Cliven Bundy

unsung · April 2014

http://www.westernjournalism.com/footage-bundy-massacre/#urWhfyP7WAS2b8tB.01

brianlux · April 2014

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.

unsung · April 2014

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.

unsung · April 2014

mickeyrat said:
If or since he doesnt recognize the federal government , I wonder if hes filed taxes with the feds all these years?

I don't believe that's the case, my belief is that he recognizes what their authority is and also where they have no business.

gimmesometruth27 · April 2014

this is going to end badly.

unsung · April 2014

gimmesometruth27 said:
this is going to end badly.

I fear you are correct.

brianlux · April 2014

unsung said:
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.

Cosmo · April 2014

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.

Cosmo · April 2014

unsung said:
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

gimmesometruth27 · April 2014

i am quite sure that his ancestors from 1877 would think this guy is a douchebag and is making a mockery of his family name and history.

mikepegg44 · April 2014

Suddenly we have a bunch of constitutional law scholars up in this bitch...

(I am just kidding)

I do love me a media storm...they are in and out like tornados and can often leave a shitload of damage in their wake...

I have to say I have ignored this story for the most part, and will probably go back to ignoring it as I never felt this guy to be a particularly worthy carrier of the freedom flag. I have enjoyed the interesting discussion and I am glad there is a lot of discussion around constitutional perspectives...

Whatever happens in Nevada should fucking stay in Nevada. Hopefully this case gets resolved peacefully, as I am sure it will.

brianlux · April 2014

mikepegg44 said:
Suddenly we have a bunch of constitutional law scholars up in this bitch... (I am just kidding)

I do love me a media storm...they are in and out like tornados and can often leave a shitload of damage in their wake...

I have to say I have ignored this story for the most part, and will probably go back to ignoring it as I never felt this guy to be a particularly worthy carrier of the freedom flag. I have enjoyed the interesting discussion and I am glad there is a lot of discussion around constitutional perspectives...

Whatever happens in Nevada should fucking stay in Nevada. Hopefully this case gets resolved peacefully, as I am sure it will.

mikepegg!, Such language! Fuckin' a!

)

Cosmo · April 2014

mikepegg44 said:
Suddenly we have a bunch of constitutional law scholars up in this bitch... (I am just kidding)

I do love me a media storm...they are in and out like tornados and can often leave a shitload of damage in their wake...

I have to say I have ignored this story for the most part, and will probably go back to ignoring it as I never felt this guy to be a particularly worthy carrier of the freedom flag. I have enjoyed the interesting discussion and I am glad there is a lot of discussion around constitutional perspectives...

Whatever happens in Nevada should fucking stay in Nevada. Hopefully this case gets resolved peacefully, as I am sure it will.

...
Actually, i think the thing is that we are being told some pretty incorrect things about Constitutional Law and have to fact check it ourselves, rather than what is said on a bulletin board as the gospel truth. I mean, i understand using Constitutional Law to support one side of an arguement... but, using one's personal opinion on what Constitutional law 'should' be... or what one perceives it to be is much different that what it really is.
..
The thing it thing is disturbing about this whole episode is the armed threat in support of a trespasser who believe he is not trespassing because he's been trespassing all of his life. The best way to draw fire from armed authorities is to point a weapon at them. And seriously, who points a weapon at a cop other than criminals, stupid people or someone looking for a 'Suicide By Cop' exit from life?

mickeyrat · April 2014

what else will set the new revolution off?

gimmesometruth27 · April 2014

Cosmo said:

mikepegg44 said:
Suddenly we have a bunch of constitutional law scholars up in this bitch... (I am just kidding)

I do love me a media storm...they are in and out like tornados and can often leave a shitload of damage in their wake...

I have to say I have ignored this story for the most part, and will probably go back to ignoring it as I never felt this guy to be a particularly worthy carrier of the freedom flag. I have enjoyed the interesting discussion and I am glad there is a lot of discussion around constitutional perspectives...

Whatever happens in Nevada should fucking stay in Nevada. Hopefully this case gets resolved peacefully, as I am sure it will.
...
Actually, i think the thing is that we are being told some pretty incorrect things about Constitutional Law and have to fact check it ourselves, rather than what is said on a bulletin board as the gospel truth. I mean, i understand using Constitutional Law to support one side of an arguement... but, using one's personal opinion on what Constitutional law 'should' be... or what one perceives it to be is much different that what it really is.
..
The thing it thing is disturbing about this whole episode is the armed threat in support of a trespasser who believe he is not trespassing because he's been trespassing all of his life. The best way to draw fire from armed authorities is to point a weapon at them. And seriously, who points a weapon at a cop other than criminals, stupid people or someone looking for a 'Suicide By Cop' exit from life?

i agree with your last paragraph. i saw an article a few days ago talking about how some of these patriots that came to defend this guy do not mind if they die. one of them said something like "we have to die sometime, might as well die for a cause."

personally, this is a stupid cause to die for, but then again i am not someone who would participate in an armed insurrection just because i don't like what the law says.

funny how these guys will cling to the constitution for their precious 2nd amendment, yet they will chuck out the federal laws that they do not feel that they need to adhere to.

BHealy · April 2014

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.

This idea that the feds can't regulate land or resources has had its day in court and is not valid. The feds do have ultimate authority over states.

mikepegg44 · April 2014

Cosmo said:

...
Actually, i think the thing is that we are being told some pretty incorrect things about Constitutional Law and have to fact check it ourselves, rather than what is said on a bulletin board as the gospel truth. I mean, i understand using Constitutional Law to support one side of an arguement... but, using one's personal opinion on what Constitutional law 'should' be... or what one perceives it to be is much different that what it really is.
..
The thing it thing is disturbing about this whole episode is the armed threat in support of a trespasser who believe he is not trespassing because he's been trespassing all of his life. The best way to draw fire from armed authorities is to point a weapon at them. And seriously, who points a weapon at a cop other than criminals, stupid people or someone looking for a 'Suicide By Cop' exit from life?

Whatever it takes to get people interested in the constitution and its interpretations over time is fine by me. It is actually pretty interesting to look at the evolution of interpretation by the nine. When you give it the old sludge test and boil it all the way down, constitutional law is usually based on what 5 people believe the interpretation should be...

I am always amazed at what people will jump behind. I am not a fan of the federal gov't in any shape or form that I have seen in my lifetime, but I don't really believe that we are one step removed from tyranny like the vocal minority...Now if they were simply taking his land via eminent domain it would be a good cause, but they aren't, so in my opinion, it isn't...

gimmesometruth27 said:

funny how these guys will cling to the constitution for their precious 2nd amendment, yet they will chuck out the federal laws that they do not feel that they need to adhere to.

federal law is not constitutional law, they aren't mutually exclusive, but one does not make it the other...judicial review is what decides if a law is constitutional, lawmakers can pass whatever the hell they can get enough votes for...

Federal or state laws are always chucked out by folks that don't believe in them, there is nothing wrong with civil disobedience, its just that if the cause isn't just people will see through it (as I think we will see happen here)...

To be honest, sometimes I wonder why I even try to be consistent, seems as though most people don't really care to be, so why should I not just pick and choose what I like to see done?

The consistency I see in people like yourself Gimme is refreshing...I certainly do not agree politically but it is nice to see consistency

callen · April 2014

brianlux said:
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. :-)

Well he's on my ignore list!!!!

callen · April 2014

>:)

Cosmo · April 2014

mikepegg44 said:

Cosmo said:

...
Actually, i think the thing is that we are being told some pretty incorrect things about Constitutional Law and have to fact check it ourselves, rather than what is said on a bulletin board as the gospel truth.
Whatever it takes to get people interested in the constitution and its interpretations over time is fine by me. It is actually pretty interesting to look at the evolution of interpretation by the nine. When you give it the old sludge test and boil it all the way down, constitutional law is usually based on what 5 people believe the interpretation should be...

I am always amazed at what people will jump behind. I am not a fan of the federal gov't in any shape or form that I have seen in my lifetime, but I don't really believe that we are one step removed from tyranny like the vocal minority...Now if they were simply taking his land via eminent domain it would be a good cause, but they aren't, so in my opinion, it isn't...

...
I agree, it DOES come down to 5 people to interpret what is within the framework of the Constitution and what is not. But, those 5 people are granted these powers by our Constitution and have gone through a lot of hoops to provide some proof that they are worthy of this power. We may rightfully disagree with their decisions, but the fact is, they probably know a lot more about Constitutional Law than some rancher in Nevada.
And I also agree that there are things that are worth defending... even if it means the possibility of losing of your life. He is claiming Public Land as his private property. The Government is NOT trying to take his land, they are trying to either make him pay for usage of Public Land and follow the guidelines of the usage agreement. Defending a trespasser who has chosen not to follow the law by cancelling his permit for land use, refused court orders and earns profits on Public Land that belongs to all of us, not just him... is not worth dying over... in my opinion.
...
On a personal note, you and I may sometimes disagree on certain things, but I you are always willing to listen to opposing views and at least try to find common ground based on the firm footing of reason, logic and thought.

Cliven Bundy

Comments

Categories