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.
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.
First they came for the ranchers,LOL...YES!
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.
There are many things that are "constitutional" that I do not support.
Government at all levels has been overreaching when it comes to property seizure. Bundy is one of many victims of it.
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.(http://www.breitbart.com/mediaserver/3565EC1DDD4E4E8D8F97FC2270EDB855.jpg)
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.
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.
People will always root for the underdog, and are suspicious and fearful of faceless organizations.
And you, my learned friend, seem to have forgotten entirely about Article IV of the Constitution!
it should be remembered that The Bundy family purchased the grazing and water rights on the land in the 1880’s from the feds.
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.
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.
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.
Where is his title?
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!
Homestead act might be relevant here?
Homestead act might be relevant here?
That would give him title to 160 acres, not 750,000 acres.
BTW... the land in question is not the land owned by Bundy. The fact that Bundy family had been paying fees to use it up to 1993, and that Bundy is willing to continue paying those fees to Clarke County, is ample evidence that Bundy claims no title to it.
If he did, he'd have to pay taxes on it.
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?
“Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; …..”
I doubt that but can tell you for sure that the State of West Virginia was formed within the Jurisdiction of the State of Virginia - in direct contravention of "...no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State;" - and that is the beginning of ALL of this IMHO!
I am thinking more of the principle of the thing. Did he maintain the land? Yes. Did he improve the land? Yes. Did he caretake the land? Yes. Was he willing to pay taxes on the land? Yes.
It could be argued his family has the right to it under the homestead act.
The Taylor Grazing Act lays that claim to rest.
That were 1934.
The family have held the same lands since 1919.
Article IV, Section 3, clause 2 United States Constitution:
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
Western lawmakers gather in Utah to talk federal land takeover
‘It’s time’ » Lawmakers from 9 states gather in Utah, discuss ways to take control of federal lands.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57836973-90/utah-lands-lawmakers-federal.html.csp
Nevada would have to amend its Constitution to do that, and to do that, they would need the support of the people of Nevada.
The people of Nevada are the very same people who have been sending Harry Reid to Congress time and time again since 1987.
In addition, they would have to drop from their Constitution the very verbiage that made it possible for Nevada to enter the Union. That will be tricky.
I don't see it happening.
I'm not sure who the "people of Nevada" are.
I think what keeps electing scum like dingy hairy are unions, corruption, fraud, big city LIVs and maybe a few other miscellaneous low life mf'ers.
That would have to turn around for there to be any hope for Nevada.
I don't see it happening.
Nevada's REPUBLICAN governor hasn't said much about this whole ordeal, has he?Haven't heard a peep.
Nevada's REPUBLICAN governor hasn't said much about this whole ordeal, has he?
Haven't heard a peep.
Never assume that because the MSM fails to report on something that it isn't happening!
Apparently he has said enough to thoroughly piss of the left!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/14/1291988/-Nevada-s-GOP-governor-senator-back-Bundy-ranch-over-federal-law#
And then there is this!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/07/nevada-officials-blast-feds-over-treatment-cattle-rancher-cliven-bundy/
Never assume that because the MSM fails to report on something that it isn't happening!Well that's true for sure.
Never assume that because the MSM fails to report on something that it isn't happening!
Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval has inserted himself into the escalating standoff between cattle rancher Cliven Bundy and federal officials by blasting the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over their creation of a ‘First Amendment Area’ outside of which free speech is banned.
The ‘First Amendment Area’ set up by BLM agents is a crudely taped off piece of land inside which supporters of Bundy, who is engaged in a long running dispute with feds over grazing rights on a 600,000 acre expanse in northeastern Clark County, are allowed to express their free speech.
However, protesters have completely ignored the area, instead staging large demonstrations on Bundy’s ranch. The only presence inside the ‘First Amendment Area’ are signs which read “1st Amendment is not an area” and another that states, “Welcome to Amerika – Wake Up” alongside a hammer and sickle logo.
“Most disturbing to me is the BLM’s establishment of a ‘First Amendment Area’ that tramples upon Nevadans’ fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution,” said Sandoval in a statement. “To that end, I have advised the BLM that such conduct is offensive to me and countless others and that the ‘First Amendment Area’ should be dismantled immediately.”
“No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans. The BLM needs to reconsider its approach to this matter and act accordingly,” asserted the Governor.
The Bundy family responded to Sandoval’s statement by saying they were disappointed that he didn't take a more firm stance to back them in their dispute with the BLM, but they were pleased with his sentiments regarding the ‘First Amendment Area’.
Due to the roundup by the BLM, my office has received numerous complaints of BLM misconduct, road closures and other disturbances. I have recently met with state legislators, county officials and concerned citizens to listen to their concerns. I have expressed those concerns directly to the BLM.
Most disturbing to me is the BLM’s establishment of a “First Amendment Area” that tramples upon Nevadans’ fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution. To that end, I have advised the BLM that such conduct is offensive to me and countless others and that the “First Amendment Area” should be dismantled immediately. No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans. The BLM needs to reconsider its approach to this matter and act accordingly.
I don't see where he has taken any stance backing the Bundy's dispute.
This is what I would expect...
Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) on Friday called for a Senate hearing into the dispute between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over cattle grazing.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/203913-senator-urges-hearing-on-bundy-ranch-dispute
Senate hearings?
What happened after the Fast and Furious Senate hearings?
Who has been held liable, jailed, fired?
Benghazi...
Seven Congressional hearings.
Who has been held liable, jailed, fired?
The IRS persecution of conservative groups.
Five hearings and Holly Paz was fired because she didn't notify Congress that the abuses were happening?
How about the people that were carrying out the abuses. When will they be fired?
A Senate hearing...(http://www.jetaanc.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Kabuki-Website.jpg)
And this is why most people stand with Bundy in his fight with a government organization that sends in snipers to collect back rent. and/or payment for government grass.
BLM, Bureau of Land Management, does what to "manage" this land? Do they bring in irrigation to water the grass? Do they plow, plant, fertilize, cultivate, cut, or bale? Did they fence off the government territory? Just what do they expect payment for, herding turtles? Looks a lot like the same entitlement mentality that's destroying this country.
The farmers, ranchers, miners, drillers, loggers, fishermen, and whoever else uses "government" - read OUR - land pays taxes on what they produce. Right now there are oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico that cannot be produced because the government won't issue drilling permits, but they damn sure collected the lease money from the oil companies. Forest fires run rampant each summer because there is no management of "our" forests so everyone, including the animals, lose benefit of it.
Cliven Bundy refused to pay for services that were never delivered and the responses are but a federal court ruled against him.
Really? Imagine that.
And now the President of the Senate declares Bundy supporters domestic terrorists. If so, so be it for today, is the anniversary of the Battle of Lexington.
And this is why most people stand with Bundy in his fight with a government organization that sends in snipers to collect back rent. and/or payment for government grass.
BLM, Bureau of Land Management, does what to "manage" this land? Do they bring in irrigation to water the grass? Do they plow, plant, fertilize, cultivate, cut, or bale? Did they fence off the government territory? Just what do they expect payment for, herding turtles? Looks a lot like the same entitlement mentality that's destroying this country.
The farmers, ranchers, miners, drillers, loggers, fishermen, and whoever else uses "government" - read OUR - land pays taxes on what they produce. Right now there are oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico that cannot be produced because the government won't issue drilling permits, but they damn sure collected the lease money from the oil companies. Forest fires run rampant each summer because there is no management of "our" forests so everyone, including the animals, lose benefit of it.
Cliven Bundy refused to pay for services that were never delivered and the responses are but a federal court ruled against him.
Really? Imagine that.
And now the President of the Senate declares Bundy supporters domestic terrorists. If so, so be it for today, is the anniversary of the Battle of Lexington.
Senate hearings?
What happened after the Fast and Furious Senate hearings?
Who has been held liable, jailed, fired?
Benghazi...
Seven Congressional hearings.
Who has been held liable, jailed, fired?
The IRS persecution of conservative groups.
Five hearings and Holly Paz was fired because she didn't notify Congress that the abuses were happening?
How about the people that were carrying out the abuses. When will they be fired?
A Senate hearing...(http://www.jetaanc.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Kabuki-Website.jpg)
Just dropped in to give you folks kudos for the intelligent and respectful debate on this thread. Both sides represented themselves well! While I feel some of the same emotion expressed by several here, I have to back up and check that emotion, or I'm no different from the "occupy" gangs that took over buildings, parks and other places illegally.
Luis, you did an outstanding job of laying out the legal issues, which brought me back to reality. If changes are to be made to the status of public lands, it has to be done by our elected officials. I'm reminded of the tax protesters who still believe the income tax is unconstitutional. Hopefully a lot of others read this thread too.
Just dropped in to give you folks kudos for the intelligent and respectful debate on this thread. Both sides represented themselves well! While I feel some of the same emotion expressed by several here, I have to back up and check that emotion, or I'm no different from the "occupy" gangs that took over buildings, parks and other places illegally.
Luis, you did an outstanding job of laying out the legal issues, which brought me back to reality. If changes are to be made to the status of public lands, it has to be done by our elected officials. I'm reminded of the tax protesters who still believe the income tax is unconstitutional. Hopefully a lot of others read this thread too.
The emotion-based argument doesn't work with me.
Cliven Bundy has been running a profitable business on public land without paying either rent nor taxes for the past 20 years. So the services, the use of the land, were delivered.
Sorry.
He's no hero.
Thank you for the kind words. I agree that a CIVIL discussion it has been.
Lewis has made a legal case for sure! Just as one would expect expect from someone who attended law school at a time when only case law is in the curriculum. We'll see if, in the end, it stands up to Constitutional scrutiny.
Can't treat some states differently than other states!
Section 1 - The Text
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 1 - The Meaning
Article IV, Section 1 ensures that states respect and honor the state laws and court orders of other states, even when their own laws are different. For example, if citizens of New Jersey marry, divorce, or adopt children in New Jersey, Florida must recognize these actions as valid even if the marriage or divorce would not have been possible under Florida law. Similarly, if a court in one state orders a person to pay money or to stop a certain behavior, the courts in other states must recognize and enforce that state’s order.
Article IV, Section 1 also gives Congress the power to determine how states recognize records and laws from other states and how they enforce each others’ court orders. For example, Congress may pass a federal law that specifies how states must handle child custody disputes when state laws are different or that sets out the process by which a person winning a lawsuit in one state can enforce the order in another state.
Section 2 - The Text
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.]10
10. Modified by Amendment XIII.
Section 2 - The Meaning
Article IV, Section 2 guarantees that states cannot discriminate against citizens of other states. States must give people from other states the same fundamental rights it gives its own citizens. For example, Arizona cannot prohibit New Mexico residents from traveling, owning property, or working in Arizona, nor can the state impose substantially different taxes on residents and nonresidents. But certain distinctions between residents and nonresidents—such as giving state residents a right to buy a hunting license at a lower cost— are permitted.
Article IV, Section 2 also establishes rules for when an alleged criminal flees to another state. It provides that the second state is obligated to return the fugitive to the state where the crime was committed. The process used to return fugitives (extradition) was first created by Congress and originally enforced by the governors of each state. Today courts enforce the return of accused prisoners. Fugitives do not need to have been charged with the crime in the first state in order to be captured in the second and sent back. Once returned, the state can charge the accused with any crime for which there is evidence.
In contrast, when a foreign country returns a fugitive to a state for trial, the state is only allowed to try the fugitive on the charges named in the extradition papers (the formal, written request for the fugitive’s return).
The fugitives from labor provision gave slave owners a nearly absolute right to recapture runaway slaves who fled to another state, even if slavery was outlawed in that state. This also meant that state laws in free states intended to protect runaway slaves were unconstitutional because they interfered with the slave owner’s right to the slave’s return. The adoption of Amendment XIII, which abolishes slavery and prohibits involuntary servitude, nullified this provision.
Section 2 - The Text
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.]10
10. Modified by Amendment XIII.
Section 2 - The Meaning
Article IV, Section 2 guarantees that states cannot discriminate against citizens of other states. States must give people from other states the same fundamental rights it gives its own citizens. For example, Arizona cannot prohibit New Mexico residents from traveling, owning property, or working in Arizona, nor can the state impose substantially different taxes on residents and nonresidents. But certain distinctions between residents and nonresidents—such as giving state residents a right to buy a hunting license at a lower cost— are permitted.
Article IV, Section 2 also establishes rules for when an alleged criminal flees to another state. It provides that the second state is obligated to return the fugitive to the state where the crime was committed. The process used to return fugitives (extradition) was first created by Congress and originally enforced by the governors of each state. Today courts enforce the return of accused prisoners. Fugitives do not need to have been charged with the crime in the first state in order to be captured in the second and sent back. Once returned, the state can charge the accused with any crime for which there is evidence.
In contrast, when a foreign country returns a fugitive to a state for trial, the state is only allowed to try the fugitive on the charges named in the extradition papers (the formal, written request for the fugitive’s return).
The fugitives from labor provision gave slave owners a nearly absolute right to recapture runaway slaves who fled to another state, even if slavery was outlawed in that state. This also meant that state laws in free states intended to protect runaway slaves were unconstitutional because they interfered with the slave owner’s right to the slave’s return. The adoption of Amendment XIII, which abolishes slavery and prohibits involuntary servitude, nullified this provision.
Section 4 - The Text
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 can-not be convened) against domestic Violence.
Section 4 - The Meaning
This provision, known as the guarantee clause, is attributed to James Madison. It has not been widely interpreted, but scholars think it ensures that each state be run as a representative democracy, as opposed to a monarchy (run by a king or queen) or a dictatorship (where one individual or group of individuals controls the government). Courts however have been reluctant to specify what exactly a republican form of government means, leaving that decision exclusively to Congress.
The section also gives Congress the power (and obligation) to protect the states from an invasion by a foreign country, or from significant violent uprisings within each state. It authorizes the legislature of each state (or the executive, if the legislature cannot be assembled in time) to request federal help with riots or other violence.
Just dropped in to give you folks kudos for the intelligent and respectful debate on this thread. Both sides represented themselves well! While I feel some of the same emotion expressed by several here, I have to back up and check that emotion, or I'm no different from the "occupy" gangs that took over buildings, parks and other places illegally.
Luis, you did an outstanding job of laying out the legal issues, which brought me back to reality. If changes are to be made to the status of public lands, it has to be done by our elected officials. I'm reminded of the tax protesters who still believe the income tax is unconstitutional. Hopefully a lot of others read this thread too.
There seems to be a disconnect here in exactly what the government is providing. I listed what should be done above, but that's not the case here. The BLM is acting like a long distance slum lord who doesn't fix a thing on there property and yet demands, with force, to be paid.
How do you know he hasn't paid taxes in 20 years? Do you and Elijah Cummings have something going on here the rest of us should know about? We have had this part of the discussion before and the way you responded it implies that he does not own his ranch nor pay taxes on it's production.
I don't know whether he pays taxes or not, I'm not privy to private information. If you are referencing paying taxes on the property he doesn't own, then I'd have to agree, he's not paying taxes on that part. Then again, neither are the turtles so again, what management is being done here? What services are being rendered?
Because a federal court ruled against him, twice, the onus is on him to surrender to what he believes is wrong? The courts rule in error all the time, it does not make it right. How many times has the courts ruled that it is a woman's inalienable right to kill her child? That makes it legal, it does not make it right.
That's a bit of a stretch right now with a government that is making up the rules/laws on health care, immigration, drugs, etc. as it goes along and an AGs office that picks and chooses which laws it wants to enforce, but that aside, no where does it say debt collection will be done at the point of a gun.
And that is why the people who support Bundy are CORRECTLY pissed! They recognized the level of flim-flammery that goes on, while the "hale fellow well met, Constitutional cuckolds" dance with the angels on the head of a pin.
On this day, it's important to remember, it's not the word of the law but the INTENTION of the law. You don't want to help your neighbor when his ox has a broken leg in the field, fine. Just stop irritating and blocking those who would!
This was an intelligent discussion until some ignorant POS decided to call me a "Constitutional cuckold".
I can go to that level and swing with the very best OLN, so make your hick mind up in how to go forward from here.
Actually, my comment was not directed at you. Wasn't directed at anyone here, as a matter of fact.
Bullshit.
One more time, had it been directed at you, it would have been responded to you in one of your threads, not a carom off of someone else's comment. Accept it. Don't accept it.
This was an intelligent discussion until some ignorant POS decided to call me a "Constitutional cuckold".
Actually, my comment was not directed at you. Wasn't directed at anyone here, as a matter of fact.
Bullshit.
LOL..and after all those civility comments. :beer:
Just dropped in to give you folks kudos for the intelligent and respectful debate on this thread. Both sides represented themselves well! While I feel some of the same emotion expressed by several here, I have to back up and check that emotion, or I'm no different from the "occupy" gangs that took over buildings, parks and other places illegally.
Luis, you did an outstanding job of laying out the legal issues, which brought me back to reality. If changes are to be made to the status of public lands, it has to be done by our elected officials. I'm reminded of the tax protesters who still believe the income tax is unconstitutional. Hopefully a lot of others read this thread too.
:beer:
It's been almost exactly three years, MAC! Good to 'see' you!
I'm not one of those cheek turning guys.
No, last time you cut and ran and didn't show up for 3 months when someone said boo to you. Now THAT's directed at you.
And that is why the people who support Bundy are CORRECTLY pissed! They recognized the level of flim-flammery that goes on, while the "hale fellow well met, Constitutional cuckolds" dance with the angels on the head of a pin.
On this day, it's important to remember, it's not the word of the law but the INTENTION of the law. You don't want to help your neighbor when his ox has a broken leg in the field, fine. Just stop irritating and blocking those who would!
I think Mac posted too soon re the civility of this thread...
I think Mac posted too soon re the civility of this thread...LOL..it went straight down hill after that post. Maybe Mac should return to his bat cave.
LOL..it went straight down hill after that post. Maybe Mac should return to his bat cave.
Just playin' now.....
I think Mac posted too soon re the civility of this thread...
My good timing record of zero is still in tact!
This is not...my...bat cave...? :smokin:
Strange how your answer to my post pissed off someone else entirely!
(sp)
I for one am happy to see you MAC.
MAC is among the best! Wicked smart. I respect him immensely.
This is not...my...bat cave...? :smokin:
I for one am happy to see you MAC.
Hey, I don't even know you and I'm glad to see anyone with that many posts.
Join the fun, it's a laugh a minute around here.
This is not...my...bat cave...? :smokin:
And my post wasn't even directed at you personally either. It was a gripe toward:
Glenn Beck
Jonah Goldberg
Tucker Carlson
All of whom, I understand don't the offended party's viewership/readership but notheless reach a person or two combined.
Ocean wrote: "Mac, Mac, Mac!! When are you going to come back on a more permanent basis?"
We can always debate tax policy Ocean... :beer:
Anyway, hello to everyone here, especially all my old buds.
I'm glad to see you here as well and pretty darned sure that I do know you but not from this site.
I left MACV in November 1967. Presumedly just before you arrived.
I've not been on too many sites Bigun, and other than TOS which I left in '07 with many others "deportees" they've all gone to the forum graveyard. And I haven't been on any forum for a couple of years. But if you were on any of the post-07 start-ups, we might have met.
Yeah, I didn't get 'in country' until Sept 68. Were you with 5th SF?
Yes indeed! I was a CRYPTO guy. Worked mostly with the Vietnamese guys.
I remember you from TOS (my handle there was the same as here). Loved that place from March of 98 till the run up to the last election when the religious bigots took over the place and ran me off.
Welcome home. Was with CCN (Command and Control North) with MACVSOG. Spent the last couple of months in Group.
Can't believe you lasted in TOS that long. It was okay if you stayed away from religion and politics. Sorta like family reunions.
And my post wasn't even directed at you personally either. It was a gripe toward:
Glenn Beck
Jonah Goldberg
Tucker Carlson
All of whom, I understand don't the offended party's viewership/readership but notheless reach a person or two combined.
Thank you for the kind words my friend. Guess I was just a little late after the invite. My bad!
Luis... I respect your words also. I read every one.
And welcome home to you as well! I pretty much followed the religion part but not so much on the politics part. LOL!
I did a LOT of advocating for the Fairtax (http://fairtax.org) over there just as I do here.
Didn't take it that way.
And welcome home to you as well! I pretty much followed the religion part but not so much on the politics part. LOL!
I did a LOT of advocating for the Fairtax (http://fairtax.org) over there just as I do here.
You're so incredibly disingenuous.
Imagine for a minute that this was a discussion on black/white racial inequality, and that I was the one black guy on the thread arguing that such inequality existed, when you comment that "most n$#^ers think that way", and when I take offense at the slur, your best response is "I was talking about other n$#^ers that are not here" because you lack both the courage and the intelligence to stand by your own words.
Well, when you decide to call the people who hold the same position that I hold on this debate "Constitutional cuckolds", then you're saying that I am a "Constitutional cuckold".
You both talk a lot of smack about facing down the gubmint from the comfort of your living room, but I when I challenge you, your convictions fold up like a cheap suit and you start claiming that you didn't mean a word of what you said.
Have the courage to own what you said, and that you said it to someone that's here, not people who have zero chance of reading this thread.
BTW Bigun. Whenever we disagree, we never seem to be disagreeable to one another.
I respect your passion and your honesty.
We had some good tax debates here a few years ago Bigun. If any tax bills are seriously considered in Congress this year, Ocean and I will likely be engaging in the issue. I haven't heard anything about the Fairtax in a long time. Would make for some good discussions.
Luis that is my recollection both here and for TOS.
I respect your opinions as well and will always try to maintain the civil nature of our discourse.
In an effort to get this thread back on it's original course, I would invite you to look at how states formed out of the land acquired by the fed gov with the Louisiana Purchase vs those states in the west have been treated with regard to lands within their boundaries.
Ran across the article below after I posted the above and thought it relevant.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865601377/Western-states-to-feds-Turn-over-public-lands.html (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865601377/Western-states-to-feds-Turn-over-public-lands.html)