Posted on 04/16/2014 9:56:23 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Bingo!!
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.
Why would we not presume that. Just because the government has wronged many and there are an abundance of injustices, is not reason to continue expanding the injustices. At what point our we to prostrate our selves before the government. Our livelihood, our land, our families, our very lives? Are we citizens of a Republic or serfs?
As Henry David Thoreau said: Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.
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.
We are no longer a Republic. Ask yourself this. Just whose head are we going to roll over this? We seem to be lacking any representative we can hold responsible for so many grievous violation of our God given rights. The representatives we do have are becoming more and more a ruling aristocracy of men of wealth and years of learning law behind them. They bear no connection or resemblance to the average citizen and thus can at best only pretend to truly represent us.
We do not owe an allegiance to the massive bureaucracy of the federal government simply because it exists. Yes we are supposed to be a Republic, but darn it sometimes right and wrong are more important that law!
I'll borrow from Thoreau again: The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw...
Was the stamp act merely “ham fisted”?
We the people have the responsibility to refuse to obey unjust laws.
Well let’s see. In the 50’s and before, there were “JIM CROW” laws all over the country, but mainly in the south. MLK fought against that kind of laws, and won. Now Bundy sees that these BLM laws are “ILLEGAL”. Yep it’s the law, but it’s an ILLEGAL law. and he is fighting to get rid of it. So, who’s to say that what he’s doing isn’t the same thing as what MLK did in the 60’s?
“Nobody likes to see the massive power of a federal agency targeting an individual citizen. But there arent any good guys in this, just one who is less bad than the other. Hell yes the government overreacted. But Bundy also broke the law. The courts have ruled against him at every stage. And at the end of the day the government will continue to pursue it and hes going to lose his land and his business through less visually attention grapping means.”
Yep. The Feds stood down because the blowback from a shootout would have been a nightmare.
Somebody higher up the food chain had the good sense to realize that you don’t need a sledgehammer to crack a peanut.
I expect the Fed will now pursue less spectacular methods and I expect they’ll win in the end.
I think it is exactly the same thing.
National Review has become more and more a disappointment. War hawks and RINOs.
“Too many people think they get to be judge for a day whenever they want.
I tried reading up on the issue with Bundy to see how far up the court system it went, but almost everything presented so far on FR is just confusing dreck focusing on the infamous they, instead of the legal merits of the case from both sides.”
Well said. I’m not a lawyer and my guess is neither are most of the folks holding forth with a legal opinion.
I am married to a lawyer and when I asked Mrs Snarky Bob what her thoughts on this case were she said “The application of law is different than the statement of law”
She then said that laws involving public land and water rights are complex enough that she had no opinion because she didn’t really know the facts of the case.
Well said. Im not a lawyer and my guess is neither are most of the folks holding forth with a legal opinion.
I am married to a lawyer and when I asked Mrs Snarky Bob what her thoughts on this case were she said The application of law is different than the statement of law
She then said that laws involving public land and water rights are complex enough that she had no opinion because she didnt really know the facts of the case.
And yet the folks in Washington crank out new regulations and laws that no one can interpret all day long.
“I have wondered for a long time what business a Republic that is supposed to represent the will of the people has passing laws no one can comprehend.
And yet the folks in Washington crank out new regulations and laws that no one can interpret all day long. “
I believe that’s because The application of law is different than the statement of law.
A law gets passed, then amended or changed as circumstances change.
It’s not just DC that churns out laws. Every governing body with the power to do so writes laws.
Like a lot of things the actual reality of law is a lot messier than the theory of law.
“Nevada grazing law says that Bundy, by historic use, has a grazing easement on the land, regardless of who owns the dirt.”
You do have a point.
Hubby and I bought a piece of land (about 4.25 acres) ten years ago. At the signing, we found out that 0.25 acres of that land was an easement for two other properties.
We had to maintain the road for their use, couldn’t fence it, and had no right to keep them off of it. They had rights to drive it first.
How do you get infallible from:
“and I dont mean agreeing with it I mean by abiding with it and seeking change from within.” — me.
That wasn’t the goal of the Founding Fathers. Their goal was to put a check on that very sort of thing happening.
Remember Tacitus’ words? “Laws were most numerous when the state was most corrupt.” No state is eternal, especially when being attacked from within. The Founding Fathers learned from history; leftists unilaterally reject history.
“That wasnt the goal of the Founding Fathers. Their goal was to put a check on that very sort of thing happening.”
Except it id happen. The country changed, society changed.
I was speaking of the current reality. Not how things ought to be.
If the Founding Fathers laid down on the job in response to their day’s reality, there would have been no United States. Great men shape reality rather than succumb to it.
“If the Founding Fathers laid down on the job in response to their days reality, there would have been no United States. Great men shape reality rather than succumb to it.”
I agree, but great men also work with the realities of what they have.
This isn’t 1776, none of the parties involved in this are pure as driven snow and the laws in question are complex and not easily resolved by a couple of paragraphs copied and pasted on an internet forum.
I understand that emotions are running pretty high about this but the topic of this thread was really about the current rule of law.
Not how things ought to be. Not what the founders would have done since the current reality is much different now.
No, great men transcend the realities they have to face, and even surmount them. Those who “work with” the reality are ordinary men, rather.
The rest of your post is filled with nonsequiturs. The Founding Fathers weren’t as “pure as the driven snow” either (no man is), but they had faith in God, which is the key here. “This isn’t 1776”, so submit? What makes 1776 different from any other revolution of the planet?
Don’t speak about the “current rule of law” when those at the top rule by fiat.
“The rest of your post is filled with nonsequiturs. The Founding Fathers werent as pure as the driven snow either (no man is), but they had faith in God, which is the key here. This isnt 1776, so submit? What makes 1776 different from any other revolution of the planet?Dont speak about the current rule of law when those at the top rule by fiat.”
Wasn’t talking about the founding fathers. Cliven Bundy isn’t blameless. He obviously felt as if he had reasonable case. He went to court. He lost. He went to court again. He lost again.
This started years and years ago. He was aware he was considered in breach. It’s not like he was suddenly ambushed and had his property taken.
It’s not 1776 and taking a rifle out to join the fray is no longer an optimum or even workable position. We’re all wired together whether you like it or not.
That’s the reality.
The same way matters of personal honor aren’t settled with duels anymore.
Civil law and the court system are how things are settled now.
I was heartened to see the Feds back off. I don’t think anything was actually “Won” from that action, but it did probably save a lot of fruitless bloodshed.
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.