Author Topic: BLM action in Nevada is unconstitutional, here's why  (Read 110 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,025
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
BLM action in Nevada is unconstitutional, here's why
« on: April 12, 2014, 06:19:29 AM »
BLM Action in Nevada is Unconstitutional, Here’s Why

11FridayApr 2014
 

Posted  by Daniel Crane in Government, US News   

America, Armed Feds, BLM, Cattle, Control, Farmer, federal government, Freedom, government, government snipers, Nevada, Ranch, Ruby Ridge, snipers, Southern Nevada, Support, Texas standoff, U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, Waco
 

20140411-121720.jpg

James Madison: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.”

The establishment media is now paying attention to Cliven Bundy and his struggle with the Bureau of Land Management. Most of this coverage assumes Bundy is engaged in illegal cattle grazing on federal land.

“The U.S. government is rounding up Bundy’s cattle that it says have been grazing illegally on public lands in Clark County for more than 20 years, according to the land-management bureau and the National Park Service,” CNN reports today.

The BLM insists “Mr. Bundy has… failed to comply with multiple court orders to remove his cattle from the federal lands and to end the illegal trespass.”
It is the BLM, not Cliven Bundy, who is in violation of the law and the Constitution, specifically Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution.

The clause, known as the Enclave Clause, authorizes Congress to purchase, own and control land in a state under specific and limited conditions, namely “for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings,” and not, as the feds now insist, to protect an endangered tortoise.

The Founders were opposed to providing a centralized federal government with unlimited authority to purchase and, as is routinely the case today, seize state and private land.

During the federal convention debates in September, 1787, Elbridge Gerry, who later went on to serve as vice president under James Madison, contended federal purchase of land “might be made use of to enslave any particular State by buying up its territory, and that the strongholds proposed would be a means of awing the State into an undue obedience.”

In order to make certain the federal government did not abuse the Enclave Clause, the words “Consent of the Legislature of the State” were added.

Madison, Jefferson and the Founders were primarily interested in limited government and the diffusion of federal authority over the states for the protection of individual liberty. In 1992, the Supreme Court issued an opinion on the framers’ reasoning behind the state consent requirement (New York v. U.S):

Read more at Infowars

http://theresistanceunited.com/2014/04/11/blm-action-in-nevada-is-unconstitutional-heres-why/
« Last Edit: April 12, 2014, 06:20:37 AM by rangerrebew »
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions. John Adams


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf