i'm in south central texas, it doesn't get any warmer. and only when I have a gun in my hand do I feel like I have a giant horse cock. weather won't change that i'm afraid. I grab my assault rifle and pretend it's my pecker, then dry hump the air and yell ohhhhhh yeaahhhhhhh baby!!!
1. Bundy is a rancher that lets his cattle graze on public land which is also protected. 2. He refuses to pay government fees attached to his cattle's grazing activities- violating federal law. 3. He lets his cows graze there so he doesn't have to feed them himself. 4. He sells his cattle for an 'increased' profit given his low costs typically associated with raising cattle. 5. After 20 years of ignoring the government, the government is taking action against this man.
I have read the 'other side'... but I still am not feeling the same way as you are. What am I missing here so that I might think like you?
great post...and like many great posts....it's ignored...
Funny how those who are all about "rule of law" feel that laws don't apply here....
1. Bundy is a rancher that lets his cattle graze on public land which is also protected. 2. He refuses to pay government fees attached to his cattle's grazing activities- violating federal law. 3. He lets his cows graze there so he doesn't have to feed them himself. 4. He sells his cattle for an 'increased' profit given his low costs typically associated with raising cattle. 5. After 20 years of ignoring the government, the government is taking action against this man.
I have read the 'other side'... but I still am not feeling the same way as you are. What am I missing here so that I might think like you?
great post...and like many great posts....it's ignored...
Funny how those who are all about "rule of law" feel that laws don't apply here....
... Besides the 5 facts listed by ThirtyBills, there is also the fact that Mr. Bundy had his day in court... and tried to get that judgement over ruled... and lost. He apparently does not recognize our courts system, either. The Courts System that is established in the U.S. Constitution. What does he recognize as authority... as law, other than his own free will?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
1. Bundy is a rancher that lets his cattle graze on public land which is also protected. 2. He refuses to pay government fees attached to his cattle's grazing activities- violating federal law. 3. He lets his cows graze there so he doesn't have to feed them himself. 4. He sells his cattle for an 'increased' profit given his low costs typically associated with raising cattle. 5. After 20 years of ignoring the government, the government is taking action against this man.
I have read the 'other side'... but I still am not feeling the same way as you are. What am I missing here so that I might think like you?
great post...and like many great posts....it's ignored...
Funny how those who are all about "rule of law" feel that laws don't apply here....
... Besides the 5 facts listed by ThirtyBills, there is also the fact that Mr. Bundy had his day in court... and tried to get that judgement over ruled... and lost. He apparently does not recognize our courts system, either. The Courts System that is established in the U.S. Constitution. What does he recognize as authority... as law, other than his own free will?
He doesn't recognize federal oversight of the land because Art 1, Sec VIII does not authorize the federal government regulatory power over state land. Therefore he doesn't owe the federal government a dime.
The state should hold regulatory power over the land and therefore would be the entity that would rent the land. He tried to pay them, they wouldn't accept the money.
Any federal law that regulates land in a state is unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Well, at least to those that believe in the Constitution.
1. Bundy is a rancher that lets his cattle graze on public land which is also protected. 2. He refuses to pay government fees attached to his cattle's grazing activities- violating federal law. 3. He lets his cows graze there so he doesn't have to feed them himself. 4. He sells his cattle for an 'increased' profit given his low costs typically associated with raising cattle. 5. After 20 years of ignoring the government, the government is taking action against this man.
I have read the 'other side'... but I still am not feeling the same way as you are. What am I missing here so that I might think like you?
great post...and like many great posts....it's ignored...
Funny how those who are all about "rule of law" feel that laws don't apply here....
Cheers.
I felt that either one of the following three scenarios would be the reason why there was no response:
1. The anarchists read it and thought to themselves, "Hmmm. Yahhhh. This might be a reach. I might have to go find another cause to resist the government in."
2. I clearly do not understand the scope of this incident and I am out of my mind.
3. I am on everyone's ignore list.
So, thanks for clarifying to me that scenario 2 or 3 is not the reason behind the silence that followed the post.
1. Bundy is a rancher that lets his cattle graze on public land which is also protected. 2. He refuses to pay government fees attached to his cattle's grazing activities- violating federal law. 3. He lets his cows graze there so he doesn't have to feed them himself. 4. He sells his cattle for an 'increased' profit given his low costs typically associated with raising cattle. 5. After 20 years of ignoring the government, the government is taking action against this man.
I have read the 'other side'... but I still am not feeling the same way as you are. What am I missing here so that I might think like you?
great post...and like many great posts....it's ignored...
Funny how those who are all about "rule of law" feel that laws don't apply here....
... Besides the 5 facts listed by ThirtyBills, there is also the fact that Mr. Bundy had his day in court... and tried to get that judgement over ruled... and lost. He apparently does not recognize our courts system, either. The Courts System that is established in the U.S. Constitution. What does he recognize as authority... as law, other than his own free will?
He doesn't recognize federal oversight of the land because Art 1, Sec VIII does not authorize the federal government regulatory power over state land. Therefore he doesn't owe the federal government a dime.
The state should hold regulatory power over the land and therefore would be the entity that would rent the land. He tried to pay them, they wouldn't accept the money.
Any federal law that regulates land in a state is unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Well, at least to those that believe in the Constitution.
Any federal law that regulates land in a state is unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Well, at least to those that believe in the Constitution.
Who says? I counter with the following that I found on the interweb:
Shedding some additional light on the land ownership issue. In NV, one of the claims being made is that the BLM is in violation of the Enclave Clause of the Constitution and that the state technically owns the land. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Several other states in the west, UT, AZ & NV among them, have also tried invoking the Enclave Clause. There is ample case law on the books from the US Supreme Court that are quite clear:
"Any public lands used for “forests, parks, ranges, wild life sanctuaries, flood control, and other purposes [ . . . ] are not covered by Clause 17.” Collins v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co., 304 U.S. 518, 529-30 (1938). The Supreme Court emphasized these points in the 1885 case of Ft. Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe as well; it is not a new interpretation.
Federal land within any state's borders are owned by the federal government and accordingly, are governed by another part of the Constitution, Article IV’s Property Clause, which gives the federal government broad “power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”
With respect to federal action under the Property Clause, the Supreme Court has been unmistakably clear. When Congress passes legislation respecting federal lands, “the federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause.” Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 543 (1976); see U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. When the federal government has title to lands within a state, the state may not “affect the title of the United States or embarrass it in using the lands or interfere with its right of disposal.” James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 141 (1937) (emphasis added) (quoting Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647, 650 (1930))."
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.
Because you want it to be, doesn't make it so. I'm still waiting for a response regarding your thus far unfounded allegation that "Reid was bought off" and whether or not you read the BLM report.
1. Bundy is a rancher that lets his cattle graze on public land which is also protected. 2. He refuses to pay government fees attached to his cattle's grazing activities- violating federal law. 3. He lets his cows graze there so he doesn't have to feed them himself. 4. He sells his cattle for an 'increased' profit given his low costs typically associated with raising cattle. 5. After 20 years of ignoring the government, the government is taking action against this man.
I have read the 'other side'... but I still am not feeling the same way as you are. What am I missing here so that I might think like you?
great post...and like many great posts....it's ignored...
Funny how those who are all about "rule of law" feel that laws don't apply here....
... Besides the 5 facts listed by ThirtyBills, there is also the fact that Mr. Bundy had his day in court... and tried to get that judgement over ruled... and lost. He apparently does not recognize our courts system, either. The Courts System that is established in the U.S. Constitution. What does he recognize as authority... as law, other than his own free will?
He doesn't recognize federal oversight of the land because Art 1, Sec VIII does not authorize the federal government regulatory power over state land. Therefore he doesn't owe the federal government a dime.
The state should hold regulatory power over the land and therefore would be the entity that would rent the land. He tried to pay them, they wouldn't accept the money.
Any federal law that regulates land in a state is unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Well, at least to those that believe in the Constitution.
Any federal law that regulates land in a state is unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Well, at least to those that believe in the Constitution.
Who says? I counter with the following that I found on the interweb:
Shedding some additional light on the land ownership issue. In NV, one of the claims being made is that the BLM is in violation of the Enclave Clause of the Constitution and that the state technically owns the land. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Several other states in the west, UT, AZ & NV among them, have also tried invoking the Enclave Clause. There is ample case law on the books from the US Supreme Court that are quite clear:
"Any public lands used for “forests, parks, ranges, wild life sanctuaries, flood control, and other purposes [ . . . ] are not covered by Clause 17.” Collins v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co., 304 U.S. 518, 529-30 (1938). The Supreme Court emphasized these points in the 1885 case of Ft. Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe as well; it is not a new interpretation.
Federal land within any state's borders are owned by the federal government and accordingly, are governed by another part of the Constitution, Article IV’s Property Clause, which gives the federal government broad “power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”
With respect to federal action under the Property Clause, the Supreme Court has been unmistakably clear. When Congress passes legislation respecting federal lands, “the federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause.” Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 543 (1976); see U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. When the federal government has title to lands within a state, the state may not “affect the title of the United States or embarrass it in using the lands or interfere with its right of disposal.” James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 141 (1937) (emphasis added) (quoting Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647, 650 (1930))."
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.
Because you want it to be, doesn't make it so. I'm still waiting for a response regarding your thus far unfounded allegation that "Reid was bought off" and whether or not you read the BLM report.
Peace.
=D>
And the sun it may be shining . . . but there's an ocean in my eyes
1. Bundy is a rancher that lets his cattle graze on public land which is also protected. 2. He refuses to pay government fees attached to his cattle's grazing activities- violating federal law. 3. He lets his cows graze there so he doesn't have to feed them himself. 4. He sells his cattle for an 'increased' profit given his low costs typically associated with raising cattle. 5. After 20 years of ignoring the government, the government is taking action against this man.
I have read the 'other side'... but I still am not feeling the same way as you are. What am I missing here so that I might think like you?
great post...and like many great posts....it's ignored...
Funny how those who are all about "rule of law" feel that laws don't apply here....
... Besides the 5 facts listed by ThirtyBills, there is also the fact that Mr. Bundy had his day in court... and tried to get that judgement over ruled... and lost. He apparently does not recognize our courts system, either. The Courts System that is established in the U.S. Constitution. What does he recognize as authority... as law, other than his own free will?
He doesn't recognize federal oversight of the land because Art 1, Sec VIII does not authorize the federal government regulatory power over state land. Therefore he doesn't owe the federal government a dime.
The state should hold regulatory power over the land and therefore would be the entity that would rent the land. He tried to pay them, they wouldn't accept the money.
Any federal law that regulates land in a state is unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Well, at least to those that believe in the Constitution.
Any federal law that regulates land in a state is unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Well, at least to those that believe in the Constitution.
Who says? I counter with the following that I found on the interweb:
Shedding some additional light on the land ownership issue. In NV, one of the claims being made is that the BLM is in violation of the Enclave Clause of the Constitution and that the state technically owns the land. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Several other states in the west, UT, AZ & NV among them, have also tried invoking the Enclave Clause. There is ample case law on the books from the US Supreme Court that are quite clear:
"Any public lands used for “forests, parks, ranges, wild life sanctuaries, flood control, and other purposes [ . . . ] are not covered by Clause 17.” Collins v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co., 304 U.S. 518, 529-30 (1938). The Supreme Court emphasized these points in the 1885 case of Ft. Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe as well; it is not a new interpretation.
Federal land within any state's borders are owned by the federal government and accordingly, are governed by another part of the Constitution, Article IV’s Property Clause, which gives the federal government broad “power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”
With respect to federal action under the Property Clause, the Supreme Court has been unmistakably clear. When Congress passes legislation respecting federal lands, “the federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause.” Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 543 (1976); see U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. When the federal government has title to lands within a state, the state may not “affect the title of the United States or embarrass it in using the lands or interfere with its right of disposal.” James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 141 (1937) (emphasis added) (quoting Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647, 650 (1930))."
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.
Because you want it to be, doesn't make it so. I'm still waiting for a response regarding your thus far unfounded allegation that "Reid was bought off" and whether or not you read the BLM report.
Peace.
... Gosh... I really hate it when Truth and Facts get in the way of personal interpretation of what truth and fact should be.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
... Besides the 5 facts listed by ThirtyBills, there is also the fact that Mr. Bundy had his day in court... and tried to get that judgement over ruled... and lost. He apparently does not recognize our courts system, either. The Courts System that is established in the U.S. Constitution. What does he recognize as authority... as law, other than his own free will?
He doesn't recognize federal oversight of the land because Art 1, Sec VIII does not authorize the federal government regulatory power over state land. Therefore he doesn't owe the federal government a dime.
The state should hold regulatory power over the land and therefore would be the entity that would rent the land. He tried to pay them, they wouldn't accept the money.
Any federal law that regulates land in a state is unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Well, at least to those that believe in the Constitution.
.. None of what you said has anything to do with Mr. Bundy IGNORING what the courts said. He is ignoring them because they did not rule in his favor. Where in Article I, Section VIII does it state that you can ignore a court ruling because you don't agree with it? I looked... i couldn't find it. ... And Article I of the Constitution establishes the Legislative Branch with Section 8 being the Legislative Powers. I think you might be thinking of the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights... correct? If so, then it means that States have the rights to draft laws NOT superceded by Federal Law. That means that even if you want slavery, for example, your state cannot make slave trade legal because it violates Federal law. In the Bundy case, the land we are talking about here is Federal (Public) Property... meaning it belongs to me and you... even though I live in Los Angeles and you live.. I don't know... whereever... because our taxes pay for it. Bundy has 160 of Private Property he can use. Just because he has over grazed it doesn't mean he can use our land for his private enterprise. ... ADD This: "I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada," Bundy said in a radio interview last Thursday. "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing." Ironically, this position directly contradicts Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority. .. Mr. Bundy claims to abide by Nevada Law... but clearly ignores Nevada's Constitution.
Post edited by Cosmo on
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
1. Bundy is a rancher that lets his cattle graze on public land which is also protected. 2. He refuses to pay government fees attached to his cattle's grazing activities- violating federal law. 3. He lets his cows graze there so he doesn't have to feed them himself. 4. He sells his cattle for an 'increased' profit given his low costs typically associated with raising cattle. 5. After 20 years of ignoring the government, the government is taking action against this man.
I have read the 'other side'... but I still am not feeling the same way as you are. What am I missing here so that I might think like you?
great post...and like many great posts....it's ignored...
Funny how those who are all about "rule of law" feel that laws don't apply here....
... Besides the 5 facts listed by ThirtyBills, there is also the fact that Mr. Bundy had his day in court... and tried to get that judgement over ruled... and lost. He apparently does not recognize our courts system, either. The Courts System that is established in the U.S. Constitution. What does he recognize as authority... as law, other than his own free will?
He doesn't recognize federal oversight of the land because Art 1, Sec VIII does not authorize the federal government regulatory power over state land. Therefore he doesn't owe the federal government a dime.
The state should hold regulatory power over the land and therefore would be the entity that would rent the land. He tried to pay them, they wouldn't accept the money.
Any federal law that regulates land in a state is unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Well, at least to those that believe in the Constitution.
I note you say state land. So what is at issue then is whether this is state or federal land.
Article 1 Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Patriots use women as Human Shields??? No... Pussies do that shit. “If they’re going to start killing people, I’m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot. I’m sorry, that sounds horrible. I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die. I would've gone next, I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here. I’m willing to die here.
“But the best ploy would be to have had women at the front. Because, one, I don’t think they would have shot them. And, two, if they had, it would have been the worst thing that we could have shown to the rest of the world, that these ruthless cowards hired by the federal government will do anything.” Richard Mack - Former Arizona Sheriff
yeah that is some cowardly shit for sure. that's the exact mentality of people that use children and babies as shields as well. when they die they can cry about the enemy being heartless baby killers.
if you think what I believe is stupid, bizarre, ridiculous or outrageous.....it's ok, I think I had a brain tumor when I wrote that.
yeah that is some cowardly shit for sure. that's the exact mentality of people that use children and babies as shields as well. when they die they can cry about the enemy being heartless baby killers.
... Sickening, right? I mean, we were all "Fuck Saddam Hussein and his 'Mother Of All Battles' bullshit" while hiding behind women and children. Same thing goes here... who the FUCK is are these assholes that 'strategise' about using their own wives and daughters as human shields... hiding behind them... WHILE THEY THEMSELVES ARE ARMED? Aren't you supposed to PROTECT you wife and daughters from getting shot with your own life? They are PUSSIES for even thinking that. Fuck those big mouthed assholes. In my book, they are cut from the same cowardly cloth as Saddam Hussein.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,502
Ask the land that is being ruined and the indigenous species that are being eliminated how they feel about all the legalese around this mess and my guess is they will respond with, "Doesn't mean shit to a tree" (thank you, Jefferson Airplane). Yes, I know it's a legal issue we are discussing here but again my guess is the land and the critters would say "Fuck that, let's get real here" to all of that.
Also- Thirty Bills, you are not on my ignore list. :-)
"It's a sad and beautiful world"
-Roberto Benigni
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,502
Going to battle and risking their necks over somebody ruining the land raising cattle where they don't belong in the first place? These people are fighting the wrong battles.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"
-Roberto Benigni
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Who says they don't belong? The federal government or the agency that didn't exist when his family started using that land in the late 1800's?
They are fighting for what they believe in. Geez connect the dots, you can't possibly not see how these ranchers are being shut down.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Who says they don't belong? The federal government or the agency that didn't exist when his family started using that land in the late 1800's?
They are fighting for what they believe in. Geez connect the dots, you can't possibly not see how these ranchers are being shut down.
Many scientists, biologists, naturalists, conservationists, etc. who understand ecosystems and ecological balances say cattle do not belong in these ecosystems. There is no logic for what these people are fighting for no matter how strongly they may believe in it. The dots are well connected for me because every cattle rancher removed from arid lands here in the west is one less person ruining the land. This subject is well discussed in depth in Richard Mannings book Grassland. Although Manning is speaking more specifically about cattle in the great plains, the same logic and understanding of the subject applies to regions of the great basin. I can give you a whole list of books and articles discussing this subject if you are willing to read them. Better yet, visit these areas and see for yourself what has happened to them. Unsung, this is not just a political issue- it's also very much an issue involving the balance of nature and human's constantly working against that balance.
Do you know how to defuse this situation? You don't take up arms against authorities attempting to execute a court order in the United States. For example, If i were to decide upon my own that I'm going to stop paying my rent because I've been living at my place for years and ignore a court's decision against me... what I should NOT do is threaten the sheriffs trying to execute the court ordered eviction with firearms. ... The reason why a large armed force is required is because there are a lot os people with firearm on scene. If those people didn't bring their guns, the larger force would not be required and people should not threaten authorities with firearms and not expect them to come back with a larger force.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Who says they don't belong? The federal government or the agency that didn't exist when his family started using that land in the late 1800's?
They are fighting for what they believe in. Geez connect the dots, you can't possibly not see how these ranchers are being shut down.
... "The public lands in Nevada are the property of the United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States.” ref. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/United_States_v_Bundy_Court_Order_July_2013.pdf .. Nevada became a state of the United States in 1864. Part of the Nevada Constitution states that Nevada residents would adhere to Federal Law according to Paramount Alliegence: "But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States." Nevada State Constitution - Article I, Section 2 ref. http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Const/NvConst.html ... By Mr. Bundy's own admission, he claims his ancestors agreed to the Bunkerville Allotment in 1877, 29 years after the United States took ownership from Mexico and 13 years after Nevada became part of the United States. "My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley ever since 1877. All these rights I claim have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water. I have been here longer. My rights are before the BLM even existed," Bundy told the station. ref. http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/us/nevada-rancher-rangers-cattle-showdown/?hpt=zite_zite3_featured
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Comments
Funny how those who are all about "rule of law" feel that laws don't apply here....
Besides the 5 facts listed by ThirtyBills, there is also the fact that Mr. Bundy had his day in court... and tried to get that judgement over ruled... and lost.
He apparently does not recognize our courts system, either. The Courts System that is established in the U.S. Constitution.
What does he recognize as authority... as law, other than his own free will?
Hail, Hail!!!
The state should hold regulatory power over the land and therefore would be the entity that would rent the land. He tried to pay them, they wouldn't accept the money.
Any federal law that regulates land in a state is unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Well, at least to those that believe in the Constitution.
I felt that either one of the following three scenarios would be the reason why there was no response:
1. The anarchists read it and thought to themselves, "Hmmm. Yahhhh. This might be a reach. I might have to go find another cause to resist the government in."
2. I clearly do not understand the scope of this incident and I am out of my mind.
3. I am on everyone's ignore list.
So, thanks for clarifying to me that scenario 2 or 3 is not the reason behind the silence that followed the post.
Who says? I counter with the following that I found on the interweb:
Shedding some additional light on the land ownership issue. In NV, one of the claims being made is that the BLM is in violation of the Enclave Clause of the Constitution and that the state technically owns the land. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Several other states in the west, UT, AZ & NV among them, have also tried invoking the Enclave Clause. There is ample case law on the books from the US Supreme Court that are quite clear:
"Any public lands used for “forests, parks, ranges, wild life sanctuaries, flood control, and other purposes [ . . . ] are not covered by Clause 17.” Collins v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co., 304 U.S. 518, 529-30 (1938). The Supreme Court emphasized these points in the 1885 case of Ft. Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe as well; it is not a new interpretation.
Federal land within any state's borders are owned by the federal government and accordingly, are governed by another part of the Constitution, Article IV’s Property Clause, which gives the federal government broad “power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”
With respect to federal action under the Property Clause, the Supreme Court has been unmistakably clear. When Congress passes legislation respecting federal lands, “the federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause.” Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 543 (1976); see U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. When the federal government has title to lands within a state, the state may not “affect the title of the United States or embarrass it in using the lands or interfere with its right of disposal.” James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 141 (1937) (emphasis added) (quoting Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647, 650 (1930))."
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.
Because you want it to be, doesn't make it so. I'm still waiting for a response regarding your thus far unfounded allegation that "Reid was bought off" and whether or not you read the BLM report.
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Gosh... I really hate it when Truth and Facts get in the way of personal interpretation of what truth and fact should be.
Hail, Hail!!!
None of what you said has anything to do with Mr. Bundy IGNORING what the courts said. He is ignoring them because they did not rule in his favor. Where in Article I, Section VIII does it state that you can ignore a court ruling because you don't agree with it? I looked... i couldn't find it.
...
And Article I of the Constitution establishes the Legislative Branch with Section 8 being the Legislative Powers. I think you might be thinking of the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights... correct? If so, then it means that States have the rights to draft laws NOT superceded by Federal Law. That means that even if you want slavery, for example, your state cannot make slave trade legal because it violates Federal law.
In the Bundy case, the land we are talking about here is Federal (Public) Property... meaning it belongs to me and you... even though I live in Los Angeles and you live.. I don't know... whereever... because our taxes pay for it. Bundy has 160 of Private Property he can use. Just because he has over grazed it doesn't mean he can use our land for his private enterprise.
...
ADD This:
"I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada," Bundy said in a radio interview last Thursday. "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing." Ironically, this position directly contradicts Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.
..
Mr. Bundy claims to abide by Nevada Law... but clearly ignores Nevada's Constitution.
Hail, Hail!!!
He is ignoring them (the courts) because they did not rule in his favor.
The laws of the land cannot be as items on a buffet table- have some of this and some of that, but none of those.
The fact that people would actually get behind this guy tells a lot.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
can't wait to see how faux news fans the flames on this one...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Article 1
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
“If they’re going to start killing people, I’m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot. I’m sorry, that sounds horrible. I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die. I would've gone next, I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here. I’m willing to die here.
“But the best ploy would be to have had women at the front. Because, one, I don’t think they would have shot them. And, two, if they had, it would have been the worst thing that we could have shown to the rest of the world, that these ruthless cowards hired by the federal government will do anything.”
Richard Mack - Former Arizona Sheriff
ref. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/15/former-sheriff-willing-let-wife-daughter-die-front/
...
Didn't everyone criticise Saddam Hussein for doing the exact same thing in Iraq in 1991? What pussy puts women in the front lines in their armed politically fueled engagements?
Hail, Hail!!!
Sickening, right? I mean, we were all "Fuck Saddam Hussein and his 'Mother Of All Battles' bullshit" while hiding behind women and children. Same thing goes here... who the FUCK is are these assholes that 'strategise' about using their own wives and daughters as human shields... hiding behind them... WHILE THEY THEMSELVES ARE ARMED? Aren't you supposed to PROTECT you wife and daughters from getting shot with your own life?
They are PUSSIES for even thinking that. Fuck those big mouthed assholes. In my book, they are cut from the same cowardly cloth as Saddam Hussein.
Hail, Hail!!!
Also- Thirty Bills, you are not on my ignore list. :-)
They are fighting for what they believe in. Geez connect the dots, you can't possibly not see how these ranchers are being shut down.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
You don't take up arms against authorities attempting to execute a court order in the United States.
For example, If i were to decide upon my own that I'm going to stop paying my rent because I've been living at my place for years and ignore a court's decision against me... what I should NOT do is threaten the sheriffs trying to execute the court ordered eviction with firearms.
...
The reason why a large armed force is required is because there are a lot os people with firearm on scene. If those people didn't bring their guns, the larger force would not be required and people should not threaten authorities with firearms and not expect them to come back with a larger force.
Hail, Hail!!!
"The public lands in Nevada are the property of the United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States.”
ref. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/United_States_v_Bundy_Court_Order_July_2013.pdf
..
Nevada became a state of the United States in 1864. Part of the Nevada Constitution states that Nevada residents would adhere to Federal Law according to Paramount Alliegence:
"But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States."
Nevada State Constitution - Article I, Section 2
ref. http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Const/NvConst.html
...
By Mr. Bundy's own admission, he claims his ancestors agreed to the Bunkerville Allotment in 1877, 29 years after the United States took ownership from Mexico and 13 years after Nevada became part of the United States.
"My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley ever since 1877. All these rights I claim have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water. I have been here longer. My rights are before the BLM even existed," Bundy told the station.
ref. http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/us/nevada-rancher-rangers-cattle-showdown/?hpt=zite_zite3_featured
Hail, Hail!!!
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."