Comments about ‘Letter: Amnesty for who?’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, April 19 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Sandy, UT

I never understood why people were upset that the blm was enforcing the law. This land wasn't bundy's and he lost two court battles.

He also essentially fanned the anti government flames by saying he would defend his property by any means necessary, acting as if somehow there was tyranny at play.

Salt Lake City, UT

There's a different, perhaps more interesting parallel. On the one hand we have:
1. rancher vs BLM who want to use the land for a solar energy project
2. farmers vs Keystone XL who want to build a pipeline through the plains

Shouldn't... shouldn't there be some consistency in the views regarding gov't use of land in these two cases?

Far East USA, SC

Neil, I guess the concept of "illegal" depends on whether or not you like the law.

The Nevada grazing case is very troubling. Is this how we are going to start resisting laws that we think are unjust?

Do we get a group with guns together and have an armed standoff?

How about we peacefully work to get the laws changed?

The saddest part is that this case may have opened the floodgates and the GOP base seems to be supporting and encouraging this type of response.

Instead, we need our leaders to stand up and say "while I may agree with your opposition to this law, armed resistance is the WRONG way to go."

This is an extremely dangerous precedent.

Salt Lake City, UT

It's very simple. Self-interest trumps consistency in enforcing the law. Cliven Bundy is one of them; illegal immigrants are foreign objects that need to be excised.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Ralph Waldo Emerson

They believe in honoring, obeying, and sustaining the law only when it suits their interests.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Motto of the right wing: Laws are for other people.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

The Constitution clearly states that the Federal Government cannot "own" land except for the District of Columbia: ". . . over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) . . . "

If the Federal Government cannot own land, then it cannot control land. If it cannot control land, it has no authority to require anyone to pay fees for the use of that land. It seized that land from the Bundy family without paying for it, which is a violation of the 5th Amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

If anything, the Federal Government owes the Bundy family millions of dollars for taking property without paying for it.

Durham, NC

I was actually pleasantly surprised to see that the FoxNews staff generally condemned the actions of the rancher in Nevada. Even Glenn Beck sided with the government on this one. It seems that there are certain issues that are just so out there, that both sides can agree.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Cliven Bundy has stolen more from the taxpayers than any welfare queen ever dreamed of. But he's a hero to the right?

LOU Montana
Pueblo, CO

Illegal immigration is against the law and using Federal land illegally is against the law.
Cliven Bundy is in direct violation of the law. His case has been heard in court for the last 20 years and the courts have ruled against him. In a day and age when Conservatives hate people who have self imposed entitlements. Cliven Bundy is one of those people who believes he is entitled to the use of this land because of his ancestors.
Fact remains he does not own the land and the Federal Government can do with the land as it pleases. The Chinese company that was to build a solar plant on that land has been debunked. It was not the same land and it was all cancelled a year earlier.
Cliven Bundy claims he does not recognize the United State Government and in my book that makes him a traitor. He has not paid his fees and does not recognize the United States Government sound like he needs to move to Mexico and see how successfully he can run his ranch.
Bundy is a crook and should be in jail.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

I'll confess, the only thing I enjoyed about the outcome of the situation is the embarrassment for BO.

the guy has essentially been stealing from the rest of us for 20 years.

However, if the feds would properly give control of the lands to the states where it belongs (Madison would spin in his grave if he knew the feds would control so much land in a state - Jefferson would come unglued), this situation never would have happened. Maybe this is something we need to focus more attention on giving control of the land to those who should have it.

Far East USA, SC

Article 4 Section 3 of the Constitution

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

Mike, your claim that
"The Constitution clearly states that the Federal Government cannot "own" land except for the District of Columbia:"

Seems to be at odds with Article 4. Please back up your claim.

Have you heard of the Louisiana Purchase? Who bought that land? And, who owned it after the purchase?

Bottom line is that we are a nation of laws. Armed conflict is not the way that these kinds of disagreements should be handled.

Those that support and encourage this type of response should be ashamed. Is this the kind of country we are to become?

Anti Bush-Obama
Chihuahua, 00

Take it from someone who was actually there. The BLM repeatedly threatened the lives of protestors and I was a witness to at least four incidents of them beating and tasing people including a pregnant woman and a cancer patient. The protestors never threatened anybody and even though they had firearms, they never pointed them at anybody unlike the BLM who was eager to provoke a conflict.

Every single rancher in that area has been put out of business due to the outrageous grazing fees. That story about protecting the tortises is also a bunch of jive. This is about a land grab plain and simple. If Cliven were to pay those grazing fees they would still want that land from him. Harry Reid wants to give that property to the Chinese for a solar farm.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Bundy is a criminal and should be put into jail. He decided to let cattle graze on public lands for 20+ years despite the laws stating otherwise. He lost his court battles. His supporters stated that they would place women as human shields in the event the federal government attacked. Yet, there are some on the right calling this man a hero?

No wonder why the GOP is looked at as the out of touch party.


@ Mike: Then please explain Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

Obviously the Federal Government can own land and can own that land within a state.

Salt Lake City, UT

The letter-writer makes a false analogy between this grazing land case and the matter of illegal immigration in yet another effort to demonize and ridicule those who believe in upholding U.S. immigration law.

albuquerque, NM

Mike Richards:

The federal government holds lands in trust for the public, and manages those lands so that the public retains access to the lands and pays for the use of the land. It's a balancing act, true. Ranchers are allowed to graze their livestock on these public lands for a fee. This diminishes the use of the land for other members of the public, and the land must be safeguarded (managed) against overgrazing.

Do you suggest the use of our lands should be free for ranchers? Because Cliven Bundy sure thinks he should be able to treat federal lands as his very own. If he really believes the land belongs to the state of Nevada, why hasn't he paid Nevada those fees?

The grazing fees that Cliven Bundy doesn't want to pay? he owes those fees and doesn't want to pay to any body. He owes $1.2 Million. Personally, I don't think he should get to skate on those fees because he doesn't want to pay up. If he refused to pay for his breakfast, he'd land in jail. Where he belongs.

Salt Lake City, UT

It is not a right vs. left issue. It is anarchy vs. the rule of law. Those who view it differently have their own agendas.

Anti Bush-Obama
Chihuahua, 00

They stole land from the Indians. But it's ok as long as the Government does it. Deseret News censored my previous comment of my being there. The BLM was behind all the violence there. All of those "Gun toting protestors" were nothing but peaceful.

Stalwart Sentinel
San Jose, CA

The irony in these two comparisons is that if the land is not controlled by the Federal gov't as Bundy claims (I disagree, but let's have some fun), then illegals should actually be able to live on that land. The reasoning is that federal laws are those that have been established to enforce immigration law but if the federal gov't has no right to enforce duly recognized federal laws on this patch of land as Bundy claims then that means the federal gov't cannot enforce immigration laws there either.

Wouldn't it be wonderful for this plot of earth in Nevada to become a safe haven for illegal immigrants? I would love to see Mr. Bundy wake up to find his cattle illegally grazing on these lands and have hundreds of thousands of illegals setting up shop next to him. It'd take five minutes for him to be clamoring for the "federal guvmint" to come down and arrest all those illegals.

This is yet another example of conservatives refusing to participate in the social norms of this country and then threatening physical violence because they can't justify their case legally.

Salt Lake City, UT

Mike, if the federal government constitutionally cannot own land except D.C., how did the United States acquire Alaska, Hawaii, and the land covered by the Louisiana purchase, to name just a couple of examples? How about Hill AFB, federal courthouses and prisons, national parks and monuments, the Statue of Liberty, etc.? Are you really saying the United States doesn't own any of those? In a previous comment, I cited the Constitutional provision that gives Congress the power to regulate property of the United States (Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2). Are you really saying that only applies to the District of Columbia? Amazing.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments