Posted on 04/10/2014 8:09:43 PM PDT by rightwingerpatriot
Yes. If it's a bad law. Do you propose we follow whatever law is passed regardless of its constitutionality? Americans are European peasants that simply obey their overlords. Americans don't have overlords.
“That FedGov can’t manage to de-escalate the situation speaks volumes.”
That the FedGov DOESN’T WANT TO DE-ESCALATE THE SITUATION speaks volumes.
They are all about the intimidation factor. De-escalating is backing down, and it emboldens resistance. Can’t have that.
“That was when the Gundy’s started asking for proof from the BLM that they have legal authority over the property. The BLM, instead of attempting to work with the Gundy’s, they took him to court.”
The BLM went to court and proved, beyond a doubt, that the federal government owned the land. There is no dispute. And the court ordered Bundy, back in 1998, to accept the FACT that the federal government has legal title to the land, and that Congress has the Constitutional authority, specifically mentioned in the Constitution, to establish rules for land owned by the federal government.
I didn’t expect to see a day when many Freepers would reject property rights and spit on the US Constitution so they could engage in tribal politics.
“Do you propose we follow whatever law is passed regardless of its constitutionality?”
Ownership of land by the federal government is specifically provided by the US Constitution, which gives Congress responsibility to pass laws to manage it as Congress sees fit. We live in a democratic republic. If you don’t like the law, you work to change it...but since these laws involve property rights and are IAW laws used since the country was founded, I doubt they will change just to allow one rancher free, unrestricted grazing.
“Just because one court ruled, doesn’t mean that’s the end of it.”
So...did Bundy file an appeal? He’s past the time limit to do so. If you lose in court, and do not appeal, it IS over. After that, you comply with the law and if needed work to change the law.
Conservatives are not a bunch of hoodlums in the inner city who do knee-jerk protests because “the man is oppressing the black man”. We do not believe in tribal politics, where all that matters is if you identify with someone - and yes, I identify with ranchers, not the BLM. I oppose most of the environmental laws passed since 1980, and I am very pro-grazing. I spent several summers in my youth as a peon data collector working on research projects that showed the benefits of grazing for wildlife.
But I am not a fan of uncontrolled grazing. I’ve known of ranchers who overgrazed their allotments, running 3-4 times as many cattle allowed until a court order stopped them...and yes, OVERgrazing is very harmful. A year of overgrazing can destroy the land so thoroughly that it will take 50 years to recover.
I am not a fan of unrestricted grazing because it leads to disaster. The Grazing Act was passed in the 30s for a reason - look it up!
The government and the media are lying, once again.
This isn't about grazing, since he owns those transferable grazing rights. This is about getting him off the property so that others (solar energy companies) can use it.
/johnny
It is about grazing, and he admitted it in court, under oath.
I did not read the media accounts. I looked up the court cases, which include what Bundy said he was doing - under oath, and with documentation.
“On February 26, 1993, Bundy sent an Administrative Notice of Intent to the BLM, which stated his intent to graze cattle “pursuant to my vested grazing rights.” See Exhibit [*3] 10 to #11. Bundy sent several more Administrative Notice[s] of Intent in the months that followed. On June 16, 1993, the BLM sent Bundy a letter informing him that his application had not been received to graze livestock for the June 15, 1993 to August 31, 1993 period. The BLM included another application for Bundy to fill out and return. See Exhibit 12 to #11. Bundy responded to the BLM letter with another Administrative Notice and Intent, stating, among other things, that the BLM has produced no documents showing it had jurisdiction over the public lands. See Exhibit 13 to #11. The BLM began trespass detection efforts at the end of June 1993.
On July 13, 1993, the BLM sent Bundy a Trespass Notice and Order to Remove and gave him ten days to respond. As requested by Bundy, the BLM informed Bundy in a July 27, 1993 letter that it would extend the response time to 30 days. On August 19, 1993, Bundy sent another Administrative Notice and Intent, stating the BLM lacked proof that it had jurisdiction. See Exhibit 16 to #11...
...In December 1994, Bundy or his agents served a Constructive Notice on a contractor hired by the BLM to gather wild horses and burros. In August 1995, the BLM sent Bundy another Trespass Notice and Order to Remove. Bundy responded by sending a Constructive Notice [*5] and Order to Stop, in which he again questioned the United States’ authority to manage the Allotment. See Exhibit 28 to #11.
In September 1997, the BLM tried to set up a meeting with Bundy to resolve the trespasses, but Bundy declined to meet with the BLM.
The government contends it could have impounded Bundy’s livestock, but it took no action because any action could have resulted in physical confrontation. Since the trespass detection efforts began in late June of 1993, the BLM has kept a record of observed livestock grazing on the Allotment.
On April 17, 1998, Bundy, a pro se defendant, filed his Answer and Motion to Dismiss (#4). Bundy alleged that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. On July 22, 1998, the United States filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (#11) requesting injunctive relief and damages.
Bundy appears to argue in his Motion to Dismiss (#4) that the Complaint (#1) should be dismissed because this Court lacks jurisdiction since Article IV of the Constitution cannot be imposed upon him. Bundy claims that he is a citizen of Nevada and not a citizen of a territory of the United States, and he also quotes religious texts. [*6] Bundy also brings in the Property Clause, the Commerce Clause and International Treaty laws. None of these statutes, laws or other citations is relevant to the jurisdictional issue...
...In his Reply (#7), Bundy explains this action started in 1992 when he received a “Full Force and Effect Decision Bunkerville Allotment” from the BLM. Reply (#7), p. 5. The letter to which Bundy refers is in fact dated January 28, 1993. Bundy claims this “decision concerning the Desert Tortoise, if fully implemented, would lead to the end of ranching in Clark County,” and his ranching days would be over. Reply (#7), p. 5. The decision from the BLM does not inform [*8] Bundy he can no longer graze livestock due to the protection of the Desert Tortoise, but instead reminds Bundy that his grazing permit would end at the end of the next month, February 1993, and the new permit application was attached to the decision.
The decision informed Bundy the BLM would issue him a new ten-year federal grazing permit for the Bunkerville Allotment. Mot. Dism. (#4), Exh. E. The terms and conditions for the new federal grazing permit allowed for livestock grazing with some restrictions to be determined by the BLM. For example, if tortoises were found to be active in the early spring in a specific area, then grazing would not be allowed until the amount of spring ephemeral forage had grown to a sufficient amount.”
Sorry, but YOU need to stop reading rabble-rousing media accounts and read what Bundy has said under oath.
Commie dictators would blush at this behavior and you are defending it. I don't know what's wrong with you but I sure hope it isn't contagious.
“arbitrarily and without congressional oversight”
Congress has oversight of the BLM. It also funds them. If the GOP in the House refuses to act, who should I blame?
When the government sells grazing rights, a part of the contract allows them to change it at any time and for any reason. That is one of the reasons government grazing rights sell for less than private ones - the buyer knows in advance that the BLM or Forest Service can change things without warning.
One of my closest friends is a rancher who deals with buying grazing rights from the BLM, USFS & private owners in 3 states. He knows in advance the government may screw him at any time, so he pays less for them.
What he doesn’t do is what Bundy has done - declare himself to NOT be a citizen of the USA...
He knows in advance the government may screw him at any time, so he pays less for them.
At least you admit the government is screwing people that's a good step.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.