Posted on 04/09/2014 8:18:46 AM PDT by FBD
I’ve leased and leased out allot of land over the years for oil and gas exploration, hunting and for grazing all are contractual agreements. Several ways to break that agreement but the quickest is don’t pay your lease. This is what MR. Bundy did and now we see the results. Not only did he break the lease he continued to graze land he had no contractual agreement on. The fact that it’s taken 20 years for this to come to a head amazes me, I would of had him and his cows off in within 30 days of his breaking the contract. I would also charge a per cow grazing fee until all his cows were removed.
I’d suggest that this action of the part of the Federal gov’t is part of a long term goal and unwritten policy to eliminate all grazing leases and to finally bring an end to the open range.
Ok, lets deal with your assertion that the land in question is not owned by the US Government. Now do you have anything to back up this assertion or are you just giving your opinion?
your Money is no object...
Sorry, you are incorrect.
Private property rights deals with the right of the owner (be it an individual, corporation or state) having the right to determine the use of that property. This is in contrast to squatters rights which follows a collectivist view that the needs of the many are more important that the owner and thus, the group can take from the owner.
State’s rights deal with the enumeration of powers in the Constitution and those powers not enumerated being reserved to individual States.
Regulation of land owned by the federal government is one of the enumerated powers in Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution. So your assertion that such regulation is unconstitutional is demonstratively false.
After all, A LAW has been VIOLATED!!!
Of course, when The King's Men violate "the law", well, now - THAT'S a different story.
As Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, Jon Corzine, Bill Clinton, Charlie Rangel and many, many .gov others will tell us:
"Silly serfs! Laws are for peasants."
And many FReepers will be right there cheering them on, as we can see here on this very thread.
You don’t give two twists about the Constitution.
. Video of protesters here. Things are heating up.
BLM using dogs and tasers with protesters:
Maybe you should take it up with MR Bundy since his failure to pay the leasing fee and further trespassing is what led to this. He should of pulled those cows off the moment he no longer had a leasing agreement.
Ask Eric Holder.
Video of protesters here. Things are heating up.
BLM are using dogs and tasers.
Libertarian eh?
How do you like unarmed protesters being tasered by federal agencies who were never authorized by the Constitution to even exist?
Video of Nevada protesters here. Things are heating up. BLM agents are using dogs and tasers now
. That’s gotta make a libertarian feel all tingly:
..
Your right, laws have been violated ... by Mr Bundy. He was trespassing his cattle on US government land, and the authorities took action to remove that trespass. No different than when a renter does not pay their rent and gets evicted.
Now was the number of agents excessive for the first attempt at removal, yeah, I’ll give you that. Likely could have been done with half a dozen deputies and some wranglers for the cattle.
Look, if Art 1 Sec 8 wasn't enough for you, nothing else will be.
To exercise 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 the 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;
Don't just read the part you like and discard the rest. There are no "forts, magazines" nor anything else being built on this land. BLM is just making it off limits to any use not associated with some Socialist/Left-wing agenda.
Something you seem to be fighting awfully hard to uphold.
Think about which side you are on here.
Looks like Stewart is stirring up the Oathkeepers too.
Good.
Well... There went my blood pressure.
You are in a lease agreement with the Feds. Then, the terms change without your consent. Then they change again.
So you say, hey wait a minute... Screw that...
And then the Feds send stormtroopers to steal your property.
Having a bit of a Darth Vader/”Pray I don’t change it further” moment...
And guess whose side you are on?
Ummm - I have $10,000 of prime veneer timber that I can't harvest ON "MY" OWN PROPERTY - because it's near The King's Wetland.
This land is your land, but it's really their land, and so is the rest of it, so jam it, peasant...
(Sung to the tune of This Land Is Your Land)
And you are unwilling to accept the fact that “for the erection...and other needful buildings” is a clause that describes what may be done rather than a limiting clause that prohibits any other use.
Since you are fighting so hard to assert the collectivist or squatters rights and are fighting so hard to abandon the rights of private property owners to use their land as they see fit, I can only assume from your arguments that you are a socialist and a Marxist. As such, we have little to no common ground. Further since you have failed to refute any of the facts, it makes no sense to spend further effort in any attempt to educate you.
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.