Yesterday - Bundy Ranch

[Dr. Jones]

Seems like he should have just moved his animals off the land if he didn't agree with where the money was going. He wanted to pay Nevada, but not the Federal Government. Fine. But he needs to move his animals off the land no? Then started a debate about the law, and wouldn't he have had more support?

Support he lacks not.. and there are 10, 000 awaiting orders to be there within 24 hrs.

THAT is what's sad. If the blm was correct they should have avoided all this and moved in quickly for an arrest.

 

[Revolution 9]

Support he lacks not.. and there are 10, 000 awaiting orders to be there within 24 hrs.

THAT is what's sad. If the blm was correct they should have avoided all this and moved in quickly for an arrest.

I get that he has some support now, I just think he could have had more. From both sides of the aisle, had he went about this a different way.
10,000 people ready to come fight for you is nice, but that won't win the real battle of national public opinion, or in the courts.

Anyways PKM, keep us informed. I appreciate your posts in the thread. They seem pretty fair to me overall.

 

[sirkickyass]

But going back a bit, does the Constitution make *prov. ion for the federal government to own and control “public land”? This is the question we need to consider. Currently, the federal government “owns” approximately 30% of the United States territory. The majority of this federally owned land is in the West. For example, the feds control more than 80% of Nevada and more than 55% of Utah. The question has been long debated. At the debate’s soul is Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which is know as the “Property Clause”.

Proponents of federal expansion on both sides of the political aisle argue that this clause provides warrant for the federal government to control land throughout the United States.The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States….Those who say this clause delegates the feds control over whatever land they arbitrarily decide to lay claim to are grossly misinterpreting even the most basic structure of the Constitution.It is said the Constitution is “written in plain English”. This is true. However, plain English does not allow one to remove context. Article IV does not grant Congress the power to exercise sovereignty over land.*Article IV*deals exclusively with state-to-state relations such as protection from invasion, slavery, full faith and credit, creation of new states and so on.Historically, the Property Clause delegated federal control over territorial lands up until the point when that land would be formed as a state. This was necessary during the time of the ratification of the Constitution due to the lack of westward development. The clause was drafted to constitutionalize the*Northwest Ordinance, which the Articles of Confederation did not have the power to support. This ordinance gave the newly formed Congress the power to create new states instead of allowing the states themselves to expand their own land claims.The Property Clause and Northwest Ordinance are both limited in power and scope.

Once a state is formed and accepted in the union, the federal government no longer has control over land within the state’s borders. From this moment, such land is considered property of the sovereign state. The continental United States is now formed of fifty independent, sovereign states. No “unclaimed” lands are technically in existence. Therefore, the Property Clause no longer applies within the realm of federal control over these states.The powers of Congress are found only in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. With the exception of the less than two dozen powers delegated to Congress found within Article I, Section 8, Congress may make no laws, cannot form political agencies and cannot take any actions that seek to regulate outside of these enumerated powers.Article I, Section 8 does lay forth the possibility of federal control over some land. What land?*Clause 17*defines these few exceptions.To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such*District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the*Consent of the Legislature of the State*in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings–*(Emphasis added).Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is known as the Enclave Clause. The clause gives federal control over the “Seat of Government” (Washington D.C.) and land that has been purchased by the federal government with consent of the state legislatures to build military posts and other needful buildings (post offices and other structures pursuant to Article I, Section 8). Nothing more.*State permission being a requirement, state authority was explicitly emphasized while drafting this clause. The founders and respective states insisted (with loud cries) that the states must consent before the federal government could purchase land from the states. Nowhere in this clause will you find the power for Congress to exercise legislative authority through regulation over 80% of Nevada, 55% of Utah, 45% of California, 70% of Alaska, or any other state. Unless, of course, the state has given the federal government the formal authority to do so, which they have not.If a state legislature decides sell land to the federal government then at that point the Enclave Clause becomes applicable and the federal government may seize legislative and regulatory control in pursuance to the powers delegated by Article 1, Section 8.*

<trimmed for characters>

This exact argument was tried on Bundy's motion for summary judgment. The wording is close enough I'm wondering if you copy-pasted portions of this from somewhere. It was also tried in the 1990s proceeding.

EDIT: It appears that PKM copied portions of this article: https://benswann.com/lofti-who-actually-owns-americas-land-a-deeper-look-at-the-bundy-ranch-crisis/ without linking.

Bundy had his day in court on these issues and lost. Then he had it again, many years later, and lost again. Then he appealed and lost again.

Are you familiar with the court's decision on this issue or would you like me to post it?

 

[♪alt13]

I'm opposed to all rent seeking. Don't think there'd be any ones I support

The way I look at taxes is the government saying that they can spend your money better than you can. True in some cases, but I'd like to think that they're wrong in my case.

As far as unions and all that ish are concerned, yeah, I'm totally against them because it messes with the labor market just like minimum wage mandates do. They're not opposed to the workers rigjts of peaceful assembly, just opposed to the unproductive behavior. Most of us would say, "hey, don't like your job? Get a different one." If that's the best job one can get and they're upset about it, use it as motivation to learn a new skill or get educated. Lol you can see why libertarians are not popular

It would tough to implement my libertarian ideals into the modern state because the government is involved everywhere and removing government aid someplace while keeping it consistent would be unfair and create all kinds of new market distortions. Alternatively, if government were to be stripped down to the size I prefer overnight, there'd be all kinds of people in dire financial situations because the government has made it their duty to assist people for so long

The libertarians that haven't been brainwashed aren't anti union. I consider myself to be libertarian and I think governments position should be 100% neutral in regards to unions. The problem isn't unions it is when the government favors them. Every state tends to write either pro or anti-union legislation when they should just stay the **** out of it. I have been a union member for a job that I worked my *** off for. The company was willing to negotiate with the Union because we had the skills and work ethic they needed.

 

[♪alt13]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. Bob Ross is selling propaganda by talking to the trees? Bill Nye the Science Guy is selling propaganda by teaching tens of millions of children that science can be fun? Good hell, Babe.

Also, if everyone's moral instruction came from Sesame Street, the world would never know war, hunger and famine would be a thing of the past, and race would be a four letter word.

Man I love bob ross

U think I may have posted this before but it's worth a repost
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLO7tCdBVrA

 

[cowhide]

Yes... FOR SURE. ALSO, the blm waited too long, became outnumbered, out maneuvered, and generally out miltarized.

No one thinks they can beat the U.S. military.. but they're expecting to make them think twice about bullying Americans. Laugh if you want.

Yea I am laughing. Besides a X sheriff that was amongst Bundy's supporters stated on Fox News that they were going to put the women up front if the shooting started so it would make the Feds look bad. Nice group of freedom fighters there. So did Bundy actually pay the state of Nevada? From what I've read. NO.

 

[cowhide]

I always laugh about the State rights folks. Funny how this has become such a big issue all of a sudden. Have any of you had to deal with state and local gov't? They are far more oppressive than the federal gov't. The fact that the guy lost in court on multiple occasion only shows how these people don't respect the law unless the law agrees with them. I am sure they felt like they won the war and some ways they won the battle but if they are delusional enough to think that they could win a war against the federal gov't then they need to be drug tested.

Sorry but I have little sympathy for a white guy complaining about the federal gov't taking away something that isn't his to begin with. Just because Bundy doesn't feel he should have to pay the federal gov't doesn't mean that he is free from his obligation. What's next people not paying their federal taxes!! This state ideology is one step away from anarchy. I guess the fact or irony is loss on Bundy and his supporters, that any white person talking about the gov't taking away their land is absolutely hilarious considering that these same white people stole/took/illegal bought the land from the native inhabitants.

 

[8]

The libertarians that haven't been brainwashed aren't anti union. I consider myself to be libertarian and I think governments position should be 100% neutral in regards to unions. The problem isn't unions it is when the government favors them. Every state tends to right either pro or anti-union legislation when they should just stay the **** out of it. I have been a union member for a job that I worked my *** off for. The company was willing to negotiate with the Union because we had the skills and work ethic they needed.

 

[Deleted member 365]

I get the feeling that this is just another issue that's "no duh" for most people. However, for political motives, a certain faction or factions of the right wing, is trying to take advantage of it in order to stir up some anti-federal guvmint emotions to better help their chances for the mid-term elections. Why else has this Bundy guy been given so much time? Reminds me of Duck Destiny and how people were just "outraged" the der librule AMC fired him.

They seem desperate since Obamacare got the sign ups that they needed and no one is jumping on board their revamping (or elimination) of the IRS idea.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Yea I am laughing. Besides a X sheriff that was amongst Bundy's supporters stated on Fox News that they were going to put the women up front if the shooting started so it would make the Feds look bad. Nice group of freedom fighters there. So did Bundy actually pay the state of Nevada? From what I've read. NO.

That is 100% false. That was never said and there was not one single woman near the hot action.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I get the feeling that this is just another issue that's "no duh" for most people. However, for political motives, a certain faction or factions of the right wing, is trying to take advantage of it in order to stir up some anti-federal guvmint emotions to better help their chances for the mid-term elections. Why else has this Bundy guy been given so much time? Reminds me of Duck Destiny and how people were just "outraged" the der librule AMC fired him.

They seem desperate since Obamacare got the sign ups that they needed and no one is jumping on board their revamping (or elimination) of the IRS idea.

Completely idiotic.

 

[Stoked]

I get that he has some support now, I just think he could have had more. From both sides of the aisle, had he went about this a different way.
10,000 people ready to come fight for you is nice, but that won't win the real battle of national public opinion, or in the courts.

Anyways PKM, keep us informed. I appreciate your posts in the thread. They seem pretty fair to me overall.

No it will not. But he has already won the battle for public opinion in large parts of the mountain west (like washington, beaver, iron, kane and garfield counties in Utah) simply by taking on the BLM.