A Takeaway from Bundy Ranch (updated 19apr14)

George Rebane

When tyrannies make the laws, all opponents of tyranny are then seen and treated as criminals.

The ownership and control of our public lands is a mess, both legally and constitutionally.  Save for military bases (an arguably constitutional provision), why does the federal government claim ownership – laughably in the name of ‘the public’ - of large parts of the country?  Save for preserving certain particularly scenic locales as public parks, why do states need to own land?  (I find federal ownership of land for parks and recreation to also be constitutionally unfounded.)  Yes, there are reasons for state governments to share control of ‘infrastructure land’ that contain navigable rivers, flood control dams and levees, and water reservoirs, but owning thousands of square miles of open range, mountains, and forests, the case for such has no reasonable constitutional basis.

(Recall the definition of ownership, you ‘own’ something only to the extent that you can dispose of it as you wish.)

Due to the Bundy Ranch gathering of citizens concerned with the jackboot behavior of various fed and state agencies, the BLM has decided to withdraw in order to regroup and replan their next assault, because they apparently expected none of what happened – e.g. consider the set aside of a little ‘First Amendment Rights’ pen for the few people who might show up to quietly protest as permitted by their betters.

I was heartened that this event finally demonstrated what can happen when citizens ‘just say NO!’, both in their courage to unambiguously state that a limit to overreach had been broached, and also by the rapid gathering of supportive citizens who were willing to take an unknown risk against militarized government units armed with machine guns, snipers, and helicopters.  I hope that this might set an inspiring example for locals all over the country to resist the next diktat that comes down from above to perfunctorily limit more of what/how/when people can do, say, wear, eat, build, travel, stay, read, watch, learn, work, recreate, worship, display, spend, receive, join, … .  If the Bundy standoff can serve as the starting point for Americans everywhere to change their recently inbred docile acceptance to one of critical examination and consideration before compliance or its rejection, then this will have been a productive milestone on the road back to liberty.  (Nevada County electeds please take note.)

As to resolving the grazing on public lands matter, I expect that the feds will be back after an appropriate media propaganda blitz that will demonize the Bundys and others who may have similar thoughts.  Here we can hope that this will raise the country’s awareness of the public lands issue, and after appropriate debate, lead to a resolution that gets the feds out of the land management business and, perhaps, shuts down a tax consuming bureaucracy.  Important and exciting times ahead.

[19apr14 update]  Contrary to the somewhat bombastic interpretations of our progressive constitutional pundits, the legitimacy of federal retention of vast tracts of western lands is being called to question by lawmakers in western states (more here).  The historical legality of such federal retention which I and a number of other observers have criticized is now coming to the attention of some of our conservative political leadership.  The bottom line is still that the feds have usurped the states’ intended rights to own and control (i.e. dispose of as they will) public lands within their borders, and a progressive judicial system has made mockery of the clear original intent of the Constitution in this matter.

Perhaps now a reasoned debate can start on the most appropriate process through which we can erase the overwhelming amount of the western red areas in the above map.  To be sure, the big government collectivists will fight tooth and nail to retain as much central control of domestic policies in Washington as possible.  America’s historical standards of liberty and self-determination demand the devolution of such central controls to the states and counties where the people live.

Comments

[stevenfrisch]

Here you go George, perhaps this will help you brush up a bit on your Constitution:

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL34267_12032007.pdf

[Todd Juvinall]

All I can find in the Constitution about their "ownership" of property at the Federal level is in Section 8,

"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"

So perhaps the lands of America are all private except for the above it appears to me. Please SteveF, produce the admission papers which proves your point for California. I am curious if you can.

[stevenfrisch]

What the hell do you mean 'admission papers"? It is right there in the Constitution.

"The U.S. Constitution addresses the relationship of the federal government to lands. The Property Clause, Article IV, § 3, Clause 2, gives Congress authority over the lands, territories, or other property of the United States. It reads:

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.

This provision provides broad authority for Congress to govern the lands acquired by the federal government as it sees fit, and to exercise exclusive authority to decide on whether or not to dispose of those lands. The U.S. Supreme Court has
described this power as “without limitation,” stating that: while Congress can acquire exclusive or partial jurisdiction over lands within a State by the State’s consent or cession, the presence or absence of such jurisdiction has nothing to do with Congress’ powers under the Property Clause.

Absent consent or cession a State undoubtedly retains jurisdiction over federal lands within its territory, but Congress equally surely retains the power to enact legislation respecting those lands pursuant to the Property Clause.... And when
Congress so acts, the federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause."

When California was admitted to the Union we agreed to be governed by the las of the United States of America, and ceded our rights to dominion over public lands.

Here is the relative portion of the Compromise of 1850, that admitted California into the Union, and the relevant section regarding the ownership and disposal of public lands:

"Section 3

And be it further enacted, that the said state of California is admitted into the Union upon the express condition that the people of said state, through their legislature or otherwise, shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the public lands within its limits, and shall pass no law and do no act whereby the title of the United States to, and right to dispose of, the same shall be impaired or questioned; and that they shall never lay any tax or assessment of any description whatsoever upon the public domain of the United States, and in no case shall nonresident proprietors, who are citizens of the United States, be taxed higher than residents; and that all the navigable waters within the said state shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of said state as to the citizens of the United States, without any tax, impost, or duty therefore: provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed as recognizing or rejecting the propositions tendered by the people of California as articles of compact in the ordinance adopted by the convention which formed the constitution of that state."

Reference: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/An+Act+for+the+Admission+of+the+State+of+California+into+the+Union

Which just goes to show you that just because you can't find it doesn't mean it isn't true!

[stevenfrisch]

The thing that really bugs me about all you guys who post from a "Conservatarian" perspective here is that you claim to be Constitutionalists, but you really don't know shit about the Constitution, nor do you do the work to research why and how decisions have been made relative to the Constitution. That is what the biggest lie of the Tea party is, it is not the Constitutional faction, it is actually the anti-Constitutional faction.

By the way, Bundy is a trespasser of federal land who has not paid his rent in 21 years. He is a criminal and should be evicted. His family never owned the land in question; the land has been owned by the United States since it was ceded to us as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; renting land 20 years ago does not give anyone proscriptive rights to it today.

Bundy is stealing the property of the United States of America, against direct orders from two federal courts. What about the property rights established in the Constitution for the federal government? Those property rights don't matter I suspect?

[George Rebane]

Stevenfrisch 240pm – You misunderstand, and start your argument with the assumption that today’s attributed public lands are the public lands intended in the Constitution. With that a priori, the rest of the case for the disposal of such ascribed lands is indeed as easy as you make it. But that is not the point I have made, nor the point that has been made by the many who have come before me. My contention is that these ‘public lands’ have been usurped by the federal government from the states and the people. As your citation - The Property Clause, Article IV, § 3, Clause 2 – points out, it only gives Congress authority over lands that are considered public by the Constitutional provisions which precede the Property Clause; and therein lies the rub.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause

Perhaps it’s again time to lapse into name calling ;-)

[Todd Juvinall]

Please tell us all Steve Frisch, what property did the Federal Gov own in the Independent sate of California in 1850? Please give us all the details. Article 4 Section Three does not list the lands "owned" so where do you come up with your fantasy?

[Todd Juvinall]

Oh and one more thing. If the Constitution limits the Feds ownership to those listed how do you square that? Looks simple to me and most Americans.

[stevenfrisch]

George I do not presume anything; the lands in question where purchased by the United States of America or ceded to them by treaty.

A full list of land acquisitions can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_territorial_acquisitions

Once those lands became the property of the United States constitutional law applied, thus under Article IV, § 3, Clause 2 they could be disposed of as the Congress of the United States saw fit. They could not be usurped from the people because they fell under Article IV to begin with.

[Walt]

YUP,,, It's "public land" until some government "official" with a title has his minions close the gates. The "State" closed public lands due to insufficient funds. Then got caught crying hunger as they stashed money under a rock.

More "public" land was closed with the sequestered funds, then "O" and Co. told the likes of BLM " Make it hurt".
Public lands are not that "public". How much of Greenhorn BLM is really "open to the public"?

A few cows is far less destructive than all the illegals trampling state and FED "land" down on the boarder. There is a sign down there warning us citizens to stay the hell out because of illegal activity. Even the fed. police don't go in there.. It's easier to pick on an old cow poke.

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 13 April 2014 at 03:03 PM

Todd, the federal government automatically owned all lands not privately owned under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 13 April 2014 at 03:04 PM

Too incomprehensible and vague to respond to. See above list of lands purchased by or added to the United States by treaty.

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: Walt | 13 April 2014 at 03:17 PM

None of this is relevant. Under law the land is owned by the United States...they can with it as directed by Congress.

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: George Rebane | 13 April 2014 at 02:51 PM

"Perhaps it’s again time to lapse into name calling ;-)"

You could set the rules to eliminate name calling if you so chose as the host of the site. You have consistently declined to do that, thus name calling will continue until you step in to enforce decorum.

[Todd Juvinall]

No Steve Frisch, your interpretations are just that. I am surprised you never mentioned the Spanish Land Grants which encompassed most of the property. You are slipping.

[Russ Steele]

Feds are on a roll:

FEDS SEIZE FAMILY’S RANCH-Property owners fight government ‘land grab’!!!

When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other.
Other Forest Service officials were busy nailing similar notices on fence posts along the highway and informing neighbors that after Feb. 11, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property.

Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. That day has arrived.

Laney insists the land in question belongs to him; the Forest Service says it belongs to the federal government. So far, the federal court is on the side of the Forest Service. But Laney is not willing to throw in the towel and give up the land that has been in his family since long before there was a U.S. Forest Service.

Moreover, in New Mexico, there is a “brand law” that says, essentially, no cattle may be sold or transported out of state without approval from the State Livestock Board.

Local sheriff Cliff Snyder has notified the Forest Service and other state and federal officials that even though the Forest Service has a court order authorizing the confiscation of the Diamond Bar cattle, they “cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute.”

His memo also says “I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county.”

More Here: http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/12/feds-seize-familys-ranch-property-owners-fight-government-land-grab/

I like the Sheriff, wonder were the Sheriff was in Nevada? Oh, yea he is a personal friend of Harry Reid.

[fish]

What about the property rights established in the Constitution for the federal government? Those property rights don't matter I suspect?

Other than the land required for it's offices and installations why would the federal government need to "own" the majority of land in any state?

[Walt]

So Steve,, just what's "your" definition of gov. Tyranny?

Seems your content with Fascist government control of every blade of grass
in the name of the "people's land". Ever since LIB infested government agencies got to work, "the people" have been systematically barred and/or outlawed from "using" said land. First it was us miners, then the loggers, now cattlemen. Even recreationists are being "removed". " Can't do this,, can't do that."
"This aria is now closed to the public "
Government "ownership" of land has increased, by leaps and bounds. State AND Fed... CA. is 60% owned by the government. ( state, FED, etc.) No property tax generation there.
Seems government has way more than "their fair share".

[stevenfrisch]

Nice job Todd

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 13 April 2014 at 04:12 PM

No data, no references, no case. I cited specifics and you just bloviate on.....meaningless.

[Russ Steele]

The Diplomad has some thoughts on the BLM action:

Note to the leftards running our government: the American people are fed up with and do not trust "environmentalists," and the image of agents with guns, tasers, helicopters, and police dogs does not convey a warm and cuddly green enviro-message.

A commenter ask an important questions:

What is the name of the BLM employee who authorized this action? Is this miscreant still in a decision making position?

This is not over.

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: Walt | 13 April 2014 at 04:56 PM

Actually Walt government ownership of land has not increased by leaps and bounds. The total amount of land owned by the federal government as a percentage of total US land area has actually gone down as new territories were added, with the exception of the Treaty of Guadalupe. As new lands were added lands were consistently released through land patents, grants of state lands (especially in the west where they are part of the state school funding mix) and private sales or grants (like the lands released to the railroads as an incentive to build track). But even much of the land ceded to the US under Guadalupe was released to private ownership through the Homestead Act.

[stevenfrisch]

of course even though some disgruntled people are "fed up with and do not trust "environmentalists," those environmentalists are citizens too, and the law is the law, until the law is changed. So bitch on; changes will have to go through Congress and the President, and I suspect that is going to be very hard.

A brief peruse of the Las Vegas papers shows me sentiment in this case is running high against the Bundy's as well, particularly from ranchers who do follow the law and comply with the terms of legal BLM grazing leases. The Bundy's are giving them a bad name and they don't like it.

[George Rebane]

A major interpretation of Article IV has been that when a US territory becomes a state, then all the federal (not privately owned and not federally set aside as for military reservations and naval bases) lands within the boundaries of that territory shall become the property of the state for it to dispose of under its laws. If that were not the intended case, then the drawing of state boundaries would be a cynical exercise since the state would have no jurisdiction over major parts of the real estate within said boundaries (see map above for what silly season looks like today). When the Constitution was drawn up and the states east of Appalachia were sovereign within their borders, this was not a point of contention. It was still not a point of contention when lands east of the Mississippi became states – there was no huge residual ownership of such states’ territory by the feds because people immediately moved in, settled, and filed claims with their states for private ownership.

The problems really started when large tracts of western lands were acquired and remained as US territories for a generation or more before becoming states. At that time there was no constitutional question as to ownership, and the feds could and did hold ‘land rushes’ to attract people into regions with the offer of ‘free land’ to begin populating future states. It was at that point, especially in the trans-Rockies semi-desert and mountainous regions hostile to large populations, that federal bureaus like BLM somehow retained ‘ownership’ of lands within the borders of new states. But nobody cared then, because the land could be disposed of at will by the residents of the states for ranching, homesteading, mining, forestry, … by just establishing primacy and without federal government interference.

It is only recently that our overreaching government has started to devote its attention to the use of America’s wide open spaces, and perversely exercising it legacy prerogatives in a pernicious manner that corresponds to its general desire to impede liberty in every corner open to bureaucratic penetration.

[Walt]

Yet Carter could give away the Panama canal with the stroke of a pen.

Gov. is "acquiring" land all the time, yet never sells it on the "open market".
I have seen where 12,000 acres went to BLM all because someone had a meth house
on the parcel. I guess government lawyers could prove the out of state owner had knowledge of the tweeker den. That property today is still in BLM hands after 25 years. ( Nice score... Right?)
Ever been to the "state park" property in Cedar Ridge? I bet you didn't even know there was one there.. I sure didn't... Until I found the fence doing a job on an adjacent property.

BTW,, Isn't the BLM land down on Greenhorn Creek pretty much "closed"?
The people's use of that land is pissing off other people.

[Ryan Mount]

I find the State's Rights issue coming out of this run-in with BLM. I've heard it over and over again.

It's a legitimate argument, a 100 years ago before the Federal government started putting everything under Federal jurisdiction. I happen to like stronger and more sovereign States, but it hasn't been that way for quite some time, and I don't see the 9th and 10th Amendments ever being enforced ever again. Shame, really.

So you can see how an issue like this cuts America in half. (or maybe in quarters at least). For those Paleo-Conservatives who want to move power out of Washington and back to the States, this is their poster child issue. In fact, they raced there wrapped in the 2nd Amendment.

But for people who dig more central planning, they best you'll get out of them is, "Sorry Charlie, that's the way it is. Us central planners will take over from here. And please fill out this 'How did we Do?' survey before you leave. Have a nice day." And the worst, of course, is this creepy armed activity. (it's REALLY creepy, even if one agrees that Mr. Bundy is a criminal).

[Walt]

"Paleo-Conservatives" HHuummmmm ,,,, That's got a good ring to it. ,,, Wait a minute.. ???? WHAT!! ?? Knuckle dragging Bill of Rights supporters is the distilled definition? ... Still works for me. It beats Troglodyte-Leftist.

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: Walt | 13 April 2014 at 06:19 PM

Carter did not 'give away the Panama Canal with a stroke of a pen", we had a treaty with Panama that allowed US control of the Canal Zone in perpetuity, which was renegotiated in 1977 into two treaties, one giving sovereignty to Panama effective Jan 1 2000, and the other giving the US the permanent right to defend the canal from any threat that might interfere with its continued neutral service to ships of all nations.

Those treaties were approved by the Congress of the United States as called for in the Constitution.

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: George Rebane | 13 April 2014 at 06:02 PM

George, you will note that the situation of lands within the states and territories east of the Mississippi River were fully explained in the legal analysis I posted.

Your statement that "... the land could be disposed of at will by the residents of the states for ranching, homesteading, mining, forestry, … by just establishing primacy and without federal government interference" is incorrect. Land disposals had to be approved by Congress, and much of it was disposed of by act of Congress as I noted above.

[Todd Juvinall]

40 acres and a mule. Hmmm. Where have I heard that?

[Walt]

Justify it all you like. It was still a giveaway. Look what happened after the fact! Manuel Noriega ring a bell? ( and how the left bitched when we sent troops in to bag the bastard) We built the damned thing. Care to look up the meaning of "perpetuity"? It was our territory.
With that thinking, "O" could "renegotiate" things with Russia where Alaska is concerned. And with the Congress we have today, they would vote for returning AK. back to Russia because we didn't pay fair market value.

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 13 April 2014 at 07:55 PM

You heard that as part of the American mythology of land rights granted to slaves after the Civil War. The thing is, it was never granted. Some land was granted to freed slaves during the war by military Governors to maintain agricultural production, but Congress never passed an Act giving freed slaves "40 acres and a mule."

Some freed slaves did participate in the Homestead Act.

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: Walt | 13 April 2014 at 08:05 PM

I am neither justifying it nor critiquing it; it is a fact of law under the Constitution; Article II, Section II, Clause II

"...[The President] shall have Power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..."

[stevenfrisch]

Constitutionalists....HA!

[fish]

A brief peruse of the Las Vegas papers shows me sentiment in this case is running high against the Bundy's as well, particularly from ranchers who do follow the law and comply with the terms of legal BLM grazing leases. The Bundy's are giving them a bad name and they don't like it.

Ahhh....I was wondering about those "quislings" you mentioned earlier. Thanks for the clarification.

[Todd Juvinall]

Fish, now that's funny. The Frisch is a big government guy so his stuff is always in favor of more and bigger and less freedom for the individual. I pay him no heed.

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 13 April 2014 at 09:20 PM

Not only do you pay me no heed, which I welcome, you are incapable of making a cogent argument for your case. I am bringing information to the table and your contribution is a dull wit and empty quiver.

[George Rebane]

Stevenfrisch 751pm – I think you’re limiting ‘disposing’ to transfer of ownership. I use the word in its general concept of utilizing the land. People were able to utilize public lands at will, but not transfer ownership since no individual owned the land that he utilized. You are correct in that only Congress could affect transfer of ownership (which it failed to do properly when a territory became a state, thereby giving rise to today’s troubles).

[Ryan Mount]

Isn't it strange that the Federal Government "owns" almost 90% of Nevada? Sorry for being captain obvious here, but I had't really thought about it. (here is the number of times per month I think about Nevada: 0.)

I guess in return they get their "States' rights" for prostitution and gambling. Screw everything else.

Why even bother with them as a State? Maybe we could sell Nevada to the Chinese* to help pay off the debt. Sure, there's a lot of nuclear wasteland but with our good, old-fashioned, American marketing know-how, we could turn it into a Chinese vacation paradise.

*note: we keep Las Vegas. And the silver. They can have Reno...for free.

[fish]

"Paleo-Conservatives" HHuummmmm ,,,, That's got a good ring to it. ,,, Wait a minute.. ???? WHAT!! ?? Knuckle dragging Bill of Rights supporters is the distilled definition? ... Still works for me. It beats Troglodyte-Leftist.

Troglodyte-Leftist consolidates nicely to "Proglodyte" or if the mood strikes you...."Progtard".

[Bob Hobert]

The discussion on any topic in this forum never changes much. And Frisch appears always eager to concede to big and bigger government. Where is the line, sir?

[fish]

The discussion on any topic in this forum never changes much.

Yeah...that why it's important to be entertaining.

And Frisch appears always eager to concede to big and bigger government. Where is the line, sir?

Probably just on the other side of a failed bond auction.

[Todd Juvinall]

Frisch is a syayus quo guy. He is not even interested in making the country better, just give me my grant and I'll be a good boy. That is the problem in our country. People keep the government honest as long as the government fears the people. Now we have lackeys like Frisch populating every nook and cranny of our government and our schools are churning them out. Brainwashed people who never knew what true freedom means from government over activity. I saw it in building departments in California. If you are a builder of many homes you see the mess they have made on your rights but if you do just one, a owner builder, you have no knowledge of the reach the government has on your residence. Try to do anything with your private property and see wjat I mean.

But boy, the government lackey's like Frisch can pir pages of support for his position, of course, government made the pages. Too funny.

[stevenfrisch]

Funny thing is you have contributed exactly nothing to this thread Todd. No cogent case, no links to other data, no original ideas, no legal rationale, nothing. Sure, I post links and legal analysis, that is what a rational person does, they research issues and use data to support their point. As opposed to emotional claims and ceaseless ill informed opinions. I think you really are proving just how shallow a moron you are Todd.

The case I am making is that federal ownership of land is entirely within the bounds of government activity as laid out in the Constitution; it has ALWAYS been a part of our national governance; as land was added to the nation much of that land was privatized; and if you have a beef with what the federal government is doing it is NOT a Constitutional beef.

You can stomp your feet all you want over here at the mouthpiece of the baby state, but that don't make it so.

That is why I repeat..."Constitutionalists...Ha!" You guys would not know the Constitution if it bit you in the ass.

[fish]

You can stomp your feet all you want over here at the mouthpiece of the baby state, but that don't make it so.

"Good. Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Let the hate flow through you"'

Hell Steve... drop a few pounds and you even look like Emperor Palpatine.

[fish]

Hey Steve.....check out the Armstrong & Getty podcast (8:00am hour)....Roger Hedgecock is making your argument. I may....may..... owe you an apology!

[Todd Juvinall]

Steve Frisch, we all know why you are such a defender of big government, so you can stop whining. In the Constitution it says just what I said that the only property they can own is listed and there is not much more than DC and some forts. So, I have already made my case and you have not. Your opinions are vacuous and mine are rock solid.

You can stomp your feet and cry the blues and name call all you want but you are simply wrong.

[Brad Croul]

On what side of the fence do the Teatards stand regarding the State selling the Empire mine property? Are y'all planning to unite and picket Virginia Brunini at SPD?

The reason the BLM manages the public lands is because, historically, the cowtards, logheads, and other "users" of the public lands were thrashing the lands in pursuit of profit through overgrazing, over cutting, contamination, etc. The permit fees pay for the staff required to evaluate the health of the grazing lands and determine the carrying capacity of the grazing lands so they do not turn into bigger dust bowls than they already are.

I think you can also compare the regulation of the electromagnetic spectrum in the "public land" debate. Air is free, right? I should be able to set up a big EMP blaster - so what if it fries your radios and telephones or jams Fox News?

[Walt]

Still waiting on Steve's definition of Tyranny. Let me guess. Those defying the government were the tyrants.

Government will become tyrants in "his" mind when Conservatives take over.
The Tyranny will be defined as Conservative government cutting off the free flow of grant money to questionable " NON PROFITS".
Yup,, Conservatives will be the new face of Tyranny.. ( as Progressives see it.)

[Gary Smith]

George:
What happens when the government closes military bases, who owns them? I know Mcclellan, and Mather AFB now have civilian use but who owns the land?
Thanks

[George Rebane]

GaryS 932am - According to my lights the land should revert to the state which then will dispose of it according to its laws. Thoughts?

[fish]

The reason the BLM manages the public lands is because, historically, the cowtards, logheads, and other "users" of the public lands were thrashing the lands in pursuit of profit through overgrazing, over cutting, contamination, etc. The permit fees pay for the staff required to evaluate the health of the grazing lands and determine the carrying capacity of the grazing lands so they do not turn into bigger dust bowls than they already are.

Yeah.....and Uncle Stupid has done such a fabbo job of protecting the environment that a significant percentage of the facilities they own and operate are Superfund sites.

You may now return to jerking off over the most recent edition of "Modern Government Monthly".

[Todd Juvinall]

I recall the Presidio went to the "friends" of Nancy, Babs and Diane.

[Gary Smith]

You are right that nobody cared before and you could pretty much graze or mine with no problem. We just have so many people that now it is a issue. I have had a personal problem right here in Yuba County with BLM. The Daguerre Point dam on the Yuba River owned by the Army Corps is a awesome fishing spot surrounded by BLM land and private property. BLM will not you through the land to access the river. I used to access through private property till idiots screwed it up for all. Myself and several fisherman had tried to access locally through the Folsom office, with out success and eventually gave up. I am not convinced the state at this point could do a better job. This is a great subject and the Nevada story is something that I have been following for years. This battle between the Feds and Bundy is only the latest chapter.

[Bill Tozer]

Exciting times, bro. While in college as a greenhorn freshman, there was an elementary school nearby on a tree lined road shared by both institutions for their respective entrances. I was shocked, shocked I tell ya when a tree crew showed up to cut down all the trees for widening the street. A kindergarten teacher came running out from her class with tots in tow and lifted up the young sprouts into the branches. The crew looked at the kids in the trees, got on the walkie talkie and left. Moral of the story?? When summer break came, the crew returned and not a tree was left standing.

Big Bro will be back when the lime light of the drive by media has long dimmed and this whole episode will be just another short chapter in a long sad book. Expect a 3:00am raid in a few months akin to the Cuban boy Janet Reno took flack for. Flack or no flack, the Cuban boy is gone, Branch Davidians are no more, and nobody can bring back the baby shot in the head by a sniper's bullet at Ruby Ridge. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

What's that old saying about winning the battle but losing the war? I wish The Brady Bunch well.

https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1.0-9/1958447_10151941217690911_274557925_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t1.0-9/59560_10151996958470911_1714246494_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1.0-9/1912346_10151975737505911_2086026177_n.png

And more more, should be under the heading "Who is that man".

https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/1463929_10152020903765911_5767888115789943227_n.jpg

[Walt]

Just to slightly change the subject,, It seems ONE LIB with a gun was more damaging that 300(?) armed "patriots". A member of the Progressive LIB Klan,( the grand bastard himself) goes on a shooting spree targeting people of Jewish Faith, and got a Christian or two while he was at it.
It was us gun lover's fault... Right?

[Walt]

Yes, BLM left the aria with a " black eye", and NO.. They are NOT happy about that. I think I heard one official yell from the last SUV to pass,, " WE WILL BE BACK!!,, And we will have the EPA WITH US!!! Then you'll be sorry!!"
Any wonder why the EPA wants control of every drop of water? " That cow just stepped in a mud hole! Here is your court date."

[Bill Tozer]

Walt, a cow patty in a mud hole is no laughing matter. I just wish our Government (Feds, State, and local) would send in the tanks, helicopters, and various All Terrain Assault Vehicles to stop all those idiots leaving piles of trash in our sacred wetlands near the Mexican border. Never happen. Illegals can leave piles of garbage in our protested wetlands, but one cow patty and the full force and unlimited resources of government bureaucracy will squash ya like a bug. Only thing left of us Joe Blows will be our bug guts stuck to the bottom of EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy's spiked stiletto or Eric Holder's jack booted loafers. Progressive means never having to say you're sorry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgPePk3kGZk

[George Rebane]

BillT 101pm – A well-chosen and apt comparison Mr Tozer.

[Russ Steele]

This is only one incident that made the national news. The government, BLM and Forest Service, are forcing ranchers off the land in Nevada, Idaho, New Mexico and Oregon. Cows produce methane and manure and that is bad for the environment. In the governments environmentalist wackos eyes the fewer cows the better so the little animals in the forest do not have to compete. If you dig deeper in to the BLM and Forest Service Planning documents you will find all the Agenda 21 code words embedded in paragraph after paragraph.

Once the cows, the wild houses and mules are going, the people will be next. The Forest Service planning documents allow for the creation of Restoration Areas, they will be market and humans are not allow into these area, except for Forest Service personnel and researchers. Just like in the National Parks, they create Restoration Area, were humans are not allowed. In the Forest Service case instead of a few acres, it will be square miles were unapproved humans are not allowed to treed.

NOAA is trying to take control of all streams, even those that have water in them only when it rains. They are trying to have the environmental law change from “navigable” water to all water sheds. Again the Agenda 21 finger prints are all over these changes.

There will be more challenges ahead, as the people fight to return control to the people of the land and reject the wackos Agenda 21 religion that permeates many of our government agencies.

Bottom line, if your think the price of beef is high now, wait until they drive all the cows off of public grazing lands. The wackos do not think we should be eating beef any way, and they are about to create sever lack of supply.

[Brad Croul]

Fish, sorry, I could not find the link to Modern Government mag- it sounds pretty hot though!
I would think that, proportionally, superfund sites are a tiny percentage of all government lands.
But, superfund sites, water contamination, soil compaction, overgrazing, dustbowls, are mostly unintended consequences and the result of a lack of understanding or nonchalance by large scale corporate operators. The government has to step in because people don't want to accept and mitigate the consequences of their actions because it would cut into their profits.
BTW- don't you think you should change your handle to "chicken"?

[fish]

BTW- don't you think you should change your handle to "chicken"?

Nahh I've had for a long time and everybody is used to it! I think I'll hang on to it!

The government has to step in because people don't want to accept and mitigate the consequences of their actions because it would cut into their profits.

Proportionally you would be right.....because government "owns" a whole lot of empty space. Where they have elected to actually engage in the business of government (military, weapons, etc.) they generally do as crappy a job as everybody else. The statement was to remind that the government is frequently every bit the poor steward of the land as the private sector.

The government has to step in because people don't want to accept and mitigate the consequences of their actions because it would cut into......government profits.....? What are these government profits of which you speak?

[Walt]

I decided to live a little dangerously. Media matters ran this story with the guaranteed Lefty slant. I ventured into enemy territory and did some "business" on their lawn.
Well,, I sure found what I was looking for.. And yes,, poke a stick into a hornet's nest and "things happen". OHHH the disdain of the 2ND Amendment.
But when the subject of "mooching" comes up, the hypocrisy is on display.
It's just fine for LIBS to mooch off the government teet, but not a few cows
out in the boonies.
I'm sure there is a bounty out on me by now from that site.
Yes,,, I went "trolling" and caught my limit. BOY, that was a lot of fun!

[Bonnie McGuire]

Strange that no one mentioned that the Chinese energy giant ENN Energy Group wants to use federal land as part of its effort to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel-building plant in the southern Nevada desert. Rory Reid, the son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, is representing ENN in their efforts to locate in Nevada.

Someone please enlighten me ....Where's the transparency government is always pretending until something happens to expose its clandestine activity? And since I'm treading in never-never land...Captain America where are you when we need you? Oh yeah, maybe he sent the second amendment militia to the Bundy family's rescue.

Personally, I'm sick and tired of corrupt elected officials and their minions of grant sucking activists. Most of them don't give a damn about we the people. The only thing they think about is "what's in it for me." They twist and interpret the constitution accordingly. That's why the founders said it should be interpreted as they intended then, not according to modern times with limited, ulterior motives.

[Russ Steele]

I was watching FoxNews tonight and it was reported that tortoises were removed from the land China wants to use for a solar farm, and move to the BLM used by Bundy and the reason that BLM used to move in and remove the cows was to save the tortoises. I agree, if Bundy owed the grazing fees, he should pay. However, if the reason was to save the tortoises that were removed from the public BLM land for a China solar farm, promoted by Harry Ried and his son, then some young reporter has a Pulitzer opportunity. There is a story here that needs to be told.

[Account Deleted]

The final take-a-way from all of this is what the fed govt considers appropriate fire power for the given situation. The fed govt tells armed protectors of our borders to run away from rock throwers. What if the protesters in Nevada had started throwing rocks? The Bundys never intended to break the law, but those coming across our borders out in the desert are. What is SteveF's response to that sort of law breaking that he claims he is against? Suddenly the master of the Constitution falls strangely silent. How about snipers at the border to take down law breakers? Does that pathetic county commissioner in Nevada tell border hoppers to say their prayers? Oops - SteveF and the left are once again bending over for their masters of the fascist left and the crony capitalists. Pathetic.

[Russ Steele]

This is just the conclusion from a longer post on the PowerLine Blog by John Hinderaker:

So it is possible that the federal government is driving Bundy off federal lands to make way for mitigation activities that enable the solar energy development to the north. But I don’t think it is necessary to go there. Rather–this is the second and more important point–it is obvious that some activities are favored by the Obama administration’s BLM, and others are disfavored. The favored developments include solar and wind projects. No surprise there: the developers of such projects are invariably major Democratic Party donors. Wind and solar energy survive only by virtue of federal subsidies, so influencing people like Barack Obama and Harry Reid is fundamental to the developers’ business plans. Ranchers, on the other hand, ask nothing from the federal government other than the continuation of their historic rights. It is a safe bet that Cliven Bundy is not an Obama or Reid contributor.

The new head of the BLM is a former Reid staffer. Presumably he was placed in his current position on Reid’s recommendation. Harry Reid is known to be a corrupt politician, one who has gotten wealthy on a public employee’s salary, in part, at least, by benefiting from sweetheart real estate deals. Does Harry Reid now control more than 80% of the territory of Nevada? If you need federal authority to conduct business in Nevada–which is overwhelmingly probable–do you need to pay a bribe to Harry Reid or a member of his family to get that permission? Why is it that the BLM is deeply concerned about desert tortoises when it comes to ranchers, but couldn’t care less when the solar power developers from China come calling? Environmentalists have asked this question. Does the difference lie in the fact that Cliven Bundy has never contributed to an Obama or Reid campaign, or paid a bribe to Reid or a member of his family?

Based on the evidence, I would say: yes, that is probably the difference. When the desert tortoises balance out, Occam’s razor tells us that the distinction is political.

So let’s have some sympathy for Cliven Bundy and his family. They don’t have a chance on the law, because under the Endangered Species Act and many other federal statutes, the agencies are always in the right. And their way of life is one that, frankly, is on the outs. They don’t develop apps. They don’t ask for food stamps. It probably has never occurred to them to bribe a politician. They don’t subsist by virtue of government subsidies or regulations that hamstring competitors. They aren’t illegal immigrants. They have never even gone to law school. So what possible place is there for the Bundys in the Age of Obama?

Remember this story as you reach into the meat case at the Safeway and gasp at the prices of the steak you had hope to buy. You can thank Harry Reid, his family and his Obama Cronies, as you put back the steak and go in search of some chicken to BBQ.

[stevenfrisch]

Oh my God! Those damn Democrats are going to make you eat chicken! Those bastards!

[Bill Tozer]

Hello my fellow gentle libholes and Progressives: All we are saying here is give Peace a Chance.

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2014/04/13/video-real-bundy-ranch-story-shows-confrontation-and-feds-retreating-from-the-ground/

[Walt]

There is another story out about a vary similar situation.
That dragged through the system for years as well. In those cases the rancher won and the government was ordered to pay millions.. yet not one dime has been paid. The government doesn't abide by court orders every day. So what makes what this guy doing any different? " Following the law" has to be a two way street, and government needs to be held to a higher standard. Government being held accountable hasn't been happening for a VARY long time.
It took some good ol' cowboys and cowgirls willing to face government guns
to tell the government " They have gone too far".

If you see any of the video from siege, the citizen "army" had the same conviction and focus as seasoned fighters. there was NO fear.

Also in that footage, it was obvious that some of the "officers" were on "loan" from the military. These were not regular cops.
How does the " posse comitatus act rule on that?

And apparently the people don't trust the word of BLM, because their not leaving. This is the one time they believe the words of Harry Reid.

[Bill Tozer]

It ain't over until the fat man sings. Sending the paddy wagon to pick up cow paddies? What's next? Cow pie ring toss? This is now they treat us. Christians, vets, gun owners are on the domestic terrorist list. Big Bro is the biggest repeat offender in town.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jer1YidkfPY&feature=youtu.be

[Walt]

Since Steve showed up,, How bout that Tyranny definition according to the all knowing Steve? Or that just a thing of the past and can never happen.. Especially with Liberals in charge.

[Walt]

One more thing for Steve to chew on since he likes to say "the law is the law" ( or close to that)
Just because it's " law" in no way makes it right. Repubs have historically fought and won to change laws that were wrong. Slavery for one. Then the overturning of Jim Crow. ( LIBS didn't do that) Heck. the first anti gun laws were targeting minorities. Who came to their defense? That would be the NRA. The VARY first civil rights org. for minorities.
So count on a new breed of Conservative that's ready to right these wrong laws.

[Bill Tozer]

Some intelligent nice folks actually believe that the solution to the country's problems lay at the feet of bigger Federal government, more Federal government, expanding Federal government and just plain ole Federal government. A dummy like me does not share that opinion, a skewed opinion in my seldom humble opinion.

Had an interesting conversation with one of my daughters. She told me she listens to Amy Goodman and was thinking I would call her a lib. I surprised her by saying at her age she better be a lib, but then again she has been drawing a paycheck since she was 16 so she ain't anything close to a full blown bleeding heart liberal. But I digress.

I really surprised her when I said I listen to Amy Goodman as well on occasion. That perked her interest. Then I said Amy Goodman and I have some things in common. We both fear and distrust our government. Now my daughter was almost sitting on my lap. Then I told her that the difference between Amy and I is simply that while we both fear our government, I love my country. Conversation ended.

https://www.facebook.com/beingconservative/photos/pb.134193140910.-2207520000.1397538570./10152002984300911/?type=3&theater

[stevenfrisch]

Man where to begin, and whether to do it one at a time or all at once? So many rich targets so little time.

Let's start with the most important question: the Constitutionality of federal land ownership. I have presented direct references and back up for my position, that the federal government has a Constitutionally authorized right to own land, and that once owned, it has the right to enforce rules on that land the govern its operation.

That right is ensconced in the Constitution in Article IV Section III Clause II.

The Supreme Court has decided on this issue numerous times throughout US history, the most recent being Klepp v. New Mexico where the court stated, "...Congress may limit the disposition of the public domain consistent with its views of public policy....It [the Property Clause] empowers Congress to act as both proprietor and legislature over the public domain; Congress has complete power to make those 'needful rules' which in its discretion it deems necessary. When Congress acts with respect to those lands covered by the {property] clause, its legislation overrides conflicting state laws."

This is standing case law, and that it is standing law is without dispute. There may be equal footing claims by some states in other cases, but those cases would need to make their way through federal courts and set a precedent to be applied here. In this case the State of Nevada does not make an equal footing case and does not dispute the federal governments right to manage the land. Mr. Bundy is making the case that the State of Nevada has sovereignty over the land, a claim Nevada disputes.

Mr. Bundy's family never owned this land. The land was ceded to the United States of America under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and when Nevada became a State it agreed to the terms that these land belonged to the federal government pending future disposition. Mr. Bundy's claim that he enjoys prescriptive rights is superseded by federal Constitutional rights and Treaty.

None of you have disputed in any direct way, or citing any case law, this case. You have presented emotional arguments about how you think things should be.

If you want to make the case that Mr. Bundy has or should have some legal right to this land you have to make the case.

[Al]

The public land known as the Bundy Ranch is planned to become an
Offsite Mitigation Bank that allows for development elsewhere,
for a fee.
Removal of the Bundys will re-establish onsite cashflow and is
useful as a precedent for other actions, and for other purposes.

[stevenfrisch]

Tyranny, Mr. Dirtmover, is a state where all power is vested in a single or a small clique of rulers who use that power to oppress others.

In this case we have a Constitutional system, with power checked and balanced between three branches of government, with popular sovereignty, and the rule of law, based on both governing documents and historic precedent.

You say you love the Constitution, and wish to hew to its original intent, you need to use the Constitution, and some rational system of laws, to make your case.

Law balances the competing interested of multiple parties. In this case there is a legitimate public interest in the management of lands owned by the public, and a set of competing interests, including the publics right to access to public lands, the publics right to use those public lands for societal benefit, the publics right to the protection of species and habitat that are in the public domain, and the private property owners rights to use public property for public good. When those interests compete the owner of the land, the federal government, has the right to make rules governing the use of their land.

That is not tyranny, that is a modern society using the rule of law to balance competing interests. Absent a system to do that we have anarchy.

[stevenfrisch]

Let's be clear boys, you cannot say you love the Constitution, and stand for the rule of law, then show up with guns threatening legal processes, and claim to love that system.

That position is inherently inconsistent.

I applaud the BLM and other federal law enforcement agencies for backing off in this case, particularly because there is now ample photo and other anecdotal evidence that heavily armed militia members have been showing up in the community and training their guns on federal law enforcement. I think the decision not to precipitate an armed exchange was smart. I wish the feds had done that in the case of Waco and Ruby Ridge.

But lets be clear, in the case of WACO David Koresh was fu*#ing children. Get it? He was breaking the law. There was ample evidence that he was breaking the law.

Randy Weaver was questioned by the Secret Service for threatening the life of the President, and was under indictment at the time for making and possessing illegal firearms and was served notice to appear in court. The standoff occurred when Mr. weaver failed to appear. I believe that given Mr. Weaver's history and the circumstances the effort to arrest him at his home should not have been made. But that does not mean that Mr. Weaver was not breaking the law when the incident happened. He was.

Avoiding this sort of senseless armed incident in the Bundy case is not a sign of weakness it is a sign of strength and smart law enforcement by federal agencies.

[Barry Pruett]

Did Bundy break the law? Yes. Is the law just? No. He certainly is shedding light on the ever-growing and expanding federal government. The issues with the BLM trying to remove people from federal land on trumped up studies is never ending. There are likely a thousand Bundy's who are paying for their alottment but are still being tormented by BLM because a single cow wandered. While armed conflict needs to be avoided, a big bright light needs to be shined on the BLM. Bundy is doing just that.

What about the Harry Reid/Chinese connection? I found that very interesting.

[Bill Tozer]

My, my, the tables have turned. Mr. stevenfrisch is arguing the Constitution of the United States of America in a clear calm matter of fact manner while us Righties are making emotional appeals. Its called role reversal.

Sure, the Brandy Bunch don't have a legal horse to ride on. But, can't we make an exception for him? People are dying out in the desert trying to illegally sneak in here and seek a better life here and deportation is tearing apart families!!!! They are just hard working families. Can't we make an exception here?

Yep, it must be frustrating for Mr. stevenfrisch to argue with us hysterical types. Has he no heart?

[fish]

I applaud the BLM and other federal law enforcement agencies for backing off in this case, particularly because there is now ample photo and other anecdotal evidence that heavily armed militia members have been showing up in the community and training their guns on federal law enforcement. I think the decision not to precipitate an armed exchange was smart. I wish the feds had done that in the case of Waco and Ruby Ridge.

But lets be clear, in the case of WACO David Koresh was fu*#ing children. Get it? He was breaking the law. There was ample evidence that he was breaking the law.

Randy Weaver was questioned by the Secret Service for threatening the life of the President, and was under indictment at the time for making and possessing illegal firearms and was served notice to appear in court. The standoff occurred when Mr. weaver failed to appear. I believe that given Mr. Weaver's history and the circumstances the effort to arrest him at his home should not have been made. But that does not mean that Mr. Weaver was not breaking the law when the incident happened. He was.

Oh Stevie.....you were doing so well. You finally had a federal law enforcement standoff where the Feds maintained calm and didn't embarrass themselves. Don't try and fold examples of previous failures into your argument.

[stevenfrisch]

Barry, I think it is important to note that Bundy began breaking the law long before there was a proposal to construct a solar project 93 miles from his home ranch. His failure to pay federal grazing fees, which almost every other rancher using public land pays, began more than 20 years ago. He has at least three federal court orders against him ordering him to pay fees dating back to 1993. The original issue, from whence all future issues have derived, is failure to pay rent (his lease payment).

I would say that is a pretty open and shut case.

Who decides if a law is just? We decide if a law is just by challenging its merits in court. If we lose in court we can pass a new law through the legislative process. If we disagree with the courts interpretation of a law we can appeal that decision all the way to the Supreme Court. If we disagree with the decision of the courts and the legislature we can decide to not comply with that law. The price of non-compliance is facing prosecution, and through that prosecution you can argue your case again, and the jury may nullify the implementation of the law by finding a defended not guilty. Finally, if one is convicted of a crime, they serve their time (or pay their penalty) and use their case to make a larger point in society in an effort to change the law. That is the system we have. Many good people have decided not to follow the law and become prisoners of conscience to prove their point.

But if they shoot a federal law enforcement agent in the pursuit of their conscience, they are a murderer, and subject to prosecution.

If we look at the case itself we see that Bundy argued his case in 1993, and did so without any claims of state sovereignty. It was only after he lost his case in 1993 that he began to make the state sovereignty case, which the State of Nevada did not support him on. Once losing his case again he is now saying he does not even recognize the United States of America as a legal entity.

I ask you, as an attorney, is this how law is made? Would you advise your client to deny the existence of the United States of America as a legal entity?

Next, lets go to the 'trumped up studies' charge. If you are going to make a case that studies of the impact of Mr. Bundy's cows on public resources are trumped up, the burden of proof is on you to produce the studies and argue the case. There is a very well established process to do so, and many people dispute scientific finding in court, and some even win.

Finally, to the 'Harry Reid' connection. It is actually irrelevant in this case, because federal land managers have the right, granted in the Constitution, and upheld by the Supreme Court, to make decisions about public land management.

But let's pretend for a minute that there is an issue of competition over the use of public lands for public benefit. Under those circumstances would you deny the right of the federal government to decide what is a 'highest and best use' or a 'public interest use' on federal land. Can I decide the best use by simply seizing federal land and using it to my will regardless of competing claims? If a neighboring rancher wants to use the land to graze his/her cattle, whose will predominates?

In a bygone era the best use of this land owned by the public may very well have been grazing. But today the best use may be generating energy, or recreation, or water supply, or any number of other uses. Some system has to be in place to decide who has rights of use and who does not? In the absence of the federal system would we have the 'law of the west'?

I fail to see how any rational conservative could support the rights of an individual member of the public to exert their property rights over their neighbors. Protection of property is central to liberty, as conservatives are fond of saying, and if that is the case there must be a rational system for the protection of property, including the public property.

[fish]

Stevie,

Were you ever going to take a flyer on answering why the federal government need to own the majority of the land in any state (other than that needed for demonstrated needs)?

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 14 April 2014 at 07:48 PM

Mr. Bundy has "intended" to break the law since the first time he violated the 1993 court order. He knew exactly what he was doing.

"The fed govt tells armed protectors of our borders to run away from rock throwers. What if the protesters in Nevada had started throwing rocks? The Bundys never intended to break the law, but those coming across our borders out in the desert are. What is SteveF's response to that sort of law breaking that he claims he is against?"

Crossing the border illegally is a crime. If people are apprehended crossing the border they are arrested and sent back where they came from. I support that. I do not support shooting people in the head for throwing a rock (proportional response). In the Bundy case the BLM and other agencies backed off because people with guns were showing up and the doctrine of proportional response requires de-escalating the situation.

One day Mr. Bundy is going to drive down to Vegas for a beer, and my guess is he is not going to come back for a while.
One day his cattle are going to trespass on federal land in violation of a court order, and they are probably going to get shot.

Finally, I never claimed to be a master of the constitution, but playing one here is awfully damn easy when you guys don't even read the Constitution and the laws and decisions that support it. I have a little advise for all ya'all 'conservatarians'; if you are going to claim to love the document you might start making you case based on it.

What legal doctrine recognized in the Constitution was Mr. Bundy standing up for?

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: fish | 15 April 2014 at 07:33 AM

Because those lands were either purchased by the federal government or ceded to them by treaty. As such they became property of the United States of America under the terms of Constitution, and CONGRESS is authorized to dispose of them as they will. If Congress decides to dispose of portions of those lands, as they did in the 1862 Homestead Act, or by sale which they do on a regular basis, or by granting them to a state as they have as many states have been admitted to the union, then they can.

The question 'why' has an answer if you disagree with how the land is disposed of; change the law.

[fish]

Finally, to the 'Harry Reid' connection. It is actually irrelevant in this case, because federal land managers have the right, granted in the Constitution, and upheld by the Supreme Court, to make decisions about public land management.

No it might be real relevant in this case. Harry working through an appointed minion placed in charge of the BLM in association with a firm employing his son representing foreign interests regarding the use of the land.

Probably enough for an inquiry there.

C'mon Steve you gave Barry and Scott Essay length responses......can I just get a number.....I won't even ask for an explanation initially as to the reason behind it....? Just a percentage of the land that the feds should own. Something as simple as XX% will do nicely for now.

[stevenfrisch]

This one is for Bill Tozer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2hkw-qYEWQ

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: fish | 15 April 2014 at 07:53 AM

Jesus Fish, when I was a kid I wanted a pony.

The feds own what they own due to the exigency of history. It is not for me (or you) to say how much; it is simply a fact.

You want to change that, more power to you to try. I have actually worked on federal land sales, I think a good chunk of it should be privately owned. But it isn't.

But really, are you asking "why"? or how much?

[stevenfrisch]

By the way, you don't want to read the essay, go watch American Idol.

[fish]

The question 'why' has an answer if you disagree with how the land is disposed of; change the law.

I'm not asking for you to restate the mechanism of how the federal government came to be in possession of the land or it's method for releasing it should it choose to do so. I'm asking you personally if there is a percentage of land you believe that the federal government should own in any state. I'm not even going to try and pin you down if you come up with a number bigger than most posters here are likely to be comfortable with.

Just a number.

[fish]

By the way, you don't want to read the essay, go watch American Idol.

I read the "essay" Steve.

You want to change that, more power to you to try. I have actually worked on federal land sales, I think a good chunk of it should be privately owned. But it isn't.

But really, are you asking "why"? or how much?

In the other thread that spawned this one I acknowledged that in this area I was going to defer to your expertise on the topic. When you decided blow JoKes dog whistle over taxes followed up by your nonsensical rants about the Weaver standoff and Ruby Ridge I started to lose interest but no biggie there....there is ample evidence that your conclusions regarding the follow on to both of those incidents is incorrect. I even gave you a heads up regarding the discussion I heard on the radio that supported your position.

My question was how much land should the federal government own in any state in your opinion? I may have follow up questions.....but maybe not.

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: fish | 15 April 2014 at 08:10 AM

Fish, there is not any set percentage of land I believe the federal government 'should' own.

I don't believe the question can be answered with a simple number without a great deal on analysis.

I will tell you that I do not object to the federal government releasing lands to the states, or selling lands, if a rational process is used to make that determination. I also do not object to the federal government purchasing lands as a result of a rational process.

[Account Deleted]

Steve does a nice evasion tactic there.
"I do not support shooting people in the head for throwing a rock"
Straw man argument - no one said you did. I asked why border agents are told to run away if border hoppers start throwing rocks, but if the protesters in Nevada had no guns and started throwing rocks, you know what would have happened. The feds backed down because they were out gunned. Try throwing rocks at the local sheriff here in this county and see what happens. Glad to hear that you are for arresting border hoppers in principle. But they often don't. Border agents are frustrated over the 'rules of engagement' that hinder them in doing just that. My point is the different way the feds 'enforce' the law depending skin color and political affiliation. Steve is Mr LawnOrder when it suits him, but seems to not remember the Constitution when it gets in the way of his pet projects. The situation with Bundy didn't have to be done the way the feds went about it. Why did they bring in a backhoe and dump truck?
Waco was an epic fail by the feds. Koresh often went to town and they could have just arrested him quietly there. Instead, the feds bungled a stupid raid that was doomed to fail. They knew there was no element of surprise and let the agents drive right into a crossfire of machine gun fire. Surviving agents were told to shut up and not talk to the press. All the children were burned alive. Way to go, Reno! Sure saved the day.

[fish]

You can disregard if you want....I didn't see "good chunk" until after the fact. That'll do for now.

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 15 April 2014 at 08:25 AM

Scott, I answered your question directly. You asked, "What is SteveF's response to that sort of law breaking [throwing rocks] that he claims he is against?"

My answer was, "I do not support shooting people in the head for throwing rocks."

I do expect to get arrested for throwing rocks at a law enforcement officer.

No evasion whatsoever, you asked a question and I answered it.

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: fish | 15 April 2014 at 08:25 AM

Now see how you guys are? I am not disregarding your question; I answered it directly. You just don't like the answer.

Re; Scott's comment: I have to assume that people here are looking at other media. I mentioned Waco and Rub Ridge because they are being discussed in the media as analogous situations. I wholeheartedly agree with Scott that Waco was a disaster.

I think that it was wise for law enforcement not to escalate the current situation. Get Bundy at the grocery store. The man has to eat sometime.

[fish]

Now see how you guys are? I am not disregarding your question; I answered it directly. You just don't like the answer.

No dummy....."a good chunk" is as descriptive as a random number. I didn't see it until I reread my 8:23.

My "disregard" comment was an acknowledgment that you had indeed answered my question.

[Todd Juvinall]

Fish, I wonder how a sovereign state can be so if another entity owns most of its property? Are we a state with our own Constitution? Or are we the vassal of the federal government? Seems Putin has exercised his power to federalize the Crimea and now eastern Ukraine is next. He also has the "law" on his side as they "voted" to annex to Russia. If the BLM Rangers with their automatic weapons and sniper rifles (aling with "tanks") are a threat, how is that different than Putin's forces in Eastern Ukraine?

[Walt]

Since Steve is on a "rule of law kick", and right there with Harry Reid,
"No one should break the law, and walk away from it.".
Now that's rich coming from the likes of Reid. How many LIBS have broke the law and have walked away scott free? Holder has yet to be held accountable for his law breaking, Same goes for people at the IRS, and the list goes on.
But one cow poke, get's the FED sniper treatment. Let's see some jailed LIBS before a jailed rancher.
( And the government pay the fines that have been levied against it.)

[fish]

Report: Agenda 21 conspiracy theories spread by extremists,
politicians pose real danger

Oh Jeffy...you're on such sounder footing when you prattle on about community theater. Once you've pried your self off the super duty fainting couch drop by and chat!

Oh and JoKe.... much like your aphorism that "You can spell conservatism without 'Con'..." it's impossible to spell joke without JoKe.

[Walt]

Todd. It looks like the Ukraine government was watching what was going on in Nevada. A handful of cowboys took on the "O"'s government and won the day.
" If THEY can do it,, we can stick it to Putin.",, and have won some battles of their own. Nope,, the W.H. isn't happy Ukraine is fighting back. Just watched Jay "the Carney" voice the W.H. opinion on that.