If Eric Garner Were White (His death would be a Tea Party crusade.)

The Atlantic ^ | DEC 4 2014, 10:08 AM ET | PETER BEINART

[granada]

Imagine that Eric Garner had been white. Imagine that he’d been living in Idaho. Imagine that the law-enforcement officers who killed him had been federal agents.

His death would be a Tea Party crusade.

Think about it. The police hassled Garner because he had a history of selling untaxed cigarettes. It’s the kind of big-government intrusion that drives Tea Partiers nuts. One of the events that helped launch the Tea Party, in fact, came in January 2009, when activists from Young Americans for Liberty donned American Indian garb to protest the soda taxes proposed by then-New York Governor David Patterson.

Garner responded to being hassled with a statement of “don’t tread on me” anti-government defiance: “I was just minding my own business. Every time you see me you want to mess with me. I’m tired of it. It stops today!” A tussle ensued. The police put Garner in a chokehold, and he died.

The Garner case bears some resemblance to that of Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who this spring prevented Bureau of Land Management agents from impounding his cattle after he refused to pay government grazing fees. Like Garner, Bundy was engaged in a form of commerce he believed the government should not tax. Like Garner, Bundy resisted law enforcement’s efforts to punish him for it. For many conservatives, this made Bundy a hero and the government that sought to penalize him a tyranny. Right-wing activists, including some Republican legislators, flocked to Bundy’s ranch as he stared down federal agents, and Nevada Senator Dean Heller dubbed these vigilantes “patriots.” “At the heart of this issue,” declared Fox’s Sean Hannity, is “my belief that our government is simply out of control.”

[Sherman Logan]

Point two, when these western States entered the Union, the Federal Government owned lands were to be turned over to the States.

Please show where the Constitution, statute, precedent in other states or judicial decisions make this something other than your opinion.

Well aware Bundy was in NV. My TX reference was with regard to trying to find a price for ranch land. There being very little privately owned ranchland in NV, couldn't find any there.

Sure, lots of ranchers have left the land in the west. Might want to take a gander at the rate of decline in numbers of farmers in the east vs. west. Farmers and ranchers have been leaving the land for well over 100 years. At the time of the Civil War, well over half the population was on the land. My own ancestors were. But ranchers out west get to blame their problems entirely on the government.

You're talking what is called vulgar Marxism, that anybody who disagrees with you must have a financial incentive to do so. Which is a liberal POV, of course. Only reason anybody disagrees with them on global warming is that they're bribed to do so.

All my posts are available. Go through any of them and I challenge you to find anywhere I said I was in favor of present government land policy.

But you're popping up with another liberal talking point. If you don't like a policy, it must be unconstitutional.

Article IV: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.

Pretty clear to me. You don't like the Rules and Regulations Congress set up. I don't either, particularly. The answer to that, constitutionally, is not to claim the Constitution says something it doesn't. It's to change the composition of Congress to where it makes rules we do agree with. Or, possibly, get an amendment through. That's about 20x more difficult, of course.

[Jabba the Nutt]

"Please show where the Constitution, statute, precedent in other states or judicial decisions make this something other than your opinion."

I'll look for it, but I'm not a lawyer. If you have cites, please provide them.

"There being very little privately owned ranchland in NV, couldn't find any there."

Ah, that's my point. Why is this? The Federal Government is a monopoly landowner in Nevada and own vast amounts of land in many other western states. They're too powerful and need to have the size and scope of the Federal Government reduced.

"But ranchers out west get to blame their problems entirely on the government."

You are exonerating the Federal Government. I said the Feds are pushing ranchers off the land and they are. I didn't say that was the only reason ranchers left.

"You're talking what is called vulgar Marxism, that anybody who disagrees with you must have a financial incentive to do so."

[snort] So, are you saying that financial incentives have no effect on human behavior? Really? You're going to make that case? Sherman, you just seem so friggin' unconcerned about the size, scope, power and abuse of power by the Federal Government. The only people I'm aware of who share that lack of concern are people, whose income is in some way associated with the Federal Government. Just tell me, you're an independent businessman and are not concerned with the growth of Federal Regulations, Taxes, Mandates and the abuse of power by the Feds. Come on, tell me or shove your vulgar Marxism, where the sun don't shine.

"Go through any of them and I challenge you to find anywhere I said I was in favor of present government land policy.

I went through a bunch, but I didn't find any comment on government land policy.

"Article IV: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States."

Yes, and the question is: Is Congress / Federal Government keeping or breaking its commitments? We have a Federal Government, where the President writes law, decides which laws to enforce and not enforce and upon whom. We have bureaus and departments of the Federal Government making law and deciding which laws to enforce and not to enforce. We also have the IRS, OSHA, EPA and the FBI(list not complete) being used as political weapons against the American People who disagree with the Regime. Also in your comments, admittedly not fully examined by me, I didn't see a comment, where you were concerned about the size, scope, power (constitutional and unconstitutional) now claimed by the Federal Government and the abuse of that power for whatever reason: monetary, ideological, punishment. Show me where I'm wrong.

[Sherman Logan]

What you are saying is that the Congress is using its Constitutional power to control federal property unwisely. I quite agree that in many cases this is true.

However, the Constitution has little to say about how Congress will use its power. It’s a procedural document, not one that spells out goals or aspirations.

I do not work for any government agency, but for a (small) business that does probably less than 5% of our business with government of any type.

I do not disagree with your general goals of reducing federal power and landholdings in the West, though no doubt we would differ on some specifics if we got down to them.

I have merely been pointing out that there is no constitutional remedy for this problem. As I’ve tried to point out repeatedly, the Founders never intended for every problem to be handled by a lawsuit citing constitutional provisions.

This is a political, not a constitutional, problem and needs to be dealt with using political methods. Elect a conservative president in 2016 and we can get to it.

Actually, it’s doubtful any great changes would take place out west even under those conditions. But that’s because there would likely be too much political resistance to such change.

AFAIK, no state ever, with exception of Hawaii, with its unique history, had title to public domain handed to it at statehood. Therefore, I don’t see any reason to think that western states have a “right” midwestern states did not have.

All land in western states was originally acquired by the “people of the United States,” not by the people of the state in question, which didn’t exist at the time.

I’m not opposed to granting title to the public domain in NV and UT to those states, although I suspect activists wouldn’t be as thrilled with the results as they expect. I just don’t see any reason at all to think doing so is a constitutional requrement.