Quantcast
U.S. & World

Western GOP panel: Bundy symptomatic of larger problem

Comments

Return To Article
  • Jimmytheliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    April 30, 2014 1:20 p.m.

    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.

  • davidutefan Evanston, WY
    April 29, 2014 10:26 a.m.

    Article 4, Section 3, clause 2 of the US constitution is pretty clear, read that

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    April 28, 2014 7:02 a.m.

    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?

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    April 27, 2014 7:24 p.m.

    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 it.

  • Doug S Lindon, UT
    April 26, 2014 6:27 p.m.

    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.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    April 26, 2014 5:37 p.m.

    "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.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    April 26, 2014 4:50 p.m.

    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.

  • achick47 Abilene, TX
    April 26, 2014 3:49 p.m.

    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.

  • Doug S Lindon, UT
    April 26, 2014 2:46 p.m.

    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?

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    April 26, 2014 2:26 p.m.

    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?

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    April 26, 2014 2:19 p.m.

    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.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    April 26, 2014 12:27 p.m.

    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.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    April 26, 2014 11:56 a.m.

    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.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 26, 2014 11:47 a.m.

    @wrz
    The 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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 26, 2014 11:40 a.m.

    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.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    April 26, 2014 11:22 a.m.

    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.

  • Onion Daze Payson, UT
    April 26, 2014 11:15 a.m.

    Return the BLM land in question to its proper owners--the Moapa Indians.

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    April 26, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    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.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    April 26, 2014 5:42 a.m.

    "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.

  • LiberalJimmy Salt Lake City, UT
    April 26, 2014 1:24 a.m.

    @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.

  • Mainly Me Werribee, 00
    April 26, 2014 1:10 a.m.

    @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.

  • buhler@stratanet.com Vernal, UT
    April 25, 2014 10:27 p.m.

    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.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    April 25, 2014 10:05 p.m.

    The GOP is already looking for the next radical rancher.

  • annes albuquerque, NM
    April 25, 2014 8:51 p.m.

    @wrz

    you 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.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    April 25, 2014 8:42 p.m.

    Bundy is symptomatic of a larger problem for the GOP...

    a problem that has nothing to do with managing federal lands.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    April 25, 2014 8:13 p.m.

    @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.

  • Meme1 Provo, UT
    April 25, 2014 7:51 p.m.

    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.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    April 25, 2014 7:43 p.m.

    Yes, it is indicative of a bigger problem. It's called ultra conservatism.

  • LiberalJimmy Salt Lake City, UT
    April 25, 2014 4:55 p.m.

    "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.

  • On the other hand Riverdale, MD
    April 25, 2014 4:37 p.m.

    I was embarrassed to learn that Bundy is a Mormon. Last I checked, we believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.