Is a "mature way to react" getting your well-armed friends to point guns at federal officials trying to do their job? Is that the Christian thing to do?
But Bundy isn't right
Ringo
I think some people read too many InfoWars and Daily Paul.
The man was violating the law and refused to comply with it.
The federal government was right to seize his cattle.
I don't recognize the federal government except when those darn illegals cross the border, then I expect a full federal response. If that doesn't occur, the president should be impeached.
Right. I suspected as much. Congratulations, you are precisely the type of person I was talking about.
I actually agree with you. But in what way do you feel he has violated his oath?
Um... both LEO organisations Eing the L.
Um... right in the statement below this one.OK. In what way have I called for more government intervention?
By repeatedly violating the Constitution and instructing his subordinates to not enforce the law.
What has anything that has happened been contrary to any amendment of the constitution?So, you don't understand the difference between the federal government carrying out a Constitutionally enumerated duty and an Unconstitutional militarized government agency overstepping its bounds and infringing on state sovereignty and violating both the 10th and 4th Amendments?
If so, then you are in no way prepared to have this discussion.
Um... right in the statement below this one.in t
What has anything that has happened been contrary to any amendment of the constitution?
Seriously?I can't find any place in any of my posts where I've called for more government intervention. Could you please specify?
By repeatedly violating the Constitution and instructing his subordinates to not enforce the law.
Seriously?
Except the federal government legally owns the land
and the seizure was done legally.
You said Obama should be impeached for telling his subordinates not to enforce the law, correct? How is that NOT a call for more government intervention?Ignored.
Well, who should I believe about constitutionality? You, or the courts that have already decided that Bundy is in the wrong and the Feds are in the right?Not according to the Constitution.
Not according to the Constitution.
You said Obama should be impeached for telling his subordinates not to enforce the law, correct? How is that NOT a call for more government intervention?
Well, who should I believe about constitutionality? You, or the courts that have already decided that Bundy is in the wrong and the Feds are in the right?
Wha..?Too stupid to even dignify with a response.
...Seriously? No, you're right. Courts don't determine constitutionality, random people on the internet and partisan hack journalists do.Well, you might start by reading the Constitution, itself. Then, you might look at the Framers to see what they meant by the things they put into the Constitution.
Could you please cite the specific court decision that addressed the Constitutionality of the federal government's actions?
Also, could you explain why you believe the courts are the arbiters of what is and what is not Constitutional?
Armoured said:...Seriously? No, you're right. Courts don't determine constitutionality, random people on the internet and partisan hack journalists do.
OK. At this point, I'm just going to go ahead and assume you're incapable of discussing this like an adult.
I'm not the one responding to perfectly reasonable honest questions by calling people "Too stupid to even dignify with a response".
The Constitution said absolutely nothing about lands in question. You should really know your Constitution better. The state of Nevada never owned any of the lands where Bundy grazed his cattle. It was never privately owned either.Not according to the Constitution.
Incorrect. The Constitution gives the Federal government the power to seize property when done so legally. This is all part of court record to which Bundy had his opportunity to present his case before the Court.Not according to the Constitution.
South Bound, you dispute the law. Cool, but this case already went to the courts and Mr. Racist lost.
Southbound said:Second, you're correct. When the federal government claimed jurisdiction over this land in order to turn it into a conservation zone, the state of Nevada stopped receiving grazing fees for that parcel of land.
And their research is disputed by research done by numerous other sources, including first hand accounts and interviews with Bundy, Sheriff Mack, and their spokesmen.
Maybe you're going to the wrong sources for your news.
You realize Wikipedia isn't a credible source, right?
I agree. But they did not merely "ask". They brought a militarized law enforcement agency, stole his cattle, assaulted his family, all in in violation of the 4th and 10th Amendments.
WaPo said:April 9, 2014: Two of Bundy's family members are injured in a confrontation with federal officials. One of them was Bundy's son, tasered after he kicked a police dog. "I'm almost getting mad enough to swear," Bundy says. "The one thing we're going to do is stay cool and we're gonna fight."
Yes, he did say what he said. The problem is that, just as the press did later with Bundy's comments about the plight of blacks, "what he said" was taken out of context and he has explained himself several times.
So forgive me if I give more weigh to his words than to your explanation of his words.
First of all, they weren't trespassing on federal land because the Enclave Clause of the Constitution prevents the federal government from owning that land.
Cliven Bundy says he doesnt recognize the federal ownership of land he believes belongs to Nevada and has stated that Its a statement for freedom and liberty and the Constitution. Of course, at the writing of the Constitution, much American land was in fact owned by the federal government. There is no Constitutionality in not recognizing federally-owned land.
Some have gone further, and incorrectly argued that the the US Constitution guaranteed that future states brought into the union would be granted full control over the territory of their borders. This is not only untrue, but the property clause, which states that Congress has the power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States grants the Federal government authority over public land. This is exactly what the Ninth Circuit decided in United States v. Gardner (107 F.3d 1314 ). Most of the arguments being made by Constitutional proponents of Bundy were denied in the above case (which also took place in Nevada).
For example, Bundy proponents have cited the equality clause which was established in 1783 would indefinitely apply to every future incorporation into the union. However in United States v. Gardner, the 9th Circuit held that:
The claim by Gardners that it is the duty of the United States to hold public lands in trust for the formation of future states is founded on a case dealing with land acquired by the United States from the thirteen original states .. This decision was based on the terms of the cessions of the land from Virginia and Georgia to the United States. Before becoming a state, however, Nevada had no independent claim to sovereignty, unlike the original thirteen states. Therefore, the same reasoning is not applicable to this case, in which the federal government was the initial owner of the land from which the state of Nevada was later carved.
The same distinction applies to the enclave clause, which Bundy proponents have also invoked.
There is another problem: Until 1993 he did pay the federal grazing fees (signed into law under Ronald Reagan). So, it would seem that he did recognize the federal government as owning the landat least up until 1993. Furthermore, the Nevada Constitution explicitly recognizes federal ownership of this, and other land within the Nevada territory. So in effect Bundys claimed allegiance to Nevada State Law is awkward at best, since he is in fact contradicting it.
First of all, if that's true, that they were seized for payment, why were several heads killed for no reason? How did the government expect to get money out of dead cattle?
The BLM stated that they killed 2 cows, citing safety concerns. However, accusations of the BLM slaughtering cows go beyond this. According to Bundy supporters, far more cows were found killed through exhaustion from running, and mass graves were dug. Since there appears to be no independent investigation of this, the only information being disseminated on this comes from the Bundy ranch and their supporters. There certainly are photos of dead/injured cows and holes that were dug for the apparent reason of serving as mass graves. Unfortunately, for all the video that was apparently taken during the BLM-Bundy Ranch standoff, there appears to be no video showing the BLM to be the source of the mass graves, nor how many of the cows were intentionally killed, as opposed to killed as a byproduct of trampling from the attempted roundup. Hopefully, an independent investigation will shed light on this matter in the coming days or weeks.
Second, why they were seized is irrelevant. It's that the government seized them illegally that is the issue.
In Case No. 2:12-cv-0804-LDG-GWF, on July 2013, US District Court District of Nevada Ruled:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy is permanently enjoined from trespassing on the New Trespass Lands.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to protect the New Trespass Lands against this trespass, and all future trespasses by Bundy.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy shall remove his livestock from the New Trespass Lands within 45 days of the date hereof, and that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to impound any of Bundys cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days of the date hereof.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to impound any of Bundys cattle for any future trespasses, provided the United States has provided notice to Bundy under the governing regulations of the United States Department of the Interior.
Actually, it is. The federal troops were the ones who brought a militarized police force.
After 20 years of allowing his cattle to graze on federal lands without paying (with him expanding said grazing into other federally-owned territories), numerous court judgments against him, the federal government was finally sending agents in to collect the trespassing cows. Bundy, who was given fair warning of the future seizure, issues implied threats and implications of another Waco. Hence, its no surprised that federal agents were armed in case these threats were in fact, real.
"Shields" against what, exactly?
...says the guy who gets his facts from Wikipedia.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?