~ Where the Sun Will Never Set on Our liberty ~
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 -
Here are some additional sources from http://americanlandscouncil.org/myportfolio/video-why-the-differenc... that attempt to explain how it works with 'federal land' and states -
And another...... trillions of dollars of natural resources tied up on federal lands that the western states are attempting free up.
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!
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.
Thanks, Robin! This is indeed, interesting.
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:
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.