As one that possess a Law Degree I find it quite amusing regarding the many on
this forum that quote certain articles of The Constitution for others to read.
Care to explain how these certain articles apply to our modern society? How
about intention during the time it was written? How about case law? There are
many interpretations. What exactly is yours? After all, most everyone can read,
but dissection and analysis a much different story.
Article 4, Section 3, clause 2 of the US constitution is pretty clear, read that
I've seen a lot of attacking conservatives, "the right", western
states, and so on, but I've not actually seen much argumentation to justify
the federal government spending taxpayer dollars to prevent use of land
rightfully owned by states with an armed agency."Give it back to
the Moapa Indians!"How do you know -they- rightfully own it?
What if they took it from someone there before them?
Hey Doug S -"The key, IMHO, is putting the western states on par
with the rest of the country with regard to the management of their own public
lands."" . . . their own public lands?"Sorry
Doug, but Federal Lands don't belong to the States."We the
people of the United States" own those public lands.Get used to
10CC - I like the way you're thinking (that's not quite
how the Homestead Act worked; but pretty close). But I'd rather see the
program under state administration, so that states have the option for
preserving whichever lands they felt appropriate for state parks, environmental
preservation, etc. (You may argue that state governments are more susceptible
to backroom dealings by the dominant ranchers/other interests in those
particular states; I would reply that the federal government is just as
susceptible to such shenanigans.)The key, IMHO, is putting the
western states on par with the rest of the country with regard to the management
of their own public lands. There's some merit to your observation about
identity politics; but I would also note that in this case the identity politics
are a natural response to unequal treatment by the federal government which has
identified "haves" and "have-nots" in the form of states that
for the most part are allowed to manage their own public lands; versus states
that are not given that privilege.
"I realize that he has paid some of his fees to Clark county, but this man
seems to invent law in order to resolve his problem."Can you
think of anyone else who invents laws and/or refuses to obey them? I'll
give you a hint... he resides in a house painted white, someplace back east."Knowing the law (The Taylor Grazing Act) which is the basis for
Grazing on Federal lands."Would you like to have a discussion
about immigration law enforcement?"This guy is a law breaker and
he should be prosecuted."Which guy... the one in Nevada or the
one who lives in a house painted white, someplace back east?"Personally it is great to have federal lands, that we can enjoy."Couldn't you enjoy the lands just as much if they were state
lands?"I don't think that it is always the best interest of
the citizens of the US to have the State control the lands. States can initiate
taxes and fees that are unjustified.The fed also taxes. State taxing
would be a lot easier to control by the people than fed taxing.
Doug S:A lot of this depends on what one's identity is. Clive
Bundy doesn't recognize the United States government, the force that
liberated the land he resides and derives from his living, from Mexico.Many, many people in the West are seemingly westerners first, Americans second
(maybe).I consider myself to be an American, first, even though part
of my heritage is from the Native American nations who could trump even your
revolutionary roots.I could say, "I want my land back", or I
could say "how do we best move toward the future, as Americans?"Maybe we could say that western US government lands belong to all
Americans, and in the interest of developing them, we'll re-institute the
Homestead Act and give every American a lottery ticket and equal opportunity to
move out west and develop the lands, with no Americans having an inside
advantage on what parcels they get.If western conservatives are
sincere, they would welcome an equal-opportunity approach for all Americans. My
hunch is they're not sincere, they want the land given up to them.
This line of comments really is interesting. I reread the Constitution, watched
Bundy's speech, listened to an Black Man who supports Mr. Bundy state Budy
is Not racist and frankly all people need to work if physically able or do
without. Kind of what Bundy said just more politically correct. Grazing on land
and paying all state fees is understandable so why would someone need to pay BLM
if the state is collecting the fees? Yes it is time for people to wake up and
see their rights under the Constitution are being taken away and done so behind
closed doors. Personally I think Texas ATTY GEN Abbott and Gov Perry have it
right in response to BLM land grabbing. Look that up on the net. Yep I am a
Mormon and I support Mr. Bundy on and I am a 66 yr old disabled female who
would gladly lead the charge and take a bullet for what I believe in.
10CC: yes, the Mexican Cession was obtained through war; but it seems
ridiculous that the Federal government continues to treat it as occupied
territory when the last part of the cession was granted statehood over a century
ago.As I understand it, the eastern states don't have to deal
with the federal govt locking up eighty-plus percent of their natural resources.
Why should the western states do it? A Virginian's ancestors fought in
the Mexican war, so he gets a slice of Utah (via federal ownership)? OK, but my
ancestors fought in the Revolution. Where's my piece of Virginia?
There's another BLM land dispute, this time in Texas, which is ironic,
because there are almost no public lands in Texas. If you want to enjoy Mother
Nature in Texas, you need to find a landowner who will take your money to enjoy
it.Anyway, this dispute goes back to the Louisiana Purchase and how
state lines are delineated when a river is the border. Oklahoma was part of the
Louisiana Purchase, Texas was not, but Texas and Oklahoma can't agree on
which technical approach should be used to redraw the boundary as the Red River
has changed its course, slightly. The land would be United States land in
Oklahoma, but in Texas it belongs to individuals, and that's the
dispute.True, honest conservatives and libertarians should agree the
Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional, and all the land in Oklahoma and 11
other states should be returned to France.Things are either black,
or they're white. You're either dishonest, or you're honest.
When does Oklahoma go back under the sovereignty of Paris, folks?
The western land that state-based opportunists like Ivory and anti-government
extremists like Bundy seem to think belongs to them was acquired by the US
through warfare between the United States and Mexico.What percentage
of Americans will go along with the idea of simply giving away these
resources?The citizens of the United States are the owners, and they
- in total - should decide if and how this land should be transferred to the
states, or to the highest bidder, or back to the Native American tribes who were
here before Mexico claimed the land.Utah and other western states
are discarding the democratic approach they make in the case of marriage laws to
flip land their way via unelected judges.
Mainly Me: "It's called fighting for true justice. The goobermint is a
hydra out of control and the only thing that will stop it is to burn off the
heads as they are cut."This is the fascinating thing about
today's far right. It's now impossible to know if what they're
saying is some kind of sly, deeply satirical type of performance art, or if they
actually mean it.Cliven "I want to tell you one more thing I
know about the Negro" Bundy is in fact a brazen welfare cheat. He not only
uses deeply subsidized federal lands to graze his cattle, he doesn't even
pay the deeply subsidized fees for them, which other ranchers somehow manage to
do without feeling abused by their own government. Bundy's
jaw-dropping comments about "Negros" being better off as slaves instead
of being "subsidized" is, as a heavily subsidized welfare fraud himself,
bizarre in the extreme.
Is true that the BLM is required by law (1976) to turn over all of its land to
the states? If so why don't the states just take the BLM to court and then
this kind of thing won't happen anymore.
@wrzThe issue back in the late 1700s was states being concerned that the
federal gov't would disarm their militias. That's more like state
National Guard units, not ragtag groups of misfits.
He is symptomatic of a very large problem indeed. That being the number of
people out here who benefit immensely from government largesse, or even steal it
in his case, yet at their core despise government openly and encourage its'
destruction. The conundrum of ultra conservatism.
Hey Iron and Clay -The Constitution of the States starts out with a
words whose meaning is fairly apparent. At least that's what I thought.In your mind, what exactly does "We the People of the United
States" mean?Are you suggesting the founders had some nefarious
intent in mind when they wrote those words?Were they just PRETENDING
to create a fair and workable document that would be the template for the
Federal Government?Were the Founders Communists in the mold of Mao,
Stalin, and the Supreme Leaders of North Korea?Please expound upon
your version of history.I'm ready to learn.
Return the BLM land in question to its proper owners--the Moapa Indians.
The mentality expressed that 'the people own the land' is simply a
propaganda ruse used by the elite who want to control everything in the United
States. That is the same mentality that put North Korea's
elite ruling class into power.That is the same mentality that put
Mao's elite ruling class into power.That is the same mentality
that put Stalin's elite ruling class into power.Etc.
"What we saw in Bunkerville is a symptom of the federal government having
far too much control of the land in Nevada.”WRONG. What we saw
in Bunkerville is a symptom of the anti-American, anti-government mentality
that has insinuated itself throughout Right Wing America. It is a symptom of
“Conservative” confusion."’Because the federal
government laid a terrible foundation, whatever house you build on it is going
to be bad,’ Ivory said."Now THAT is a telling quote. The
foundation of the Federal Government is what? The “terrible
foundation” of the Federal Government is the US Constitution. Thank you Mr
Ivory for coming clean on your true feelings.All too many
pretentious “Conservatives” who claim to be patriots and
Constitutionalists are neither patriots nor defenders of the Constitution.Too many are confused government-hating Right Wingers who, if they get
their way, will subvert the Constitution and cause considerably more harm to
this nation then they already have.“We the People of the
United States” own that federal land, not the states, and not the
Republicans who seek to undermine national authority.
@wrz..."Try reading the 2nd Amendment where they are authorized"...Funny
because I have extremely fond memories of many late nights of New Haven,
Connecticut (Yale University) which turned into many early mornings that I was
up studying and researching not only the 2nd Amendment but all of them. Since we
both possess Ivy League Law Degrees I assume you would agree that there are many
interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. What exactly is your interpretation? How
about intention regarding the time in which it was written? How does it apply in
today's society? Now, as far as Mr. Bundy is concerned I believe his latest
comments regarding race say it all. In closing, a simplistic Google search
reveals that he did in fact deny the existence of the federal government.
@one old man"Yes, it is indicative of a bigger problem.
It's called ultra conservatism."Wrong. It's called
fighting for true justice. The goobermint is a hydra out of control and the
only thing that will stop it is to burn off the heads as they are cut.
If the state of Nevada controlled the grazing permits, would Bundy pay his fees.
I realize that he has paid some of his fees to Clark county, but this man seems
to invent law in order to resolve his problem. Knowing the law (The Taylor
Grazing Act) which is the basis for Grazing on Federal lands. The Grazing fees
are minimal and they have been since the 1930's. This guy is a law breaker
and he should be prosecuted. This manner should have been taken care of 20
years ago and should not have been allowed to linger this long. This is why the
BLM is partially at fault. Personally it is great to have federal lands, that
we can enjoy. I don't think that it is always the best interest of the
citizens of the US to have the State control the lands. States can initiate
taxes and fees that are unjustified. To summarize Mr. Bundy he is a law
breaker and should get his just dues in a court of law. Now not 20 years from
now. The Federal Marshals should step in and arrest this man and than he should
be tried in a court of law.
The GOP is already looking for the next radical rancher.
@wrzyou say:"Bundy is not denying the existence of the Federal
government. All he's saying is that the land he's on should not be
Federal Government land and if he owes any money to anyone it would be to the
State of Nevada."So he's paid his grazing fees to Nevada? I
had not heard that. I did hear that the State of Nevada wants $12 per head for
grazing fees, while the feds just want $1 per head. So that's great,
he's paid his fees x 12. You should let the media know.
Bundy is symptomatic of a larger problem for the GOP...a problem
that has nothing to do with managing federal lands.
@LiberalJimmy""We most certainly will not align ourselves with any
type of militia or individuals such as Mr. Bundy who has stated many times that
he does not recognize the existence of our federal government."Re militias, try reading the 2nd Amendment where they are authorized.Bundy is not denying the existence of the Federal government. All he's
saying is that the land he's on should not be Federal Government land and
if he owes any money to anyone it would be to the State of Nevada.
As far as I've been reading, Bundy paid all of the fees until BLM
didn't do their part on their deal. So Bundy stopped paying BLM and tried
to pay other government agencies in order to try to honor his own part on the
deal - not that I agree that stopping the payments was a good thing either.
Those agencies didn't accept the money, so BLM tried to take the land from
Bundy because of the $1 M that he didn't pay, and with the excuse that they
needed to protect the desert tortoise which, in turn, benefit from cow dung.
BLM claimed they needed funding in order to protect the tortoise, but they spent
$3 M so that they could get the $1 M from Bundy. Also, in the process of
driving the cattle out of Bundy's ranch, the BLM shot cows that
weren't able to move fast or that couldn't move anymore due to
exhaustion. There is plenty of information about this out there. To me,
there's something that really stinks in this whole ordeal.
Yes, it is indicative of a bigger problem. It's called ultra conservatism.
"To them federal land is a pretty little tree by a pretty little
lake"...Really Mr. Bishop? As a State Representative I suggest a much
further investigation of federal lands located in The East prior to any more
ignorant comments. As a New York transplant I assure you that federal lands to
those living back East means private property, no trespassing. We most
certainly will not align ourselves with any type of militia or individuals such
as Mr. Bundy who has stated many times that he does not recognize the existence
of our federal government.
I was embarrassed to learn that Bundy is a Mormon. Last I checked, we believe in
obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.