Author Topic: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy  (Read 4974 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 69,710
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« on: April 18, 2014, 06:32:29 AM »
Why Ranchers Support “Hero” Bundy

April 16, 2014

At first I started this post with some clever comments about liberals. But I changed my mind. I stated what I think about them in my previous post.

Moving on, the following letter will give some understanding to those who care about what the government can do to any American family. We need to support each other when that government through heavy-handed and overbearing tactics attempt to usurp authority on the American public.

I’m going to post the letter in it’s entirety.

Via: BIZPAC Review

Fellow rancher’s viral letter explains so much about why ranchers support ‘hero’ Bundy

Photo Credit: egoswick blogspot
These are some of the many photographs I ( Emily, ‘The Rancher’s Daughter’) have taken at ropings, brandings, or simply just out my back door. I am the daughter of a 5th generation cattle rancher. Note: Photo does not depict anyone named in this article.

Rancher-pic

With debate raging over whether the Bureau of Land Management is overstepping its authority in stopping rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle from grazing on public land, one of Bundy’s neighbors offered to settle the question.

In an open letter, Bundy’s neighbor, Kena Lytle Gloeckner, explained why ranchers are supporting Bundy. Her letter, which has been posted on numerous blogs, said:


There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following: “You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.” The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment.

In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non-ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow – – not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price.

If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy singlehandedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.

A letter from Bundy’s daughter can also be read on “Stand With Cliven and Carol Bundy.”

http://cryandhowl.com/2014/04/16/why-ranchers-support-hero-bundy/
« Last Edit: April 18, 2014, 06:33:55 AM by rangerrebew »
Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness or judicial research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings.

Joseph Story

Offline massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,148
    • Auktion Online
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2014, 07:18:47 AM »
It's a valid point.  The government taking a purchased land right is no different than the government taking away land, and at the very least Bundy is entitled to just compensation.  There is also the question of whether protecting turtles is a legitimate "public use."

If we don't fight for the Bundys of the world, sooner or later they come for us.
"She only coughs when she lies."

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,836
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #2 on: April 18, 2014, 07:24:39 AM »
Last I heard, cows don't eat turtles.

They are careful about what they step on, as well.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,136
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #3 on: April 18, 2014, 07:36:15 AM »
First they came for the ranchers,
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Offline NavyCanDo

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,745
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #4 on: April 18, 2014, 09:57:51 AM »
There is so much misinformation floating around, I don’t know what the truth really is about Bundy’s case, but guilty of a crime or not, it’s not the task of the Government to be both judge and executioner. He deserves his day in court which should be a jury trial so his fellow Americans are judging him not the political powers in office, especially high level political powers sitting in the white house who have seemed to ignore the little phrase” innocent until proven guilty”.

I think most people critical of how the Feds are handling this could accept the outcome of a jury trial.    But what I think has most on the Right upset including his fellow ranchers is we all agree the alleged crime does not warrant snipers, and assault teams, and the seizing of property. 

A nation that turns away from prayer will ultimately find itself in desperate need of it. :Jonathan Cahn

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 22,615
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #5 on: April 18, 2014, 10:09:02 AM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNGJXDuLkdI" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNGJXDuLkdI</a>

Offline alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,057
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #6 on: April 18, 2014, 10:10:28 AM »
There is so much misinformation floating around, I don’t know what the truth really is about Bundy’s case, but guilty of a crime or not, it’s not the task of the Government to be both judge and executioner. He deserves his day in court which should be a jury trial so his fellow Americans are judging him not the political powers in office, especially high level political powers sitting in the white house who have seemed to ignore the little phrase” innocent until proven guilty”.

I think most people critical of how the Feds are handling this could accept the outcome of a jury trial.    But what I think has most on the Right upset including his fellow ranchers is we all agree the alleged crime does not warrant snipers, and assault teams, and the seizing of property.

Not to mention that they slaughtered some of his cattle, rather than selling them at auction.  This is going too far!

Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,331
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #7 on: April 18, 2014, 10:33:16 PM »
I put up multiple posts about this a couple of days ago, and they were pretty much ignored or discounted by the "deputy dawgs" here who repeatedly mouth the mantra that Bundy "broke the law", etc.

See:
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,135512.msg554837.html#msg554837
and
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,135512.msg554853.html#msg554853
and
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,135512.msg555005.html#msg555005

Looks like Bundy witnessed the BLM drive the other ranchers in his area out of business by forcing them to sign "agreements" that were purposely designed to PUT them out of the ranching business.

Mr. Bundy refused, for good reason.

The agreements were proffered by the BLM to create a situation of duress from which Mr. Bundy had but two choices: sign, and be forced to walk a pathway towards economic bankruptcy, or... don't sign and be shut down by force of law.

Which would YOU prefer?

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,534
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #8 on: April 19, 2014, 12:08:41 AM »
It's a valid point.  The government taking a purchased land right is no different than the government taking away land, and at the very least Bundy is entitled to just compensation.  There is also the question of whether protecting turtles is a legitimate "public use."

If we don't fight for the Bundys of the world, sooner or later they come for us.

Bundy does not recognize the US Constitution. In his own words, he doesn't "recognize the United States government as even existing", which translates, any way that you look at it into not recognizing the U.S. Constitution, since that is the instrument that created the United States government. Worthy of note is that Cliven Bundy and the Bundy clan have been paying their fees for the 59 years leading up to 1993 to the very same government that today he doesn't acknowledge as even existing, without protesting its legitimacy.

He doesn't recognize the legitimacy of own State's Constitution. It stopped suiting him the moment that his grazing fees went up in 1993.

He doesn't really recognize the authority of the County that he resides him. They've repeatedly told him that they can't accept his grazing fees payment, and that he needs to make those payments to the BLM, but he will not do that.

He doesn't recognize our Court system, nor will he abide by the Court's decisions since he doesn't agree with them, and in doing that he once again he shows his disregard for our Constitution.

It his his State's Constitution that transferred the land to the Federal government long before the Bundys arrived in Nevada.

It is the US Constitution that gives the United States the power to manage those lands that are the property of the United States.

It is the US Constitution that gives the judiciary power to our Court system.

Our system of government requires that we all acknowledge the Constitution as the Supreme law of the land. It requires that we all accept laws that have been implemented in accordance to Constitutional requirements and that we live by the, lest we are willing to accept the consequences of not doing so.

We must all accept the Constitutional role of the Courts, and accept its mandates. The Constitution guarantees due process, not outcome, and Cliven Bundy has gotten due process.

If we in fact fall behind Cliven Bundy and make him to be some sort of American patriot, then we are cementing in place the idea that we can ALL disregard the US Constitution, the US Courts, the State and County governments, Court mandates and any sort of authority that doesn't suit us.

It is absurd to argue that what we need to do in order to return ourselves to a nation of laws, is to support an individual who doesn't believe in any law outside his own, and if Cliven Bundy has a right to all the things that he believes he has a right to, even though those things are unsupported by the Constitution, the applicable laws, and the Courts, then Sandra Fluke is equally right in believing that she has a right to the things she believes that she has a right to, because she can't have lesser rights than Cliven Bundy simply because we don't agree with her. As an extension, then we all have a right to everything that we think we all have a right to, since none of us would have to abide by any law, any Court, or any Constitution. Then  no Constitution, law or Court would ever be sustainable.

There are a lot of things wrong with our government... a lot of things. But as that stupid old saying goes, two wrongs a right do not make.

Let me tell you what I think is going to happen here.

Cliven Bundy will be broken by the US Government.

They will do it legally if they can, violently if they have no other choice.

The government will do that for the very same reason that George Washington sent out 13,000 militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. In Washington's own words, he could not allow "a small portion of the United States [to] dictate to the whole union". As much as he regretted doing so, Washington understood that in order for the United States to stand, he couldn't allow people to openly disregard duly enacted laws, and disregard the legitimacy of the Federal government.

The people who revolted against the US in Washington's time were every but as passionate about their cause as Bundy and his followers are today, and the United States is no more willing (or able) to allow Bundy's Rebellion to stand today, than it was willing to allow the Whiskey Rebellion to stand then.

Things may very well change in the aftermath of the Bundy Rebellion, but they probably won't change in a way that makes the Federal government weaker, and Cliven Bundy will not win this battle.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2014, 12:11:48 AM by Luis Gonzalez »
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,148
    • Auktion Online
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #9 on: April 19, 2014, 07:26:23 AM »
There are many things that are "constitutional" that I do not support.  The income tax, for example.  There are also many things that have been promulgated by rule of law that I have opposed.  Obamacare, for example.  In both of these cases, the fact that something has been litigated does not make it right.  I dare say, what is the point of free speech if we are expected to support everything done in our name?  If Cliven Bundy was where he is because he refused to pay his income taxes, I'd probably still support him.  That doesn't mean I refuse to pay my taxes.  It simply means I am philosophically opposed to income taxes and admire and support those who choose to pay a price to stand up to tyranny.

Government at all levels has been overreaching when it comes to property seizure.  Bundy is one of many victims of it.  I am not going to keep my mouth shut just because he went to court and lost. 

As to your fear of government heavy-handedness and the aftermath, if the federal government rolls tanks over Bundy and his family, it will wake up a lot of people who are dozing right now.  The repercussions will be felt in the 2014 midterms, and they will be decidedly anti-establishment.   
« Last Edit: April 19, 2014, 07:33:16 AM by massadvj »
"She only coughs when she lies."

Offline evadR²

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,197
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #10 on: April 19, 2014, 09:06:53 AM »
First they came for the ranchers,
LOL...YES!
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.

Offline evadR²

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,197
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #11 on: April 19, 2014, 09:14:09 AM »
We have a president of this country that doesn't recognize the constitution who's lawlessness knows no bounds. 
It's no wonder that people side with Bundy against this lawless bunch, even IF he isn't perfectly clean himself.
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,836
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #12 on: April 19, 2014, 09:23:55 AM »
People will always root for the underdog, and are suspicious and fearful of faceless organizations.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 22,615
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #13 on: April 19, 2014, 10:09:54 AM »
Bundy does not recognize the US Constitution. In his own words, he doesn't "recognize the United States government as even existing", which translates, any way that you look at it into not recognizing the U.S. Constitution, since that is the instrument that created the United States government. Worthy of note is that Cliven Bundy and the Bundy clan have been paying their fees for the 59 years leading up to 1993 to the very same government that today he doesn't acknowledge as even existing, without protesting its legitimacy.

He doesn't recognize the legitimacy of own State's Constitution. It stopped suiting him the moment that his grazing fees went up in 1993.

He doesn't really recognize the authority of the County that he resides him. They've repeatedly told him that they can't accept his grazing fees payment, and that he needs to make those payments to the BLM, but he will not do that.

He doesn't recognize our Court system, nor will he abide by the Court's decisions since he doesn't agree with them, and in doing that he once again he shows his disregard for our Constitution.

It his his State's Constitution that transferred the land to the Federal government long before the Bundys arrived in Nevada.

It is the US Constitution that gives the United States the power to manage those lands that are the property of the United States.

It is the US Constitution that gives the judiciary power to our Court system.

Our system of government requires that we all acknowledge the Constitution as the Supreme law of the land. It requires that we all accept laws that have been implemented in accordance to Constitutional requirements and that we live by the, lest we are willing to accept the consequences of not doing so.

We must all accept the Constitutional role of the Courts, and accept its mandates. The Constitution guarantees due process, not outcome, and Cliven Bundy has gotten due process.

If we in fact fall behind Cliven Bundy and make him to be some sort of American patriot, then we are cementing in place the idea that we can ALL disregard the US Constitution, the US Courts, the State and County governments, Court mandates and any sort of authority that doesn't suit us.

It is absurd to argue that what we need to do in order to return ourselves to a nation of laws, is to support an individual who doesn't believe in any law outside his own, and if Cliven Bundy has a right to all the things that he believes he has a right to, even though those things are unsupported by the Constitution, the applicable laws, and the Courts, then Sandra Fluke is equally right in believing that she has a right to the things she believes that she has a right to, because she can't have lesser rights than Cliven Bundy simply because we don't agree with her. As an extension, then we all have a right to everything that we think we all have a right to, since none of us would have to abide by any law, any Court, or any Constitution. Then  no Constitution, law or Court would ever be sustainable.

There are a lot of things wrong with our government... a lot of things. But as that stupid old saying goes, two wrongs a right do not make.

Let me tell you what I think is going to happen here.

Cliven Bundy will be broken by the US Government.

They will do it legally if they can, violently if they have no other choice.

The government will do that for the very same reason that George Washington sent out 13,000 militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. In Washington's own words, he could not allow "a small portion of the United States [to] dictate to the whole union". As much as he regretted doing so, Washington understood that in order for the United States to stand, he couldn't allow people to openly disregard duly enacted laws, and disregard the legitimacy of the Federal government.

The people who revolted against the US in Washington's time were every but as passionate about their cause as Bundy and his followers are today, and the United States is no more willing (or able) to allow Bundy's Rebellion to stand today, than it was willing to allow the Whiskey Rebellion to stand then.

Things may very well change in the aftermath of the Bundy Rebellion, but they probably won't change in a way that makes the Federal government weaker, and Cliven Bundy will not win this battle.

Two words! Bull sh*t!

The Bundy position is the Constitutional position. The Constitution, as you know, stands supreme over every law or action. The only thing that supersedes the Constitution are “first principles.” The fundamental principles of natural law, including unalienable rights. The Constitution states that once a state is admitted into the union, it is admitted at an equal footing as all other states. This was specifically done to prevent congress from bribing a territory in giving something to the feds in exchange for making them a state. Once a state is formed all federal lands, therefore, become the states. This happened when all the early states were admitted. But things changed for the western states, Congress began allowing the new states to join the union only if they agreed to leave huge percentages to the feds, over 80% in Nevada’s case. This brought the new states in with a lesser footing than the others—unconstitutional.

Secondly, the Constitution only provides four reasons in which the feds can own state lands, 1) Forts, 2) Magazines and Arsenals, 3) Docks and Boat Yards, and 4) Other needful buildings, such as post offices. And the feds can only own state land for those four purposes with the consent of the state legislature. So, if the feds wanted to keep Nevada land when they became a state the land could only be used for those four reasons. It was not legal for the feds to keep the land in the first place.

So, the feds have been violating the Constitution since 1864 by holding state lands unconstitutionally. This is what the “sagebrush rebellion” is all about. The name for the court case that has been litigated between the western states and the feds for more than 30 years.

The real issue here is that the feds have been violating the Constitution for more than 150 years in the western states and some strong patriots in Nevada are finally saying enough is enough. Are the Bundys really breaking the law if the laws that they are not complying with are unconstitutional? Jefferson and Madison would say no in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. They declare that an unconstitutional law is no law at all. Many of the civil rights law violations were people ignoring laws that were unconstitutional, a great example of correct civil disobedience.

If the Constitutional supremacy argument does satisfy and one is to assume the feds own and control the land constitutionally, then it should be remembered that The Bundy family purchased the grazing and water rights on the land in the 1880’s from the feds. That has never been rescinded. The payments that they have not paid are not the grazing and water rights, but the BLM fees. The BLM was originally created to help ranchers manage public lands that ranchers had paid for the grazing and water rights to. They were a service agency, not a regulatory agency. Once they discontinued providing that service, and worse, began using the rancher’s money to push the ranchers off the land, the Bundys discontinued payments. They were not going to pay for services not rendered. Failing to pay the BLM fees does not remove the grazing and water rights that they had originally paid for.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2014, 10:19:22 AM by Bigun »

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,534
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #14 on: April 19, 2014, 11:12:54 AM »
Two words! Bull sh*t!

The Bundy position is the Constitutional position. The Constitution, as you know, stands supreme over every law or action. The only thing that supersedes the Constitution are “first principles.” The fundamental principles of natural law, including unalienable rights. The Constitution states that once a state is admitted into the union, it is admitted at an equal footing as all other states. This was specifically done to prevent congress from bribing a territory in giving something to the feds in exchange for making them a state. Once a state is formed all federal lands, therefore, become the states. This happened when all the early states were admitted. But things changed for the western states, Congress began allowing the new states to join the union only if they agreed to leave huge percentages to the feds, over 80% in Nevada’s case. This brought the new states in with a lesser footing than the others—unconstitutional.

Secondly, the Constitution only provides four reasons in which the feds can own state lands, 1) Forts, 2) Magazines and Arsenals, 3) Docks and Boat Yards, and 4) Other needful buildings, such as post offices. And the feds can only own state land for those four purposes with the consent of the state legislature. So, if the feds wanted to keep Nevada land when they became a state the land could only be used for those four reasons. It was not legal for the feds to keep the land in the first place.

So, the feds have been violating the Constitution since 1864 by holding state lands unconstitutionally. This is what the “sagebrush rebellion” is all about. The name for the court case that has been litigated between the western states and the feds for more than 30 years.

The real issue here is that the feds have been violating the Constitution for more than 150 years in the western states and some strong patriots in Nevada are finally saying enough is enough. Are the Bundys really breaking the law if the laws that they are not complying with are unconstitutional? Jefferson and Madison would say no in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. They declare that an unconstitutional law is no law at all. Many of the civil rights law violations were people ignoring laws that were unconstitutional, a great example of correct civil disobedience.

If the Constitutional supremacy argument does satisfy and one is to assume the feds own and control the land constitutionally, then it should be remembered that The Bundy family purchased the grazing and water rights on the land in the 1880’s from the feds. That has never been rescinded. The payments that they have not paid are not the grazing and water rights, but the BLM fees. The BLM was originally created to help ranchers manage public lands that ranchers had paid for the grazing and water rights to. They were a service agency, not a regulatory agency. Once they discontinued providing that service, and worse, began using the rancher’s money to push the ranchers off the land, the Bundys discontinued payments. They were not going to pay for services not rendered. Failing to pay the BLM fees does not remove the grazing and water rights that they had originally paid for.

Let me show you just how much lack of understanding there is concerning this issue.

You are a very knowledgeable individual, and you are basing your entire opinion on an error.

The Constitution states that once a state is admitted into the union, it is admitted at an equal footing as all other states.

That is not found anywhere in the Constitution, what you are alluding to is actually the Northwest Ordinance.

Since the passing of the Northwest Ordinance, and the drafting of the Constitution of Nevada, which gave ownership of the land in question to the United States, the SCOTUS has found that the United States powers over land owned by the united States are nearly limitless.

So neither you, nor Bundy will ever win a case that's based on a something that you claim is in the Constitution but isn't, because what is actually in the Constitution, flies at the face of your argument.

Right now, in order for Bundy to even have a case, the first thing that has to happen is for Nevada to overturn its own Constitution, and take title to the lands it gave to the United States back in 1864.
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,534
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #15 on: April 19, 2014, 11:14:47 AM »
There are many things that are "constitutional" that I do not support.

The left feels exactly the same way that you do about gun ownership.

Quote
Government at all levels has been overreaching when it comes to property seizure.  Bundy is one of many victims of it.

I completely agree with you on this, but not in this case. Bundy does not own that land, if he did, he would have a title to it, and he would have been paying taxes on it, not fees to use it.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2014, 11:17:01 AM by Luis Gonzalez »
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,534
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #16 on: April 19, 2014, 11:21:54 AM »
By the way, there's one Bundy myth that must be busted, and Breitbart took the time to do so.

The Chinese solar thing.

Quote
Despite the obvious partisan gain to be had if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s son Rory (a failed 2010 Nevada gubernatorial candidate) had somehow been involved in a “land grab” affecting the Bundy family ranch operation—the facts just do not pan out as such. Indeed, Rory Reid did in fact have a hand in plans to reclassify federal lands for renewable energy developments. Just northeast of Las Vegas and Nellis Air Force Base, plans were drawn by Reid allies to potentially develop 5,717 acres of land for such use. While it would be fair to claim that such activity was in Bundy’s relative neighborhood, the federal lands once leased by the family were more than 20 miles away, east of Overton, Nevada. Contrasting maps offered by InfoWars and those entered into federal court record prove such a theory to be a stretch.

“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 22,615
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #17 on: April 19, 2014, 11:22:57 AM »
Let me show you just how much lack of understanding there is concerning this issue.

You are a very knowledgeable individual, and you are basing your entire opinion on an error.

The Constitution states that once a state is admitted into the union, it is admitted at an equal footing as all other states.

That is not found anywhere in the Constitution, what you are alluding to is actually the Northwest Ordinance.

Since the passing of the Northwest Ordinance, and the drafting of the Constitution of Nevada, which gave ownership of the land in question to the United States, the SCOTUS has found that the United States powers over land owned by the united States are nearly limitless.

So neither you, nor Bundy will ever win a case that's based on a something that you claim is in the Constitution but isn't, because what is actually in the Constitution, flies at the face of your argument.

Right now, in order for Bundy to even have a case, the first thing that has to happen is for Nevada to overturn its own Constitution, and take title to the lands it gave to the United States back in 1864.

And you, my learned friend, seem to have forgotten entirely about Article IV of the Constitution but lets put that aside for a moment  and just focus on this part of what I posted earlier:

Quote
If the Constitutional supremacy argument does satisfy and one is to assume the feds own and control the land constitutionally, then it should be remembered that The Bundy family purchased the grazing and water rights on the land in the 1880’s from the feds. That has never been rescinded. The payments that they have not paid are not the grazing and water rights, but the BLM fees. The BLM was originally created to help ranchers manage public lands that ranchers had paid for the grazing and water rights to. They were a service agency, not a regulatory agency. Once they discontinued providing that service, and worse, began using the rancher’s money to push the ranchers off the land, the Bundys discontinued payments. They were not going to pay for services not rendered. Failing to pay the BLM fees does not remove the grazing and water rights that they had originally paid for.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2014, 11:26:10 AM by Bigun »

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,534
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #18 on: April 19, 2014, 11:23:40 AM »
People will always root for the underdog, and are suspicious and fearful of faceless organizations.

Absolutely.
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,534
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #19 on: April 19, 2014, 11:27:38 AM »
And you, my learned friend, seem to have forgotten entirely about Article IV of the Constitution!

Just as we argue that the words "separation of Church and State" are noweher to be found in the Constitution, the words "equal footing" are not.

You claimed that the "Constitution states" that.

It doesn't.

ARTICLE IV

SECTION. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

SECTION. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

SECTION. 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

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; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

SECTION. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,534
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #20 on: April 19, 2014, 11:36:57 AM »
it should be remembered that The Bundy family purchased the grazing and water rights on the land in the 1880’s from the feds.

Where is his title?

The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 rescinded those rights, if they ever in fact existed:

Quote
So far as consistent with the purposes and provisions of this subchapter, grazing privileges recognized and acknowledged shall be adequately safeguarded, but the creation of a grazing district or the issuance of a permit pursuant to the provisions of this subchapter shall not create any right, title, interest, or estate in or to the lands.

Taylor was a Colorado rancher, hardly someone who would advocate Federal tyranny over ranchers.

In Public Lands Council v. Babbitt the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the above provision:

Quote
The words “so far as consistent with the purposes . . . of this subchapter” and the warning that “issuance of a permit” creates no “right, title, interest or estate” make clear that the ranchers’ interest in permit stability cannot be absolute; and that the Secretary is free reasonably to determine just how, and the extent to which, “grazing privileges” shall be safeguarded, in light of the Act’s basic purposes. Of course, those purposes include “stabiliz[ing] the livestock industry,” but they also include “stop[ping] injury to the public grazing lands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration,” and “provid[ing] for th[e] orderly use, improvement, and development” of the public range.

“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 22,615
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #21 on: April 19, 2014, 11:39:16 AM »
Just as we argue that the words "separation of Church and State" are noweher to be found in the Constitution, the words "equal footing" are not.

You claimed that the "Constitution states" that.

It doesn't.

ARTICLE IV

SECTION. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

SECTION. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

SECTION. 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

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; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

SECTION. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Well then perhaps you will be kind enough to explain to me the meaning of the words  in  Section 1. of what you quoted above. Does the word RECORDS include ALL records?
 

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,836
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #22 on: April 19, 2014, 11:40:44 AM »
Where is his title?

Homestead act might be relevant here?
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 22,615
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #23 on: April 19, 2014, 11:44:11 AM »
Quote
Where is his title?

I don't know but I seriously doubt that his family would have been allowed the use of that land from that date to now without one.

Do you?

Not going to try to adjudicate this further here with you. I have laid out my position and stand by it!

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,534
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Why ranchers support "hero" Cliven Bundy
« Reply #24 on: April 19, 2014, 11:46:41 AM »
I don't know but I seriously doubt that his family would have been allowed the use of that land from that date to now without one.

Do you?

Not going to try to adjudicate this further here with you. I have laid out my position and stand by it!

They were allowed to use the lands because they were paying grazing fees up until 1993.
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf