Under what provision of the Constitution does the Federal Government have a right to even own a “National Wildlife Refuge Building” in the State of Oregon?
I’ll answer... NONE.
The nation owns the land - therefore the nation owns the buildings on it giving the government the right of protecting the property.
Bundy situation - adjudicated over and over with full due process
This situation - I don’t know as much, but this was adjudicated so there was due process and the right to appeal any further sentence still exists (due process again)
The common denominator? Outside groups referring to themselves as militia with an itch to fight the government in some kind of Rambo fantasy. No comparison and completely unfair to call someone a loyalist when the aggrieved parties in these two situations were given due process. Bundy was a thief IMO - he grazed on grass he did not own and he refused to pay for it. As I said over and over (I was also called a loyalist on those threads) during that situation - even Bundy admitted he was wrong in court. Furthermore, Bundy would have had a much higher moral standing in my mind if he had donated the exact amount of the fees to a charity of his choice instead of pocketing the money he should have spent on grazing rights like my neighbors who ranch.
Under what provision of the Constitution does the Federal Government have a right to even own a “National Wildlife Refuge Building†in the State of Oregon?
= = =
For “Refugees”. It’s right in the building name.