So you are in the "any law Congress makes is ok" camp. Despite there being clear limitations and outright prohibitions on making some of those laws.
You also have no idea how prefatory clauses, operative clauses, and subordinate clauses work in a sentence. Luckily, the Committee of Style did when they wrote it.
You are wrong.
Well until you can show how under our system of laws, either the government does not own the land or how squatters have greater rights that the property owners, your arguments don’t hold water and are not in alignment with the current legal situation.
No I am not ok with “any law congress makes” and please stop using the liberal tactic of trying to win an argument with false straw men arguments. Please stick to facts, the constitution and laws to support your arguments. I understand that you don’t want to do that because your arguments fail when confronted with the logic of private property rights.
So lets review the facts of the case.
1) The land belongs to the US government.
2) The US government charges a fee for the use of the public land for grazing
3) There is a law passed by Congress and has long been upheld by SCOTUS that allows for the collection of these fees
4) The rancher, Bundy did pay these fees at one time in agreement with the law and thus gained the right to graze some cattle on the US government land.
5) At no time did the US government transfer ownership of that land to Bundy
6) At some time, Bundy stopped paying the fees to use the land and thus lost the right to have his cattle on government land
7) The BLM and National Forest service has gone many times to the courts to get court orders to stop Bundy from intentionally grazing his cattle on their land
8) During those court hearings Bundy had the opportunity to present his side of the case and was not successful.
9) When Bundy failed to comply, the government took the rare and extraordinary action of rounding up the cattle on the land.
Care to dispute any of those facts?