Quantcast

Comments about ‘In our opinion: Western land standoff aside, there is room for compromise with BLM’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, April 23 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

The extreme right in Utah is using this as a takeover issue. The call to moderation and recognition of the law is important. Unless you want the Militia types riding around in pickup trucks with machine guns hoping for a fight.

Screwdriver
Casa Grande, AZ

There's nothing worse than preppers that have a million bullets and 10 years of food in the basement and nothing to do with it.

So the Nevada rancher says he wants a million dollars of free grass from the government. Ok. I'm sure he's ok with everyone else just grazing there free too? I say everybody should bring their livestock to his place and see what he says.

Thid Barker
Victor, ID

One vote. You need to educate yourself about Ruby Ridge and Waco where it was government thugs who were the ones riding around in trucks and machine guns hoping for a fight, just like they almost did in Nevada. Our forefathers stood up to abusive government thugs and we call them patriots, which they were. American needs more patriots instead of lemmings.

Esquire
Springville, UT

Are you kidding me? Your effort to rationalize law breaking so you can have a foot in both worlds is stunningly ridiculous. Your underlying premise is wrong, including the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Yes, the rebels of the West were upset that land was set aside for purposes that would exclude its exploitation for their personal gain, but the land is owned by the people (as represented by the Federal government) and we had every right to designate it as a National Monument. There is nothing in limbo. Bundy is a lawbreaker and has been for decades, unlike most of the other ranchers who obey the law. As I talk to BLM folks, you assertion is completely false - they are sensitive to local issues. The problem comes when certain local folks can't get what they want, and it's always for their own selfish interests. For most of us, take away the emotional arguments, and we will mostly agree that the federal government is doing the right thing by protecting public lands for our widespread use rather than closing them off so a few can profit.

10CC
Bountiful, UT

This is a good, sensible editorial, but one gets the sense that a lot of the "sagebrush rebels" want the land deeded to *them*, not to the state or any county or any other form of government, which are all viewed as simply differing levels of evil, all to be opposed.

It's increasingly apparent the vigilantes / patriots / welfare ranchers who are now railing against Obama will immediately turn their sights to the Utah Legislature if/when the United States is dumb enough to cede ownership of federal lands to the states.

Good luck getting that genie back in the bottle, conservatives.

Thid Barker
Victor, ID

Fine, place a lien on Bundy's property, the government gets its money and the problem solved! There was no need to send in 200 armed storm troopers, threaten people, kill cattle and act like thugs and waste over a million dollars of taxpayer money trying to show who's boss! That's the point!

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

I think the BLM could do a better job of communicating with the local natives when making decisions. Especially decisions that affect the life and livelyhood of the local natives.

I think the fact that they are giving it some time to de-escalate is a good development.

I think both sides have made some mistakes. To pretend that the Federal Government has never made a mistake, or that they couldn't make a mistake now... is viewing reality through very strict blinders that only allow you to see what you WANT to see. Likewise assuming ranchers are always right... is a narrow view of reality.

They need to work together and try to find compromise and make sure the position of BOTH sides is explained and understood (not just crammed down other side's throat because you aren't REQUIRED to discuss or explain). They seem to have learned from our friends in Congress... that "compromise" is a bad word, and shows weakness, and should be avoided at all cost. Only confrontation, dramatically created standoffs, ideological purity, and insisting YOU get everything YOU want... is needed.

Yes... BOTH sides do this from time to time. Not just one side.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

The government is forbidden to own land, except for a 10 mile square parcel of land which is the District of Columbia and minor pieces of land for Forts, Magazines, and Federal Buildings. That is what the Supreme Law of the Land tells us. Obviously, the federal government thinks that it is above the law. So, if both sides are lawless, which side should be rewarded?

The federal government needs to divest itself of all "public lands".

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Mike Richards,
Re: "The government is forbidden to own land"...

As usual... there are different viewpoints.

There are 3 different interpretations of the "Property Clause" of the Constitution (ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 2)

google "Property clause"...

The primary constitutional authority for the management and control of this vast real-estate empire is the Property Clause. The exact scope of this clause has long been a matter of debate. Broadly speaking, three different theories have been advanced.

The narrowest conception, which can be called the proprietary theory, maintains that the Property Clause simply allows Congress to act as an ordinary owner of land.

The broadest conception, which can be called the police-power theory, regards the clause as conferring not only the powers of ownership but also general sovereign authority to regulate private conduct that occurs on federal land or that affects federal land.

there is also an intermediate conception of the Property Clause, which can be labeled the protective theory.

It is not certain which of these three theories corresponds with the original understanding of the Framers...

It's still being debated by the various Courts and Constitutional Scholars.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Read the Constitution. IT is the Supreme Law of the Land. Google is NOT the Supreme Law of the Land.

When people look for an excuse to excuse government lawlessness, they will surely find like-minded "peers" who prefer to get their "law" from the Internet.

Either we have a Constitution or we do not. I contend that we have a Constitution and that no amount of lawlessness by the government or by government supporters overrides the Constitution.

one old man
Ogden, UT

So what happens when legal remedies through the courts have been exhausted?

FT
salt lake city, UT

@ One Old Man
"So what happens when legal remedies through the courts have been exhausted"?
What should happen is Clive Bundy and the anarchist surrounding him should be gathered up and thrown in jail. If they don't go peacefully then take them by force.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@FT,
Re: "If they don't go peacefully then take them by force...

My... you sound so Gestapo-like today... You're mind-set fits perfectly when you have the SS or the Gestapo to round people up and throw them in jail for daring to question the government.

What is this left in this country becoming???

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

FT. You would love life in Cuba, Iran, N.Korea, Hitler's Germany or Russia because that is what they do there but not in America. You see, in America the people tell the government what it can and can not do, not the other way around. In America we have freedom to stand up to government abuses. Or at least we used to but some people just don't get it! Some people would rather be subjects than citizens.

FT
salt lake city, UT

@ 2 bits
Nice straw man argument about the SS and the Gestapo. I happen to believe in the rule of law and support our law enforcement. Clive Bundy has been found guilty by the courts and refuses to comply to the rule of law. Anyone protecting him from justice is obstructing the law.
Go ahead and question the goverment and get your day in court but no man is above the rule of law. Clive Bundy and the ararchist surrounding him think they are and there is no place in a civilized, democratic society like ours.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

FT,
There's nothing illegal about protesting, or possessing weapons. We still believe in freedom of expression... don't we? Or can you now be carted off by force and jailed for protesting this government action?

Bundy may have broken a law... but what law did the people who showed up to protest break???

===

You call them "Anarchists", I call them "People".

People who have just as much right to protest as the Occupy Wallstreet people...

===

Question:
Were you saying "If they don't go peacefully then take them by force"... when the occupy wallstreet people were told they were breaking the law by setting up their camps on private property, vandalizing stores, etc?

How about the anti-war protesters? Just call the SS and cart them off to jail??

Or is it just when the protesters don't agree with you (or your party) that they need to be carted off to jail (for protesting)?

The BLM protesters broke no US Laws that I'm aware of. The occupy people did though... and you tolerated their protests...

Res Novae
Ashburn, VA

"The government is forbidden to own land..."

And yet it does and has for two centuries, ample time to mount a concerted legal challenge. As the legal maxim goes, res ipsa loquitur: the thing speaks for itself.

FT
salt lake city, UT

@ 2 bits
Once again nice straw man arguments. If you can't win an argument do you always recreate the facts? Where did the occupy Wall Street protesters come into the equation here? Truthfully, I have no idea if they were breaking the law or not. If they were they're no different than Clive Bundy and I would support our law enforcement in doing what was needed to enforce the law.
As far as the armed protestors surrounding Bundy many of them have threatned to use force if law enforcement comes to arrest him. I'm not an attorney but it would seem to me that threatning the life of a law enforcement officer from doing his sworn duty is breaking the law. Protesting is fine, threats and indimation of our public law enforcement is not.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

“ . . . There is room for compromise with BLM . . .”

WRONG.

The Federal Governement DOES NOT compromise with terrorists, either foreign or domestic.

Get used to it.

Federal Lands belong to “We the People of the United States . . . ”

Federal Lands do NOT belong to the states or exclusively to local yokels with attitude problems . . . even if they do strut around carrying guns while shouting about how much they hate the government.

The Federal Governement DOES NOT compromise with terrorists, either foreign or domestic.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

I agree, but your remarks are a might tepid. But this will liven things up. The organizers of Burning Man (who do pay a user fee to the BLM) have declared "Bundyfest" to be held right after Burning Man right across the road from Mr. Bundy's ranch. Since Bundy has declared himself to be outside of U.S. jurisdiction, Bundyfest will be an exercise in pure anarchy. Anything goes, and I do mean anything. It should be quite an event. I will await your editorial about that along about September.

to comment

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