[taxcontrol]

Sorry, you are incorrect. I have not been defending this administration. I have been defending the Constitution, the very source of all law and order in this nation. The Constitution specificly enumerates the power of Congress to decide what to do with lands owned by the US Government.

[kiryandil]

I have been defending the Constitution, the very source of all law and order in this nation.

Did you manage to fish a copy of the Constitution out of Eric Holder's toilet?

[sport]

"....I have not been defending this administration......."

You could fool me.

[ponygirl]

As you have continued to post this same argument in “defense of the Constitution” on at least 3 (and counting) different threads, I looked it up.

Article I, Section 8:
“The Congress shall have the Power…
   …To exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings…”

The first portion of this pertains to the establishment of the District of Columbia (not to exceed 10 Miles square). The second portion gives the U.S. Government the authority over military installations established with consent of the legislating body within said state. So your repetition of this particular clause in the Constitution is a moot point, as it is referring to military installations and does not apply in this scenario.

That leaves other Legislation that has been enacted post-Constitution that has enabled agencies such as the BLM, the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Park Service to obtain huge amounts of property within Sovereign states (and to “own” approximately 80% of the entire state of Nevada). If you would like to debate over the merits of this additional legislation, feel free to do so, but to continue claiming that you are defending the Constitution in this particular instance is nothing but stuff and nonsense. What you are defending is the tangled web of bureaucracy that has enabled the actions the government is currently taking, which includes utilizing armed, militarized SWAT forces to run a family business off property that they have had preemptive rights to for over 100 years.

[Dead Corpse]

I have not been defending this administration.

Actually, no. You haven't.

You've been defending the CLINTON Administration that made these changes that were "intolerable" to Bundy.

Nice going Ace...