To be sure, the federal response was over the top and way out of line. But, there are other issues that some people are ignoring, the counties of Nevada are in the legislative process of amending the state constitution to secure federal lands for the state control, the 'rule of law' has to mean something. With that said, it also goes both ways, when the federal government picks and choses which laws to enforce and which to ignore the 'rule of law' will start to break down. If the government selects which laws to ignore they are demonstrating to the individual that it is ok to establish your own morality as to which laws the individual will comply with and which to ignore, this is very dangerous. We are a nation of laws.... and as per our Constitution the people retain power not delegated to the federal government.

A violent confrontation with the feds over this issue will solve nothing because, at this point, the feds have the law on their side, the feds own the land and the Nevada State constitution recognizes the feds as the landowners. The non-violent approach that the Bundy's are taking most of Americans fully support (as do I) to bring to light the unfair application of laws regarding Bundy's grazing and water rights on public lands.

Dana Loesch with 'the Judge' kinda break it down -

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/18/judge-napolitano-explain...

Views: 111

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

And another...... trillions of dollars of natural resources tied up on federal lands that the western states are attempting free up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlonX0T_fAQ

It is good to remember: the laws used by the courts to rule against Bundy during the last 20+ years do not make the laws constitutional or valid as they are being applied. 

For example, I can find no place in the Constitution that says the federal government can own property inside a state without the consent of the state. 

Also, since the western states were created from federal territories, you might assume that they federal government had a right to property inside the state being created.  Maybe, but how can a state give consent when it is not yet a state? 

Is federal ownership just a manifestation of blackmail?  If you want statehood, agree to these property demands or else you can remain a territorial government.  Would that stand and be valid under any contract if coercion were used?

Thought you would find this interesting! 

When all the states from Colorado (West) became states, the federal government was the trustee of the lands. They were SUPPOSED to turn that land back over after statehood, as the feds did with all the states that are (East) of Colorado! They did not do that!

Robin

Federal Land Grab
One consequence of the removal of external checks and balances has been a federal land grab that has denied the Western states of their equal standing, and is now depriving people and communities of their lawful rights to private property and mining rights. People outside the Western States may not know that the federal government claims control about 65% of our lands. By contrast, the number averages about 3% for the Central and Eastern States.

The original requirement was that the federal government would “dispose” of undesignated lands to the People. This was the process for creating debt-free, private property, i.e. the freeholds that are essential to a free people. By contrast, the abolition of private property is the centerpiece of Communism, as defined by Karl Marx.

In 1976, the federal government declared its intent to breach its trustee duties by keeping for itself control over all lands not already privatized, i.e., the “public lands.” That decision primarily affected the Western States, the true national treasury consisting of hundreds of trillions of dollars of wealth in the form of natural resources. It is no accident California was the first western state to be created, in 1850, immediately after gold was discovered in 1849. Oregon was next.

However, the recent federal land grab is also in direct conflict with its own 1962 Eisenhower Report, which concluded the States retain jurisdiction over 95% of the lands now claimed by the feds.

http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Statehood.html

Thanks, Robin!  This is indeed, interesting.

Hey JB,,,, after the Mexican/American War in the 1840's the US paid for the lands, Nevada became a state in 1864. Nevada's Constitution recognizes that the US Government has ownership and has not petitioned the feds to release the land. It is my understanding that the process has begun for Nevada to take ownership but is still in the initial stages. Utah is further along in their attempts to take ownership of the Fed lands within their borders.
With the trillions of dollars in natural resources in the western states it will be interesting to see if the feds are going to be willing to cede their claims to these states. But you're right, if the states make the request it should be granted, our federal government was not designed to be landlords by any stretch of the imagination.
Somewhere around 1828 some of the mid-western states went through the same process of states receiving federal owned land.
The application of the laws on federal lands is inconsistent, which is exactly why the feds should turn the land over to the states, but in defense of the feds , property rights and the law is on their side.
Bundy, I think, just wants to be left alone. In 1993 when he quit paying the land use fees, he did so because the feds were not using those fees as per the agreements to maintain the land. Bundy claims that he has been doing the maintenance and upkeep and because he feels the feds reneged on the land use agreement he owes them nothing.
It is a mess, I just hope no violence comes of this,,, it is not a hill to die on because there is no legal protection. Public opinion is with Bundy, as long as it remains a peaceful protest, and hopefully will result in expedited resolutions.

Doug, I agree that all you have said is factual.

My only real points are that I have no confidence that: 1) federal ownership of property within a state and without the permission of the state is constitutional or legal in any sense (the governing body of a territory is not the same as the governing body of a state); and 2) Bundy's losses in court may be based on bad or misused law that might undermine the federal position if the basis for that law is followed to its originating point in this country.

The "Rule of Law" seems to mean a lot to some people, but now I question its validity in the US any more under Obama Mama.  Here are my concerns:

  1. Each year the government comes out with thousands of new laws and regulations.  They say ignorance of the law is no excuse.  Okay.  I cannot find a single person who can recite end to end correctly all US laws.  The stack of paper would be huge.
  2. And yet our politicians find it too hard to follow 7 pages of founding documents including our Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and I guess one page was a letter of transmittal
  3. At one time world laws were that slavery was okay.  Laws said that killing of the innocent were fine - as we just saw with 200 armed goons in Nevada - and some laws in the Middle East imply it is okay to rape women if they leave their kitchen.  Hard for me to simply worship "all laws"
  4. The problem with most dictatorships and that includes Obama and Putin, is that they often are the most stupid and evil people on the planet.  Them writing laws would be a bad joke if it were not so devastating.
  5. Obama and Holder set a precedent that they will only uphold laws they like.  That makes the whole US law system lose credibility.

I agree.  From now on, I think I will follow just the laws that are useful to me.  That should reduce it to about ten that have been passed on from generation to generation.

Doug, "way out of line" should be further addressed---by way of compliments, please consider this:

At one time, 60,000,000 bison "roamed the range", being natural wildlife which made substantial contribution to the land.  And although somewhat different in form, cattle serve much the same purpose, with regards to enhancing the land.  Why does the government fail to credit Bundy's cattle with great improvement to the land, as would cost a fortune if purchased???

Why did the government fail to fence Bundy's cattle out???

What about animal cruelty laws, which were forsaken by the government???

Why does Reid fail to ask these questions, and numerous others, and fail to even speak to them???

We have government so ignorant as to bite the hand that feeds us, and one which curses a farmer with its mouth full.  There is waste of wholesome food, and interference with future production.

Finally, we see an instance wherein the second amendment displays exactly what the Founders intend.

RSS

Attention:

 

 

Please view our mission, policy, and legal disclaimer to learn about us by visiting the main menu.  Thank you.

PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION!

AGENDA 21/2030

http://bit.ly/2mqIVmH 

CONTACT CONGRESS!

Let your voice be counted!

House:  http://1.usa.gov/mHZjgo

Senate:  http://1.usa.gov/3UAs

 

 

PLEASE PRAY FOR OUR NATION.

 

 

national debt

Founders' Corner

Latest Activity

Bruce O'Hara commented on Robin's blog post Calif. Lady Moves to Red State, Suddenly Sends Unexpected Message to Lib Friends Back Home
"I'm glad the lady was able to escape California. As for the rest of the liberals, does the…"
5 hours ago
Kathy Gutman shared Robin's discussion on Facebook
9 hours ago
NativeCollector liked Robin's blog post Calif. Lady Moves to Red State, Suddenly Sends Unexpected Message to Lib Friends Back Home
9 hours ago
Robin replied to Lynn Rackoski's discussion Feinstein: ‘We Know’ That North Korea ‘Can Hit Anywhere Within the United States Now’
"Very true statement, JB! "
12 hours ago
Robin liked Lynn Rackoski's discussion Feinstein: ‘We Know’ That North Korea ‘Can Hit Anywhere Within the United States Now’
12 hours ago
Robin liked Robin's discussion New Jersey State Police Give President Trump Badge Number 45 At White House
12 hours ago
Robin posted discussions
13 hours ago
Robin posted a blog post

Calif. Lady Moves to Red State, Suddenly Sends Unexpected Message to Lib Friends Back Home

I found this to be quite interesting! Flyover country. Bible belt. Middle America. Coastal elites…See More
13 hours ago
Lynn Rackoski replied to Fundamental Refounding's discussion President Trump's full United Nations speech.........Trump Debuts at UN, Calls for Administrative Overhaul of World Body
"Mike Pence Just Went Scorched Earth on UN Human Rights Council in Front of the Entire World Vice…"
13 hours ago
JeansBrother replied to Lynn Rackoski's discussion Feinstein: ‘We Know’ That North Korea ‘Can Hit Anywhere Within the United States Now’
"The problem with military secrets is that even powerful senators do not know that those secrets…"
13 hours ago
Lynn Rackoski posted discussions
13 hours ago
JeansBrother replied to Rick's discussion James O'Keefe Announces New Investigation: MSM Members Will 'Lose Their Jobs'
"Bring it!"
13 hours ago
Lynn Rackoski replied to Rick's discussion James O'Keefe Announces New Investigation: MSM Members Will 'Lose Their Jobs'
"James O’Keefe Teases ‘Biggest Ever Media Investigation’ — Muses…"
13 hours ago
Lynn Rackoski liked Rick's discussion James O'Keefe Announces New Investigation: MSM Members Will 'Lose Their Jobs'
13 hours ago
Lynn Rackoski replied to Robin's discussion US government wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman before and after the election.
"It would be delicious! LOL"
13 hours ago
Lynn Rackoski liked Robin's discussion US government wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman before and after the election.
13 hours ago

TRAFFIC



© 2017   Fundamental Refounding.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service