This is what happens when Americans believe the Government is overreaching

[poncho]

Hardly.....
What you are advocating is mob-rule/ pure democracy.

We are a nation OF LAW.

Yours is precisely the same attitude taken by Eric Holder (probably the most dangerous and corrupt man in America's modern history). The precedent that a majority opinion trumps existing law, or his personal beliefs render him justified in ignoring law is the route to every form of the worst tyranny. It is PRECISELY that attitude which our forefathers fought AGAINST.


Here's the rub with men like Bundy....
He will participate in and acknowledge our laws, hire attorneys, fight his battle in our courts.........
And then simply claim that those courts have no jurisdiction only when and if they don't side his way..

They are petulant children in that way.

They WILL follow the rules of the game, unless they lose, and then they deny that those rules apply to them.
They are the ultimate hypocrites.
If they genuinely do not acknowledge the authority of Federal Courts then they shouldn't contend their case in them in the first place.

I personally want to look a little deeper before completely siding against Bundy in this matter....but what I know so far tells me that Bundy is completely in the wrong here, even if the Government's reasons for wanting the cattle off the land are less than admirable.

It's the GOVERNMENT'S Land....not HIS.

And property ownership is a sacro-sanct concept in our form of Government...and it takes LAW to protect it, not some dubiously defined "Will of the people".

What part of the federal government can own land under these and only these circumstances don't you understand?

For certain sure you have no concept of what a constitutional republic is. Whatever "form of government" you are defending here it is not a constitutional republic.

But you are right about one thing, we are a nation of LAW and it's the LAW of the land, the US constitution that is the supreme LAW and the government looks to be violating that LAW.

Are you defending the LAW here? Or are you merely defending those acting under the color of law?

If you're going to call yourself "inspector" it might be wise to do some actual "inspecting" before typing out another diatribe like this. I suggest you start your "inspection" by reading up on Marbury vs Madison.

"The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

— John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802

 

[Inspector Javert]

What part of the federal government can only own land under these and only these circumstances don't you understand?

Precisely what, pray-tell are you legally contending prevents the Government from lawfully owning that particular tract of land??

For certain sure you have no concept of what a constitutional republic is.

On the contrary....I know precisely what it is...
What you are advocating is anarchy.

Whatever "form of government" you are defending here it is not a constitutional republic.

Republics are run by representatives...not "The People".

But you are right about one thing, we are a nation of LAW and it's the LAW of the land, the US constitutional that is the supreme LAW

And it is the job of the courts....not Poncho to apply those laws.

and the government looks to be violating that LAW.

Is it now?

I'm sure you have a dizzying legal argument for why the court's decades of cases on this matter are mistaken. I'm sure we'd all love to hear them.

So who's LAW are you really in favor of?

The one which is decided by the duly and Constitutionally appointed judges to uphold....
as opposed to the one which succumbs to the whims of Poncho, or Bundy's desire to claim as his land which never has and never did belong to him.

If you're going to call yourself "inspector" it might wise to do some "inspecting" before typing out another diatribe like this.

Grasshoppa:
"Inspector Javert" is a fictional character from Victor Hugo's Les Miserable's.

 

[poncho]

Precisely what, pray-tell are you legally contending prevents the Government from lawfully owning that particular tract of land??

On the contrary....I know precisely what it is...
What you are advocating is anarchy.

Republics are run by representatives...not "The People".

And it is the job of the courts....not Poncho to apply those laws.

Is it now?

I'm sure you have a dizzying legal argument for why the court's decades of cases on this matter are mistaken. I'm sure we'd all love to hear them.

The one which is decided by the duly and Constitutionally appointed judges to uphold....
as opposed to the one which succumbs to the whims of Poncho, or Bundy's desire to claim as his land which never has and never did belong to him.


Grasshoppa:
"Inspector Javert" is a fictional character from Victor Hugo's Les Miserable's.

I suspected it already but it's pretty obvious now that you skipped school the day they taught civics.

BTW I answered your questions before you asked them. Again if you had done some "inspecting" before hand (read my post and clinked the links) you might have seen that your argument was beat before you even made it.

 

[poncho]

This thread is not about who is right or who is wrong please start your own thread for that discussion.

"This is what happens when Americans believe the Government is overreaching"

The title to this thread is misleading. It implies that it's some sort of "conspiracy theory" for Americans to believe the government is overreaching. When in actual fact the government is overreaching in just about everything it does these days.

The title already arrived at the conclusion "Americans are nuts to believe the government can do wrong" so the only thing left to discuss is whether that conclusion (which was already reached in the title) is right or wrong.

I believe it's wrong. Evidently you disagree. What's new?

Now, should we continue having a discussion or would you prefer we just accept the idea that "government can do no wrong, case closed" same as in many of the other threads you start?

 

[Gina B]

All the ranchers lost in court. The court is the final say in the matter in this country so he is wrong.

Courts can be wrong and I believe that in recent times, they are wrong quite often due to ignorance, corruption, incompetence, immorality, or a combination of one or all of the above.

Right doesn't become wrong when a person waves a gavel and says it is so.

 

[poncho]

Courts can be wrong and I believe that in recent times, they are wrong quite often due to ignorance, corruption, incompetence, immorality, or a combination of one or all of the above.

Right doesn't become wrong when a person waves a gavel and says it is so.

That's why we're supposed to protect, defend and follow the constitution. People can't be trusted and people with power should never be trusted.

Update: [16:00 PST] – This video interview follows reports that up to 5,000 militia members are on their way to Nevada to stand with the Bundy family against massive government overreach. Earlier today Bundy family members and friends broke through the Federal blockade to rescue cattle stuck behind enemy lines.

http://www.infowars.com/rancher-cliven-bundy-speaks-i-dont-recognize-them-having-any-jurisdiction-or-authority-over-this-land-video/

Will Feds Stage Violence to Frame Cliven Bundy?

Infiltrators could be used to demonize Nevada cattle rancher’s cause

Will the feds resort to staging violence in order to frame Cliven Bundy and his supporters?

With hundreds of “militia members” heading to Nevada, the possibility of the feds inserting provocateurs posing as protesters in order to demonize Bundy’s cause is a major threat.
Remember, Ed and Elaine Brown mistakenly invited U.S. Federal Marshals posing as supporters into their own home before they were arrested.

VIDEO . . . http://www.infowars.com/will-feds-stage-violence-to-frame-cliven-bundy/

 

[Inspector Javert]

I suspected it already but it's pretty obvious now that you skipped school the day they taught civics.

BTW I answered your questions before you asked them. Again if you had done some "inspecting" before hand (read my post and clinked the links) you might have seen that your argument was beat before you even made it.

Oh....So the government purchased that land for the specific purpose of saving that particular tortoise as your articles allege???

I didn't see that.

Or, is the stupid tortoise the reason the Feds want the cows off the land?

Did Bundy then, make that particular argument in court? Or do you and he expect the judge to make his argument for him?

Have they since sought an emergency injunction as they appeal the decision?


No....
You didn't "answer"....you just posted some predictable rantings not particularly relevant to this particular scenario.

 

[poncho]

Oh....So the government purchased that land for the specific purpose of saving that particular tortoise as your articles allege???

I didn't see that.

Or, is the stupid tortoise the reason the Feds want the cows off the land?

Did Bundy then, make that particular argument in court? Or do you and he expect the judge to make his argument for him?

Have they since sought an emergency injunction as they appeal the decision?


No....
You didn't "answer"....you just posted some predictable rantings not particularly relevant to this particular scenario.

Do you know what an enumerated power is? I'll try and make this simple. An enumerated power is authority the people have decided to bestow upon their government in order to protect their "rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness".

If the government assumes power that has not been granted it by the people it is acting under the color of law. It is not acting in accordance with the LAW.

In other words the government is acting under a false authority and that is called tyranny and yes there is a LAW against it.

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

The enumerated powers granted to the government can be found in a contract between the people who created the government and the government itself. It's called the United States Constitution.

I suggest you "inspect" it. Especially Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.

Which states . . . "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;--"

Do you see any mention of protecting a tortoise? Do you see any exception clause that gives federal judges the power to grant the government powers the constitution and by extension the American people never granted it?

I don't.

Remember what Marbury vs Madison settled?

"The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

— John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802

I'm defending the LAW while you are attempting to defend those acting under the color of law.

If you don't know the difference I suggest you "inspect" google to find out what operating under the color of law is, inspector.

If you truly believed we are nation of LAW it seems like you would be defending the LAW instead of those acting outside the law or as they were called in the old west the "outlaws".

 

[Inspector Javert]

Do you know what an enumerated power is? I'll try and make this simple. An enumerated power is authority the people have decided to bestow upon their government in order to protect their "rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness".

This is not the issue at hand...
This is grand-standing and preaching and has no bearing on this case.

If the government assumes power that has not been granted it by the people it is acting under the color of law. It is not acting in accordance with the LAW.

More blathering and grand-standing...

You still haven't shown that the Government acquired that land for the sole purpose of saving a stupid turtle....because it isn't so, thus rendering your previous tirade irrelevant.

In other words the government is acting under a false authority and that is called tyranny and yes there is a LAW against it.

What SPECIFICALLY....respecting THIS CASE (details, details, details)....is outside of the purview of the Government's rights?

You've got nothing...
Just blathering about "enumerated powers" (which we all understand already, possibly better than you do)..

Not more than you THINK you do, but easily as well as you actually do.

You are speaking exactly like a mob.....you are simply repeating clichés and hackneyed phrases.......

"Bush lied, people died"!
"Libertie, egalitie, fraternitie"!
"Make peace not war"!
"Keep your laws off my body"!
That's the way mobs talk.....in clichés. It's insanely dangerous to sound order and freedom, people go to the guillotine from this kind of mob mentality and you are all over it.

The enumerated powers granted to the government can be found in a contract between the people who created the government and the government itself. It's called the United States Constitution.

Long on irrelevant verbiage...short on you actually understanding the history of this man's case.
I suspect you know few details about it at all.

I suggest you "inspect" it.

Again, Poncho..."Inspector Javert" is simply a fictional character from a novel...this insult doesn't work inasmuch as, that being the case...I'm not making any sort of claim about myself with my avatar.....I just like the fictional character....my avatar might as well be named Daffy Duck. You are not making any sense.

Which states . . . "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;--"

This portion of the Constitution is specifically about the seat of Washington D.C. / the National Capitol....It is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to any land in Nevada or Utah or Timbuktu....

This irrelevant portion you are citing is about seating the Nation's Capitol!!!!.... :laugh::laugh:


Charmingly.....you underlined the phrase: purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State what this tells me, is that the only possible plaintiff with STANDING (you see, you have to have that in a court case) would be the State itself....not some random cattle-rancher. However, the STATE <- which might have a complaint in this instance isn't choosing to fight the Feds on this one it appears....So....

You see, that's how the law actually is practiced and given effect in the real world.
The State isn't challenging the Feds on this issue.......
A cattle-rancher is...
Last I checked a random cattle-rancher isn't a State Legislature.

Similarly, since the Feds aren't trying to build a "Seat of Government" (i.e. the National Capitol)....this clause is irrelevant, since, that's what this clause is about.

Do you see any mention of protecting a tortoise?

The Government didn't acquire the land in order to protect the tortoise....
They are telling the man that he can't let his cattle graze on Public land anymore because of the stupid tortoise....

How is that Unconstitutional??
If anything....your argument (such as it is) would have prevented the Government from allowing the man to let them graze on the land in the FIRST PLACE! Neither option is spoken of in the Constitution.

My bet is that you know absolutely NOTHING in particular about this particular man's court fights and the arguments presented by both him and the Government and what particular issues the courts cited in rendering their rulings.

You are simply blathering about generalities with no specifics. That doesn't help anyone and tells us nothing.

Do you see any exception clause that gives federal judges the power to grant the government powers the constitution and by extension the American people never granted it?

Can you explain how no longer permitting a man to graze his cattle on Federal Land which he owes nearly a million dollars in permits for is a judge assuming to the Government non-enumerated powers??

I don't.

You haven't shown that the Government is assuming further non-granted powers to itself....
The Government is removing a man's cows from property the man doesn't own and NEVER OWNED.

Remember what Marbury vs Madison settled?

The inherent right of any man to graze his cattle anywhere he darn well pleases??? As long as Poncho thinks it's o.k?

I'm defending the LAW

No, you are assuming to yourself the right to interpret the law in cases you don't appear to have any details about whatsoever. My guess is you can't even name the court cases, nor the judges names, nor any attorneys who represented their respective clients... You are simply blathering.

If you truly believed we are nation of LAW it seems like you would be defending the LAW instead of those acting outside the law or as they were called in the old west the "outlaws".

I am defending the Government's right to remove cows which belong to a private citizen from Government land yes....
Since when, Poncho, is this welfare of free grazing land a particular right this man receives in the Constitution?

Do I have a right to let my animals wander around on YOUR property just because my family has gotten away with it for decades???
What specifically, in this instance, grants this man the inherent right to have his cattle graze on land which belongs to another party???

Poncho's Divine Decree???
Are YOU the arbiter of who's animals can go where?

I'll go with the Constitutionally appointed judges for the time being since they presumably know way more about the details of this case and the relevant statutes and you obviously don't.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I suspected it already but it's pretty obvious now that you skipped school the day they taught civics.

Just so you know, I taught history and "civics" (although it was not called that) at both the high school and college levels for several years.

Everything you've said here is more or less correct.

 

[Judith]

Courts can be wrong and I believe that in recent times, they are wrong quite often due to ignorance, corruption, incompetence, immorality, or a combination of one or all of the above.

Right doesn't become wrong when a person waves a gavel and says it is so.

Anarchy is NEVER of God. All this man had to do was remove his cattle from that land. He wants free or very low cost grazing. The land is not his. He has no right to that land unless granted by the People/government. That was taken away. The way to state our grievance is to go to court. if we lose the next thing is to vote people into office who hold our convictions, not take up arms. This has sowed and is now reaping what he sowed.

 

[Gina B]

Anarchy is NEVER of God. All this man had to do was remove his cattle from that land. He wants free or very low cost grazing. The land is not his. He has no right to that land unless granted by the People/government.

The land IS his. Ours.

It seems to me that there is a much bigger picture here - people have grown weary of those they voted into government not representing the people. There isn't supposed be this vast "us" - "them" schism going on, and this particular situation struck a chord and the people are striking back.
Perhaps because it's such a basic concept and to boot, paints such a valid picture of what's going on everywhere. An all American scene - a rancher and his cattle, open land, grazing, up against politicians....city boys in suits trying to tell a bunch of cows "you have no right to eat here" and tell the guy "your way of life has no validity and we want us stopped, plus we raised the costs on your livestock eating on this open range and you owe us a million dollars."

I have to wonder it this is going to be a lynchpin event. If the government messes up how they handle this and tick off the people, are they going to revolt concerning everything else? If the government backs off, will the people sit back down and let things continue as they are concerning other government intrusions? Curious...

But no, this isn't THEIR land and THEIR decision and the man is not separate from the people. He's one of the people, as are those standing with him. If the grazing act was violated, it was violated, even if someone with a gavel said it wasn't or didn't know it was.

 

[Judith]

The land IS his. Ours.

It seems to me that there is a much bigger picture here - people have grown weary of those they voted into government not representing the people. There isn't supposed be this vast "us" - "them" schism going on, and this particular situation struck a chord and the people are striking back.
Perhaps because it's such a basic concept and to boot, paints such a valid picture of what's going on everywhere. An all American scene - a rancher and his cattle, open land, grazing, up against politicians....city boys in suits trying to tell a bunch of cows "you have no right to eat here" and tell the guy "your way of life has no validity and we want us stopped, plus we raised the costs on your livestock eating on this open range and you owe us a million dollars."

I have to wonder it this is going to be a lynchpin event. If the government messes up how they handle this and tick off the people, are they going to revolt concerning everything else? If the government backs off, will the people sit back down and let things continue as they are concerning other government intrusions? Curious...

But no, this isn't THEIR land and THEIR decision and the man is not separate from the people. He's one of the people, as are those standing with him. If the grazing act was violated, it was violated, even if someone with a gavel said it wasn't or didn't know it was.

That is like saying public parks are ours and we can graze our cattle on them. Or because public land is ours we cna use it to make mud pits for off road vehicles. Nothing could be further from the truth. The land has been set aside as a refuge and he no longer has any right to graze his cattle. He is clearly in the wrong and promoting anarchy as well as any who support him and his illegal ways.
His family raised cattle on those lands for generations and for that he needs to thank the publick for allowing it. Now it is set aside for other purposes and he needs to get off the land or face what he is facing.

 

[Judith]

It looks like the sherrif is exercising his rightfuly legal authority and requiring this to stop. This is the way it should be not anarchy.
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/04/12/blm-told-to-stand-down-at-bundy-ranch/

 

[Gina B]

It looks like the sherrif is exercising his rightfuly legal authority and requiring this to stop. This is the way it should be not anarchy.
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/04/12/blm-told-to-stand-down-at-bundy-ranch/

Would it have happened if the people hadn't done what they did?

 

[TCassidy]

I can't believe there are some people commenting in this thread that don't have a clue how our Law of the Land works.

The Constitution of the US is a document of enablement. This simply means that the Constitution tells the federal government what it can do. The Constitution says the federal government can do this and this and this. If the Constitution does not say the federal government can do something, that something is left to the states and to the people.

As has already been pointed out the Constitution, in Article 1 Section 8, specifically says the federal government can own and control a 10 mile square District for the center of government, and such lands as are necessary for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings. Those other "needful buildings" would include federal court houses, federal penitentiaries, local IRS, Social Security, and FBI offices and other such building necessary for the United States to function.

The Constitution, being a document of enablement, only allows that which it specifically enumerates.

It says nothing about owning huge tracts of land in Nevada (84%) California (45%), Oregon (53%), Idaho (50%), Arizona (48%) and so on and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

The land not owned or claimed by private citizens reverts to the states, not to the federal government, which is denied any land ownership other than that enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

Additionally, as the land has been under the control of the ranching family since 1877, prior to the existence of the BLM, the ranger has a legitimate homestead claim on the land.

But, of course, the real reason they want the rancher off the land is that Harry Reid and his oldest son are pawns to a Chinese firm that wants to build a solar power station on the property, and they need the rancher off the land before they can begin building. Not to mention making Harry Reid and his son very, very rich.

In other words, corrupt politics at work, as usual.

 

[TCassidy]

It looks like the sherrif is exercising his rightfuly legal authority and requiring this to stop. This is the way it should be not anarchy.
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/04/12/blm-told-to-stand-down-at-bundy-ranch/

The Sheriff and his Deputies, and SWAT team, should have been out there the very first day, standing between the BLM hired goons and the people supporting the rancher.

And if the Sheriff and his deputies could not control the issue the Governor should have mobilized the National Guard to get between the two parties to the conflict and insured there was no violence, such as was perpetrated by the goons hired by BLM who sicked a dog on a non-violent protester, tazered a man who was no threat to them, and body slammed a pregnant women to the ground from behind with no warning.

 

[Gina B]

TCassidy, I have to freely admit that I am not an expert on how it all works and did have a couple facts of the case not quite right. While I was for this guy, my understanding tends to lean towards the positives of the BLM and how they work, as it was management within there that taught me how they function. Still, what was happening in this case felt inherently wrong...and didn't go with the limited knowledge I do have.

Stuff like this can get a little fuzzy, so please forgive those that haven't got it all straight. It may sound like it should be straight forward, but nothing is straight forward anymore when it comes to understanding our rights and how the government works. Sometimes, it takes something like this to realize what we need to educate ourselves on. Was anyone really thinking, two months ago, that they needed to be keenly aware of the BLM and what happened in this specific area of Nevada decades ago in order to help defend a fellow citizen?

Please be patient with those that aren't as knowledgeable in a certain area as yourself... :flower:

 

[pinoybaptist]

......... perpetrated by the goons hired by BLM who sicked a dog on a non-violent protester, tazered a man who was no threat to them, and body slammed a pregnant women to the ground from behind with no warning.

these people should be sued by the aggrieved parties mentioned above, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
wait, the law ?
we have that ?
oh, yeah, they're the law.
my bad.

 

[TCassidy]

these people should be sued by the aggrieved parties mentioned above, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
wait, the law ?
we have that ?
oh, yeah, they're the law.
my bad.

And therein lies the problem. Not only are the politicians corrupt, but the courts are also corrupt, owing their appointment to the bench to, who else? Dirty Harry, of course!