around the world.) But then he isnt set on civil disobedience as we understand it, either. There is a compact that governs disobedience, and it might be said to follow an old Spanish proverb: Take what you want but pay for it. Bundy did not ready himself for prison in order to make a point, but hoped that his obstinacy would lead to a direct change in policy with no consequences to himself. He wished, in other words, to win nothing more, nothing less. That, in a vacuum, his winning looks good to limited-government types such as myself remains beside the point. If he can opt out, who cannot?
Setting out to make the case for a little sedition, my colleague Kevin Williamson ended up making a whole lot more, relying for his rhetorical firepower on wholesale revolutionaries Mohandas Gandhi and George Washington men, lest you forget, who succeeded in bringing down the existing order in its entirety. Mr. Bundys stand should not be construed as a general template for civic action, Williamson writes, thereby demonstrating the problem rather neatly: When you change the government, you do not need to worry about setting a precedent; when you merely disobey it, you are setting yourself above a system that remains in force. Respectfully, I would venture that Williamson is here suggesting that he is to be the arbiter of legitimate rebellion a peculiar position for a libertarian concerned with the integrity of the political process to adopt.
When can one refuse to obey the law without expecting to bring the whole thing down? Certainly such instances exist: I daresay that I would not stand idly by quoting John Adams if a state reintroduced slavery or herded a religious group into ovens or even indulged in wholesale gun confiscation. But Bundys case is not remotely approaching these thresholds. Are we to presume that if the government is destroying ones livelihood or breaking ones ties with the past, one can revolt? If so, one suspects that half the country would march on Washington, with scimitars drawn, and that West Virginia would invade the Environmental Protection Agency.
Speaking in 1838, Abraham Lincoln argued,
When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise, for the redress of which, no legal provisions have been made. I mean to say no such thing.
Nor I. As government expands and civil society retreats, bad laws pile atop bad laws, and the cause for dissent is magnified and deepened. Cliven Bundy has been dealt a raw hand by a system that is deaf to his grievances and ham-fisted in its response. But this is a republic, dammit and those who hope to keep it cannot pick and choose the provisions with which they are willing to deign to comply.
Charles C. W. Cooke is a staff writer at National Review.
Try to listen to Mark Levin's 1st hour from yesterday. It is very eye opening.
Mark definitely get's to the central point -- it is a direct abuse of power by the Feds.
Mark masterfully exposed the evils of those in government. He goes through the actions of the Feds over the past few decades that lead up to the events of the past few weeks.He says that he would not advise those to ignore a court order but he says the greater evil is the abuse of power.
I concluded that Mark admires Bundy for standing up to an abusive government.
The courts have ruled against him at every stage.
Yeah, the “courts”.
Blah, blah, blah.
The law is a religion practiced by priests (lawyers) and bishops (judges) according to the papacy (SC)
****************
At its best, law is a weapons system. Anyone who is a practitioner in it realizes that all of our current man made laws are written on wax. The law says what it means and means what it says until it doesn’t. It is a game.
At its worst, it is a racket.
How is it reasonable for BLM to restrict herd size so much that Bundy would lose 90% of his herd? From 500 to 150, plus his water rights.
BLM and ‘Biodiversity’ (Soros) wants to put the guy out of business.
Bump for later evisceration of a clueless fool
The law is on Bundy’s side - strictly speaking. Nevada grazing law says that Bundy, by historic use, has a grazing easement on the land, regardless of who owns the dirt. This easement includes the forage and the water, and is similar to mineral rights in that they can be held separately from the real estate.
Bundy’s rights were established before the feds took possession of the land - the transfer of the land from the state to the feds did not end his grazing easement. He needs to start making his case based on Nevada range law and grazing easements. His rights have nothing to do with whether or not the feds own 80% of the land - his grazing easement supersedes the federal ownership. They do not have the authority to charge him for rights or easements he already owns - which is why they claim payment for “management”. However, they are supposed to manage it to maximize grazing - and they haven’t been doing that - which is why Bundy stopped paying them. They have no right to “manage” the grazing without his consent - and if they aren’t doing the job he was paying them for, i.e. managing HIS forage for maximum grazing capacity, he has every right to stop paying them.
He has the law on his side, if he and his attorneys would argue the proper laws.
It is very frustrating. It just goes to show how dumbed-down some Americans have become regarding the Constitution. The Constitution has been abused and trampled on for at least 100 years and replaced with statism, especially from the radical progressives of the last half century. Statism is much more important for these people and to hell with individual liberties and freedoms.
CGato
Please see post #21 of this thread. Also, try to listen to Mark Levin's opening segment from yesterday.
The Feds are wrong. Bundy is in the right. Levin masterly explains the devious acts of the left that led directly to Bundy's action.
Mark speaks of context. Bundy is standing up to a very abusive government.
Please keep in mind that the Obama government has padded the courts with judges that rule in their favor.
RE: Nevada grazing law says that Bundy, by historic use, has a grazing easement on the land, regardless of who owns the dirt.
OK, that’s Nevada law, what does Federal Law say? And which law trumps which in this country according to the constitution?
see Post #21 and please listen to Mark Levin's first segment from yesterday.
If you do, you will clearly see that your comment will apply to those in power, not to Bundy.
The Feds are abusing their power. Bundy is standing up to naked tyranny.
Levin masterfully gives context and background of the actions of the Feds that led up to Bundy's actions.
Levin's 1st segment is very eye opening.
What “law” did Bundy break?
Should Christians submit to unjust laws, by tangential logic? How about ex post facto laws, by another tangent?
They fail not just as American but as higher primates. Laws are to serve the needs of people. People are not to serve the ‘needs’ of law.
Alter or abolish the corrupt law, and the corrupt law giver.
Why can't Bundy graze his cattle on the proposed offset like he has for years?
...the EPA & BLM were not worried about the damn turtle before the Solar First project.
Cooke is an apparatchik.
If frustrates me to no end to see Conservatives say the courts have ruled.
It allows them to not investigate the issue any further.
People need to see that many in black robes are rabid statist tyrants.
An abusive government which at the end of the day still has the law on its side.
Perhaps. But this has been going on for years and he's lost every single time it went to court.
Nevada law trumps. It is within their borders, their laws regarding real estate and grazing rights and water rights etc. are THE law. The feds have no jurisdiction. To verify this, ask your self why the BLM charges grazers “management fees” instead of rent.
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.