Posted on 04/15/2014 7:20:44 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
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.
Yes, and many of those votes are illegal. (Non-citizens not eligible to vote, which is why Obama and Pelosi fight against voter ID checks). So one side breaks the law in order to steal elections, yet insists that the other side never do anything outside the law.
Also even if we play by the rules, get candidates elected and laws passed, leftist presidents and governors will illegally ignore those laws. (Obama refusing to enforce immigration laws, Illinois governor refusing to enforce death penalty, etc.) So their argument is that we should play by the rules and use elections and laws to settle disagreements, yet they make that futile by ignoring the laws which are passed.
The only way the rule of law will work is if both sides respect it. The other option, the one the leftists want is a breakdown of the system leading to anarchy.
The second paragraph of the D of I says the people have the right to abolish abusive governments and replace them.
When the Rule of Law has been replaced by the Rule of Lawyers, when unelected bureaucrats have the power to harass and destroy (see IRS) when we have no clear idea if any election is corruption-free...we're in the neighborhood.
Whether the time is advantageous...that's another question.
That’s the one.
The 9th Circus failed to even nod at Art 1 Sec 8 sub 7 & 17 that clearly states what the FedGov may retain ownership of. Instead, they rely on an overboard interpretation of the general Territory disposition to allow for an expansion of Federal power.
It’s a perfect example of “judge made law”.
I hope Mark Levin backs off from him. Beck is looking at this through the prism of the cult of Mormonism.
And for one purported the be a great student of history, Glenn is a very poor student of history.
Legally, Bundy is in the wrong. But that doesn't mean the BLM boys need to call in merc’s to kill him.
This was a message to someone, and it wasn't about Bundy. It is about someone connected to either Reid or behind Bundy. In short, this little dust up is to show that there are troops at the beck and call of Reid.
What facts Beck? What laws? Laws that change with impunity with no recourse? Ignoring existing laws in favor of bureaucratic mood swings?
Besides, the Occupy idiots broke dozens and dozens of laws and violated private propery rights and practically NONE were arrested much less forced to face dozens and dozens of ARMED federal agents.
So Beck, are laws only enforced with political will? Are they to be ignored if they don’t fit into the political left wing agenda?
There is plenty of evidence Bundy was grandfathered under the land use laws and he simply doesn’t respect or comply with changes made by Clinton in the 90’s with no Congressional oversight.
Beck, I’d think you’d be more concerned with the massive and overuse of force versus what the left gets away with. SEIU invade private property of a bank head and harrass his children? No problem.
Don’t pay an arbitrary federal grazing fee directly to the U.S. Treasury (he pays the state and county as the law was written)? Send in the heavily armed paramilitary thugs.
Beck puts himself in a bad light, no need to report it.
Perhaps. But if the government can, with a stroke of a pen and for any reason they arbitrarily decide, put any one of us 'in the wrong' (and they can) would we still really be 'in the wrong'?
Or would the government be in the wrong for acting in bad faith?
The fact that "the Blaze" was the site hosting the article and Beck owns "the Blaze" should have been your first clue.
Do you always whine when you are corrected?
Everyone can do all the Beck bashing they want but what I find highly disturbing is the lack of coverage this Nevada stand down got. I was watching Megan Kelly last night and she had Dennis Lynch, a documentary filmmaker, on her show and he said the only news media covering it was Fox News. I can’t stomach watching ABC, NBC or CBS but when I went to their news websites I could only find a story about it on CBS and the impression I got from that was a law-breaking, freeloader who won’t pay his fees. Oh yeah, and Clive Bundy is causing all these wild horses to die because he’s overgrazing the land. From the article.....
“The BLM “is allowing a freeloading rancher and armed thugs to seize hundreds of thousands of acres of the people’s land as their own,” said Rob Mrowka, a senior scientist for the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s backing down in the face of threats and posturing of armed sovereignists.”
So for the moment, while Glenn Beck is urging caution, I think I agree. As long as you have the major news doing a blackout on this story and/or propagandizing it, a lot of people could have died and it would have been swept neatly under the rug just like every thing else during this administration. It seems that only Fox News is covering it properly and people hate them just like people hate Glenn Beck.
I don’t think now is the time to die. Maybe later, when all other options have failed but not just yet.
You are probably right - very few understand the problem with case law. Specifically “Stare Decisis” (everyone google that term and be aware of this problem child made of legal custom that is not enshrined in the constitution, but is agreed to by those in the profession, i.e. our rulers).
This bit of insanity means you are stuck under bad case law, as well as good, so as not to rock the boat. This is why the IRS can seize your goods before you are convicted. This is why FDR’s packing of the supreme court to then wildly re-interpret the interstate commerce clause has led to the bloated FedGov we know today.
Yes know the bad part of common law. There is good, but stare decisis is lately the creature of lawyers and tyrants.
” If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” - Samuel Adams
Unlike you and I, Mr. Beck is either a hundred millionaire or billionaire. He can escape the policies of the current regime in under an hour.
It's called the "Tenth Man" rule. If nine men share the same opinion or theory, the tenth must always disagree. No matter how compelling the evidence, he must always dig deeper and try to prove the others wrong.
History is always 20/20 but none of us here can guess what is going to happen tomorrow. Can anyone tell me what Tomorrow will bring for the Ukraine Crisis? 10 Years from now it may have seemed obvious at the time. But it wasn't.
He also seems to be confused about which side is provoking confrontation and threatening force.
He made a good case and some of what he feared did come to pass. Obviously its good that the majority went against him but I think he made an impression that probably found its way into the constitution later.
I personally live by the rule that if I find myself in agreement with someone 100% of the time, its safe to assume that one of us is lying. Either someone is just telling me what I want to hear or I’m lying to myself.
In this particular case, I don’t disagree with Bundy, I just feel that one individual (Mack) should not be allowed to threaten the credibility of all. Following the most radical guy seldom has a good outcome.
We had lots of great founders but thank God a thinking cool headed man named Washington was there to lead in war and the following peace.
Your support of the BLM is sickening.
Yes, for years he's been lumping the Son of God in with flawed, mortal men. In some circles, that's called blasphemy.
The time frame argument Beck makes is ignorant of history. The first stirrings of revolution took place after the French and Indian war (ended 1763) when the British started raising taxes on the colonists.
So between 1763 and 1776 was 13 years at the most.
Our government has been getting worse and worse since the 1930's and certainly since LBJ in the 1960s. So thats either 80 or 50 years vs the 13 years it took for the first American Revolution to develop.
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.