[MamaTexan]

His argument that he has some inherent right to use public lands for his benefit is no different that leftist radicals claiming that the workers have the right to control a factory for their benefit.

And your claim that you have the slightest clue as to all the details of the situation has become downright laughable.

The range rights given as an incentive to settle the West would be part of the conditions of the Deed contract signed by Bundy's forefather. These range, or land usage rights are inheritable, and the contract itself stipulates who the payment should be made to.

The fact the BLM tried to impair the obligation of this contract by stepping in the middle and demanding payment for the land based on a contract it was NOT a party to, is, itself, Unconstitutional under Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1: .......or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts

Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.
James Madison, Federalist #44

[VeniVidiVici]

The range rights given as an incentive to settle the West would be part of the conditions of the Deed contract signed by Bundy's forefather. These range, or land usage rights are inheritable, and the contract itself stipulates who the payment should be made to.

The fact the BLM tried to impair the obligation of this contract by stepping in the middle and demanding payment for the land based on a contract it was NOT a party to, is, itself, Unconstitutional under Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1: .......or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts

Thank you. I've not seen anything about how the grazing rights have been treated historically.