The Problem with Cliven Bundy: His plight is sympathetic; his actions are hard to defend.

National Review ^ | 04/16/2014 | Charles C.W. Cooke

[Olog-hai]

I think some people are getting the US Constitution and the USSR Constitution mixed up again.

Socialist property in the U.S.S.R. exists either in the form of state property (the possession of the whole people), or in the form of cooperative and collective-farm property (property of a collective farm or property of a cooperative association).
— Article 5, 1936 “Stalin Constitution”

State property, i. e. the common property of the Soviet people, is the principal form of socialist property. The land, its minerals, waters, and forests are the exclusive property of the state. The state owns the basic means of production in industry, construction, and agriculture; means of transport and communication; the banks; the property of state-run trade organisations and public utilities, and other state-run undertakings; most urban housing; and other property necessary for state purposes.
— Article 11, 1977 “Brezhnev Constitution”

That is what the defenders of the BLM on here are justifying and acceding to, essentially.

[Usagi_yo]

Like I said, Judge for a day.

[Dick Bachert]

The United States government has direct ownership of almost 650 million acres of land (2.63 million square kilometers) -- nearly 30% of its total territory. These federal lands are used as military bases or testing grounds, nature parks and reserves and Indian reservations, or are leased to the private sector for commercial exploitation (e.g. forestry, mining, agriculture). They are managed by different administrations, such as the Bureau of Land Management, the US Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Department of Defense, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Bureau of Reclamation or the Tennessee Valley Authority.

The above map details the percentage of state territory owned by the federal government.

[Usagi_yo]

Like I said, Judge for a day.

[cuban leaf]

I was saying that because we are all equal under the law, and the law does not apply to Holder, then it does not apply to Bundy. Or me.

[Olog-hai]

And there are no unjust judges? Even when Jesus Himself spoke of their existence? Those unjust judges exercise their unjust privilege for far longer than a day.

[HiTech RedNeck]

How about, stepping up to the plate of WE THE PEOPLE for a day. That’s whose name is at the top of the Constitution. This is the power that created the document by which the judges are appointed. It is higher by two steps than judges.

[Mad Dawgg]

"So, owning Federal Land is NOT a power delegated to the United States by the constitution?"

Where in the Constitution does it say that when a Territory enters the Union to become a State that the Federal Government gets to claim any part of it as Federal Land?

The way it is supposed to work is the Government is to deal with the State government who represent the citizens of the new state to work out Federal claims on plots of land (For Federal Buildings and such). There has long been a claim the Feds fudged that part of the deal on many of the Western states when they were brought into the Union.

There is one school of thought this was done so that the Politiclowns of that time could deal out land for votes/campaign contributions/graft to Railroads/Big Money interests and the like.

[SeekAndFind]

As of March 2012, out of the 2.27 billion acres in the country, about 28% of the total is claimed by the Federal government according to the Interior Department (including over 80% of the State of Nevada ).

If what you say is the correct understanding of the intent of the framers of the Constitution, the Federal government been violating it for over a hundred years with the complicity of the states.

[Usagi_yo]

REally? Were did you find that in what I wrote. Is it some magical gift you think you have?

[Olog-hai]

Building on what you said here, the “judge for a day” comment is an attack on whom? Sounds like an assault on the defenders of Mr. Bundy to me, because there just cannot be any justification of the BLM’s actions even by whatever “law” has come into existence (possibly by ex post facto means). Think about the desert tortoise excuse—the BLM euthanizing those that they claim to be “protecting”. So by extension, those who sit as judges de jure are superior in judgment to your titular “judge(s) for a day” instead of instead presiding over an unwieldy kritocracy?

[combat_boots]

Feds accused of leaving trail of wreckage after Nevada ranch standoff

By William La Jeunesse
·Published April 16, 2014

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/16/feds-accused-leaving-trail-wreckage-after-nevada-ranch-standoff/?cmpid=cmty_twitter_fn

[combat_boots]

“On a Friday night conference call, BLM officials told reporters that “illegal structures” on Bundy’s ranch — water tanks, water lines and corrals — had to be removed to “restore” the land to its natural state and prevent the rancher from restarting his illegal cattle operation.”

[Lurking Libertarian]

Well what should those lands then be called? They aren’t Nevada, then. Somebody tell the map makers please!

The federal government owns property within all 50 states (far more out west than in the original 13 states, but it owns some everywhere).

[zzwhale]

The crux of the problem is that the federal govenment did not cede control of 86% of the land mass of nevada to the state when it was formed. hence the federal government violated the constitution which required the feds to do so., and if necessary negotiate with the state of nevada for particular federal use of the land, as specified in the Constitution. Article 1, section 8, clause 17...

[Usagi_yo]

Because of the constant hypocritical nature of such an assumption, as I witness daily on FR from people I wish would know better.

I’m more concerned with this case than Bundy’s case:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/15/families-fight-utah-adoption-law/

Where the law was passed exclusively to deny rights to people.

and Ruby ridge, Waco to some extent, and The Scott murder over adjacent land in San Bernardino.

The Bundy case may be just misapplied law, or even abuse of office by pushing a secret agenda. I can’t tell because all the table pounding going on.

An example on how to act when you have a dispute like this with the government is:

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2014/01/point-reyes-national-seashore-oyster-farm-take-case-us-supreme-court24524

Where I believe the Oyster Farm owners are clearly wrong as it was leased land with no obligation to renew. However, they are proceeding correctly in taking it up the through the courts.

Shake your fist and brandish weapons at the government at your own peril.

[zzwhale]

The crux of the problem is that the federal govenment did not cede control of 86% of the land mass of nevada to the state when it was formed. hence the federal government violated the constitution which required the feds to do so., and if necessary negotiate with the state of nevada for particular federal use of the land, as specified in the Constitution. Article 1, section 8, clause 17...

[Usagi_yo]

This is not the first time we’ve been through this. You may rebut anything I have to say, with facts or your own opinion for that matter, but please don’t make stuff up that you think I said or think I meant because that is your Modus Operandi.

Please include Full quotes when replying to my opinions and statements of facts.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Even the studied George Washington hit a limit.

[HiTech RedNeck]

How about you “Full Quoting” what you attempt to only link to? Why not hold you to the same standard you hold others to as well? Then you can talk about “HYPOCRISY.”