Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can only pass along what came straight from Cliven Bundy himself. The grazing fees were not the problem, the regulations were the issue. If you want to know what specific regulations Bundy has an issue with, ask him. I don't think it's unreasonable for a family that has been ranching in an area for generations, to ask for special concentration in this matter. As I've said, nobody has more incentive to protect the land than the Bundys.
Really? So if I own a home and there are zoning restrictions, i.e. I can't turn my home into a store and when I did I leave the house to my sons, do they now get a 'special right' to ignore laws and ordinances and turn the home into a retail store because it's been in the family for generations?
You should take a trip to Nevada and ask some of the ranching families what they think of the Bundy family, almost all of whom pay their grazing fees every year and follow the rules.
I can only pass along what came straight from Cliven Bundy himself. The grazing fees were not the problem, the regulations were the issue. If you want to know what specific regulations Bundy has an issue with, ask him. I don't think it's unreasonable for a family that has been ranching in an area for generations, to ask for special concentration in this matter. As I've said, nobody has more incentive to protect the land than the Bundys.
Truth be told, I would agree that Native American should be given special concentration when it comes to the use of federal lands.
They ranch on both land that they own, and land that they have leased for many years.
Why should he get special consideration just because he has had a lease before? His whole legal claim was that the feds had no say in the matter. His whole regulation issue is based around the desert tortoise. The lease agreement had time restrictions to protect the tortoise so Bundy could only graze after a specific date each year.
Quote:
The decision informed Bundy
the BLM would issue him a new ten-year federal grazing
permit for the Bunkerville Allotment. Mot. Dism. (#4),
Exh. E. The terms and conditions for the new federal
grazing permit allowed for livestock grazing with some
restrictions to be determined by the BLM. For example, if
tortoises were found to be active in the early spring in a
specific area, then grazing would not be allowed until the
amount of spring ephemeral forage had grown to a
sufficient amount
The Feds are notorious for staging these events - and so are NCO's.
There are plants in the patriot movements.
I don't trust this, and it is obvious to anyone with common sense
that Ammon Bundy is grandstanding - capitalizing on his father's
controversy and the Hammonds are just basic vandals.
None of the legitimate militias or freemen are behind this baloney.
Someone has been spending too much time listening to Judge Napolitano on Fox
A. Article 4, Section 3, allows Congress to make all rules respecting the territory and property of the United States. If the United States were not constitutionally able to own land, then the Framers would not have mentioned the property of the United States.
The property, We the people allowed them to have, not theirs to take for themselves.
The government is not the people. It is organized crime, allowed to exist or not, by the 2nd amendment.
There is a difference between Freedom and Terrorist. Of course it all depends on which side you stand on.
I guess you would be ok with Muslims taking over buildings with weapons and threatening to resist because they disagree with how they are being treated in this country. Or would you say those are terrorists and should be removed?
I would not be OK with it. That is why we have the 2nd amendment. They make a stand, against their freedom being trampled upon. It is the right of the other people to agree or disagree.
Like you said in your first sentence. Depends on which side you stand on and do you really believe in, give me liberty, or give me death.
umm yeah, sure the founders would have thought it was just dandy for the "patriots" to overthrow the newly created US Government because they disagreed with a law they passed.
Changing the Constitution with an executive order law, not an amendment, passed by the people.
Executive Orders, placed upon the southern agriculture. Guess what that caused.
Someone has been spending too much time listening to Judge Napolitano on Fox
A. Article 4, Section 3, allows Congress to make all rules respecting the territory and property of the United States. If the United States were not constitutionally able to own land, then the Framers would not have mentioned the property of the United States.
You forgot a couple of things in your comment, Article 4, Section 3 the word "territory" is capitalized, to the "Territories" of the U.S. Property "owned" by the U.S. is spelled out in Article 1 Section 8, clause 17
Properties of the U.S., 10 sq miles Washington D.C, military bases, ports, magazines, arsenals and dock yards, these are the properties mentioned in Article 4, Section 3.
Territories are no longer Territories once Statehood is obtained, and all lands within the state boundary, which is approved by congress, becomes "State lands" not federal lands. Upon statehood the state may choose to give property to the Federal government for use under Article 1, Sec. 8, clause 17. However, once the property is abandoned by the Federal government it's ownership reverts back to the State.
The property, We the people allowed them to have, not theirs to take for themselves.
The government is not the people. It is organized crime, allowed to exist or not, by the 2nd amendment.
How is it possible to get something right and yet be so wrong? Yes, we the people own the land and the that that land is reserved for The People, not certain people. It is the governments role as steward of Our lands to insure that the land is appropriately shared by The People. That means, insuring the preservation of the flora and fauna of the land for future generations, it means preserving that land for The People to travel through those lands to enjoy the fruits of nature, and it is also can be used for the economic benefit of citizens. So, it is the governments responsibility to balance all of those sometimes competing interest in order to fulfill the aforementioned duties. Therefore it is not the right of the Bundys, Hammonds or any other individual or group of individuals to interfere, disrupt or deprive The People and their posterity those lands owned by The People.
You forgot a couple of things in your comment, Article 4, Section 3 the word "territory" is capitalized, to the "Territories" of the U.S. Property "owned" by the U.S. is spelled out in Article 1 Section 8, clause 17 Properties of the U.S., 10 sq miles Washington D.C, military bases, ports, magazines, arsenals and dock yards, these are the properties mentioned in Article 4, Section 3. Territories are no longer Territories once Statehood is obtained, and all lands within the state boundary, which is approved by congress, becomes "State lands" not federal lands. Upon statehood the state may choose to give property to the Federal government for use under Article 1, Sec. 8, clause 17. However, once the property is abandoned by the Federal government it's ownership reverts back to the State.
How is it possible to get something right and yet be so wrong? Yes, we the people own the land and the that that land is reserved for The People, not certain people. It is the governments role as steward of Our lands to insure that the land is appropriately shared by The People. That means, insuring the preservation of the flora and fauna of the land for future generations, it means preserving that land for The People to travel through those lands to enjoy the fruits of nature, and it is also can be used for the economic benefit of citizens. So, it is the governments responsibility to balance all of those sometimes competing interest in order to fulfill the aforementioned duties. Therefore it is not the right of the Bundys, Hammonds or any other individual or group of individuals to interfere, disrupt or deprive The People and their posterity those lands owned by The People.
Although this sound nice warm and fuzzy, no where in the Constitution is mentioned what you have posted.
Yes, we do set aside lands for public lands, these are called National Parks, National Monuments, Wildlife Refuges and Wilderness Areas. These lands "We the People" agreed to them, We the People did not agree to allow the federal government to take control of the majority of the property of the western states. This is the biggest federal land grab since this country was founded.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
