A worthy perspective. Of course the Dems want people to live in cities, that is their power base. More specifically, they want increasing population in the Mountain West to be located in cities for that reason.
Bundy is mucking up this important issue with his hare-brained arguments and by being a scofflaw.
As a lawyer, then you understand that the fed. gov’t is not bound to recognize any state law contrary to federal law. Further, US v. Gardner knocks down Bundy’s other arguments. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1061959.html
U.S. v. Gardner discusses the same claims Bundy raises and disposes each of them in a rational decision well-founded in the law and facts. This is most definitely not a case of judge-made law.
Do you mean the American Revolution that was lead by George Washington? The same George Washington who as President personally led a force to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion? I think you’re thinking of the French Revolution where mob violence ruled the day.
In this case, the law is that you can’t use public property for your personal gain when you have been ordered not to by a court. Exactly how is that a problem?
My response is: So what? Many times it has been rightfully argued in here that there is no right to healthcare, or even a job. But, somehow Bundy has a right to continue to be a rancher?
Beck is 100% correct. Bundy’s alleged thinking is like OWS, i.e. ‘Since I’m a member of the public, I can do what I like on public lands.’ Follow that with his refusal to obey lawful court orders, and you have an Occupier just wearing a different jersey.
BTW, the fact he and his family paid grazing fees for DECADES to the Fed. Gov’t tells you that his a fraud. Just when did he come to this brilliant legal conclusion that the land really belonged to Nevada?
Of course it is about the money. He didn’t have an objection to paying the grazing fees to the feds until sometime in the 90s. Why didn’t he make the claims before.
If anyone is a collectivist, it is Bundy. His argument that he has some inherent right to use public lands for his benefit is no different that leftist radicals claiming that the workers have the right to control a factory for their benefit.
Exactly what moral authority does Bundy have? He has been using public lands without compensation for his personal benefit. If he had been escrowing the grazing fees he could have at least claimed to be acting in good faith. Of course he didn’t do that because the courts have repeatedly told him that he is wrong.
Further, his arguments that since he is a member of the public he can do what he wants on public land is the same argument used by OWS when they occupied public parks. Medea Benjamin considers Congressional hearing rooms First Amendment zones, too.