Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SpeakerToAnimals; P-Marlowe; Scoutmaster; BuckeyeTexan

I agree with you about their hesitancy to side with the ranchers in Nevada, but that will change over the coming weeks. To Paul’s credit, he has spoken out....he mentioned both SWAT tactics and the constitutional error of the Fed owning all those state lands, so I’m not sure what the beef with him on that is. My beef is about his seeming willingness to go along with some road to amnesty, and his unwillingness to recognize the value of overseas pre-staging of troops in a very dangerous age.

Cruz is uncharacteristically silent, but he has spoken against the SWAT Tactics. Palin has also spoken against both SWAT and Federal land possessions. Sessions isn’t very public ever, and I don’t think he’s running, so I’m not surprised to hear nothing from him.

Most are afraid of the media’s constant trumpeting of federal court orders against Bundy. (Hannity isn’t to his credit).

It’s simple. All they have to say is: “I disagree with those rulings.” They already say they disagree with Roe v Wade, and with other court rulings. Just say the same here, if that’s what they think.

The truth is that Bundy has an “adverse utilization” (not adverse possession) claim against the Feds, real water rights claims, and the Feds have long since used up the time in which they should have indicated a disposition of those lands after Nevada statehood 150- years ago.


49 posted on 04/19/2014 10:57:12 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]


To: xzins

#49 is a well reasoned response. I hope you are right and I am not. If our best people are silent on this they missread the issue. The other possibility is they want the rebellion crushed so they can use that power. Or they could simply be afraid to act.


52 posted on 04/19/2014 11:12:51 AM PDT by SpeakerToAnimals (I hope to earn a name in battle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: xzins; SpeakerToAnimals; P-Marlowe; BuckeyeTexan
All they have to say is: “I disagree with those rulings.”

I suspect they'd also eventually need to present a unified alternate legal theory.

As to 'adverse utilization' and disposition of lands, the Bundy court has already said Nevada state open range law doesn't apply to the BLM land because of the Supremacy Clause. I assume it would do the same regarding 'adverse utilization,' and would continue to adhere to Gardner regarding disposition issues.

Going against the BLM/federal courts here is like playing Calvinball, and the BLM/federal courts are Clavin.

56 posted on 04/19/2014 11:45:53 AM PDT by Scoutmaster (Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson