Posted on 10/30/2014 2:58:01 PM PDT by Sean_Anthony
The question we must understand, and answer properly, is, "Are the people to serve the Government, or, is the government to serve the People?"
Do you understand the difference between Rules and Laws? Laws are enacted in accordance with the Constitution, where the House of Representatives and the Senate concur on a Bill. The Bill then goes to the President, who can sign it into law. We needn’t discuss veto, here, as that has nothing to do with what we need to understand.
A Rule (Note: Rule includes regulations) is the desire of unelected officials in Administrative Agencies to implement laws without Constitutional authority. They become Rules when they are posted in the Federal Register, opened for comment, and then, after 90 days(with various exceptions, extensions, etc.), they are entered in the U. S. Code, having all of the appearance of Laws. The comment period, however, is only token—unless there is a major outcry.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Either a Rule or Law I suspect will be upheld in the courts should it get that far.
Just my guess.
This is an unconstitutional taking.
The corrupt federal government knows that it can get away with constitutionally indefensible “rules” because low-information voters have never been taught about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers.
Congress has criminally abdicated their responsibilities.
Anyone else having trouble with the links? I can’t see the entire article.
And then they plan to kill the entire Bundy family, as they intended to do a few months ago.
Taking what from whom?
Bundy does not own the land he grazes his cattle on. Bundy entered into a lease with the BLM to graze his cattle on their (government) land. Bundy paid for that lease for several years. When he did not renew his lease, he no longer had the right to graze or use the government land.
I might be confusing you with another FReeper, but my impression is that you believe the government can not be lying in the case and the Bundys can not be telling the truth.
Not gonna play those games.
Did the BLM cancel the Bundy grazing rights lease under false pretenses, namely that they were protecting a tortoise that was never endangered, and was, in fact, doing better under the grazing program than under the federal do nothing program?
Why the BLM canceled (actually they didn’t renew the lease) the lease is immaterial. They are the owner’s agent for that land. They have the fully vested legal authority of the land owner to act to represent the interests of the government and not renew the lease, period.
This is no different than if you decide to lease something, land, car, house and at the end of the lease, decide to change the terms of the lease. That is your right as the owner of the property in question.
I work with a guy who says we need to do whatever the government tells us to do - I congratulated him on being pet of the year and asked when he expected to be moved to "livestock" status.
The government will do whatever the People will stand sit for...
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.