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.
Again, these are individuals on trial here. not the entire group. They have nothing on Bundy the individual.
If there were not a double standard, then the entire group of protestors at Ferguson need to be round up to pay for the actions of a few. There is no evidence these individuals committed any crime.
Bundy was there lawfully and well within his rights.
Not all the individuals are charged with the same crimes.
One that is common to all, however, is conspiracy, which will apply to Ammon Bundy as the leader, recognized as such both within and without the conspiracy to seize the bird refuge.
There is no evidence on either count that Bundy did any of the above. It is not illegal to protest. There is no one that points the finger at him doing any of the charges, but government. They cannot prove he did anything illegal.
He can prove government did all kinds of unconstitutional acts.
There is evidence, of the rights that have been violated by government here....
Clearly the 1st amendment.
They were told there 2nd amendment didn't exist if they protest, which is false, a violation of the 9th Amendment.
The 4th amendment. Illegal search and seizure, by government, when no crime had been committed.
The 5th Amendment as witness against themselves, at time of militia and have been deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law. Innocent to be proven guilty. Not guilty to be proven innocent.
The 6th Amendment, clearly. When the judge declares the Constitution has no place in this trial. Friggin A!! WTF!
The 8th Amendment, clearly. As excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Only government got violent here and they were denied bail. guilty until proven innocent once again, for allegations of non-violent crimes.
The 9th amendment by thinking it is illegal to be armed and protest. certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The 10th Amendment. This is all about state and peoples rights over the governments grab of power they were never authorized to have.... Ever. The constitution specifically tells the government the land they will own and the rest is the peoples.
Not all the individuals are charged with the same crimes.
One that is common to all, however, is conspiracy, which will apply to Ammon Bundy as the leader, recognized as such both within and without the conspiracy to seize the bird refuge.
So the scenario changed?
That is not what has been reported. They are all charged with the exact same allegations. And all are being held without due process for non-violent crimes.
Really? Okay. First of all, I'm a second amendment supporter, like most Nevada locals. Second, the stupid inbred Bundys did cause both of these incidents.
I didn't question your second amendment opinion. I did question your support for feds to control public land and people allowed to freely protest. The Bundys had every right to be there, the mistake was entering the refuge building that was closed for the winter. Occupy Wall Street crowd did the same thing and has caused millions of dollars in damages across the country. Yet, these people have been suing and winning millions of dollars. Protesting is not a crime and as far as I know the Ryan, Ammon and Finicum were not the ones doing the damage to the property. They were trying to distant their selves from the ones that were.
As for their ranch it was illegally entered by the Feds the night before damage done to the water system and killed cattle......what was up with that?
Quote:
And you want to say no cops were killed because of the people that came here for this ridiculous cause? or that women and kids weren't used as human shields? Okay. I'll be back with a couple of links for you.
Since most people showed up and no one checked their credentials at the gate, not sure how you could blame the actions of these people on the Bundys. Little overreaching on your part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Sheriff Palmer should have stuck to enforcing the law not interpreting it, he is a rogue sheriff and he will be addressed separately. He shouldn't be supporting domestic terror and facilitating meetings for the Bundy's.
So why won't he turn over his emails, could it be he is in violation of the laws of the state of Oregon, what does he have to hide.
Oregon Live is a very Liberal news reporting. Most people say it speaks more for Portland (Liberal land) than it does about Oregon. Sheriff Palmer happens to have many locals behind him they have even setup a FB page in support of him. See below he is doing as he is asked and doesn't seem to be breaking any laws.
Judge orders Sheriff Palmer not to delete emails - Local News -
Cramer said there is a “strong likelihood†Palmer will eventually be ordered by the court to turn over a number of emails to satisfy the plaintiffs’ public records request and that requiring the preservation of all emails related to the case did not seem overly burdensome on the sheriff’s office.
He said, however, there was a clear possibility of irreparable injury to the plaintiffs if emails that should have been disclosed were already deleted. He ordered the sheriff’s office to temporarily preserve all emails in whatever form they currently exist, whether electronic or printed copies, until a future court action on the matter.
Attorney Brad Daniels, on behalf of the plaintiffs, claimed in the request for the restraining order that it is the sheriff’s office’s “pattern and practice to delete all electronic copies of emails from the email accounts that they use to conduct the public’s business.â€
On behalf of Palmer, DeFord and the sheriff’s office, attorney Zachary Hostetter claimed the defendants followed preservation guidelines in a state archives email manual and maintained printed copies of emails that needed to be retained.
Here's a little extra for both of you to ponder on; Note the Difference Between Bundy Ranch Protest and Ferguson Riots – Wizbang
The difference is not the government. The difference is how the protesters reacted. The Bundy protesters threatened the government but did not act like criminals. While also threatening government the Ferguson protesters did exactly the opposite in its behavior.
Could the Bundy protest have turned into an open battle replete with a dangerous firefight between government oppressors and the people (out of which the people would likely have lost)? Sure. In fact, that was what many expected. But the fact is the Bundy protesters took the correct early route. In Nevada Peaceful but forceful protest made the government blanche and pull out.
On the other hand, the Ferguson protesters acted like lawless thugs and began throwing things, attacking cops, burning and looting local businesses, and by their conduct absolutely guaranteed that the government would ramp up its response instead of turning tail and running. The difference in conduct and the example of which protest implemented the proper course of action could not be more clear. One did it right. The other couldn’t be more wrong to achieve the intended ends. Finally we can also see the bias in the press in this situation. During the Bundy ranch standoff the media was universal in its disdain for the protesters and despite that no actual violence occurred, the media routinely condemned the protester’s rhetorical attack on the government.
On the other hand, in Ferguson the media is four square behind the criminal actions by the protesters and suddenly have found reason to complain about the “militarized police†and the over reaction of the police and state and local governments.
Suddenly, the media finds a reason to decry an oppressive government.
The Constitution was written so even the ignorant could understand what it actually says. Not what anyone thinks it should say, clearly but doesn't.
The Property Clause, outlined in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, states the following:
“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; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”
175 years of consistent interpretation of the Property Clause & now the Bundy clan. Which is the more rationally persuasive argument?
& by the way Bently, I thought you had agreed that 'Deny - Demonize - Deflect' was not an example of rational persuasion? (I'd been hoping you had a change of heart about your modus operandi)
I didn't question your second amendment opinion. I did question your support for feds to control public land and people allowed to freely protest. The Bundys had every right to be there, the mistake was entering the refuge building that was closed for the winter. Occupy Wall Street crowd did the same thing and has caused millions of dollars in damages across the country. Yet, these people have been suing and winning millions of dollars. Protesting is not a crime and as far as I know the Ryan, Ammon and Finicum were not the ones doing the damage to the property. They were trying to distant their selves from the ones that were.
As for their ranch it was illegally entered by the Feds the night before damage done to the water system and killed cattle......what was up with that?
Since most people showed up and no one checked their credentials at the gate, not sure how you could blame the actions of these people on the Bundys. Little overreaching on your part.
Oregon Live is a very Liberal news reporting. Most people say it speaks more for Portland (Liberal land) than it does about Oregon. Sheriff Palmer happens to have many locals behind him they have even setup a FB page in support of him. See below he is doing as he is asked and doesn't seem to be breaking any laws.
Judge orders Sheriff Palmer not to delete emails - Local News -
Cramer said there is a “strong likelihood†Palmer will eventually be ordered by the court to turn over a number of emails to satisfy the plaintiffs’ public records request and that requiring the preservation of all emails related to the case did not seem overly burdensome on the sheriff’s office.
He said, however, there was a clear possibility of irreparable injury to the plaintiffs if emails that should have been disclosed were already deleted. He ordered the sheriff’s office to temporarily preserve all emails in whatever form they currently exist, whether electronic or printed copies, until a future court action on the matter.
Attorney Brad Daniels, on behalf of the plaintiffs, claimed in the request for the restraining order that it is the sheriff’s office’s “pattern and practice to delete all electronic copies of emails from the email accounts that they use to conduct the public’s business.â€
On behalf of Palmer, DeFord and the sheriff’s office, attorney Zachary Hostetter claimed the defendants followed preservation guidelines in a state archives email manual and maintained printed copies of emails that needed to be retained.
Here's a little extra for both of you to ponder on; Note the Difference Between Bundy Ranch Protest and Ferguson Riots – Wizbang
The difference is not the government. The difference is how the protesters reacted. The Bundy protesters threatened the government but did not act like criminals. While also threatening government the Ferguson protesters did exactly the opposite in its behavior.
Could the Bundy protest have turned into an open battle replete with a dangerous firefight between government oppressors and the people (out of which the people would likely have lost)? Sure. In fact, that was what many expected. But the fact is the Bundy protesters took the correct early route. In Nevada Peaceful but forceful protest made the government blanche and pull out.
On the other hand, the Ferguson protesters acted like lawless thugs and began throwing things, attacking cops, burning and looting local businesses, and by their conduct absolutely guaranteed that the government would ramp up its response instead of turning tail and running. The difference in conduct and the example of which protest implemented the proper course of action could not be more clear. One did it right. The other couldn’t be more wrong to achieve the intended ends. Finally we can also see the bias in the press in this situation. During the Bundy ranch standoff the media was universal in its disdain for the protesters and despite that no actual violence occurred, the media routinely condemned the protester’s rhetorical attack on the government.
On the other hand, in Ferguson the media is four square behind the criminal actions by the protesters and suddenly have found reason to complain about the “militarized police†and the over reaction of the police and state and local governments.
Suddenly, the media finds a reason to decry an oppressive government.
Imagine that.
What part of the cows were NOT ON his property is confusing? "Government oppressors?" That sounds like something a teenager going through a punk rock anarchist phase says.
And those idiots in Ferguson? Please. Bunch of morons, too.
The Property Clause, outlined in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, states the following:
“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; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”
175 years of consistent interpretation of the Property Clause & now the Bundy clan. Which is the more rationally persuasive argument?
& by the way Bently, I thought you had agreed that 'Deny - Demonize - Deflect' was not an example of rational persuasion? (I'd been hoping you had a change of heart about your modus operandi)
It does not grant unto congress the power to retain the land, only to dispose of it.
Check out Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 for further clarification... GOTCHA!
Yes, and it also is very specific in what property government can own.
There is no Territory within the 50 outlined States. Property that legally belongs to the government is a Partial of land called Washington DC and military bases and ports. There is no authorization for any other land. The purpose of the land in question is not a military base, nor a military port and is located well within an outlined and established State.
Government has no authority make any rules or regulations of the land in question, they legally cannot own it. It is a 10th amendment issue.
Let us go to article IV sec. 3 of the Constitution which states: 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 ...
This section of the Constitution grants Congress the power to make needful rules and regulations while the land is still a Territory (capital T) and grants Congress the power to dispose of the land. It does not grant unto congress the power to retain the land,only to dispose of it. This means that the federal government does not and never will OWN the land, which is a Territory. They can make the rules while it is a Territory, but they have the obligation, duty and authority to dispose of it. In other words, the people OWN the land and have charged the Federal government to be administrators until it can be disposed of.
So how does Congress dispose of the land? It can be done in several ways: they can sell it, they can give it away (such as they did with the Homestead act), but however, the ultimate tool of disposal is Statehood. By accepting a State into the Union, Congress is disposing (relinquishing rights) of the land to the people of that particular State. At the moment of Statehood, no longer does Congress have the constituted authority to administrate the land or resources within the borders of that State.
We the People of the United States of America have stated in article VI of the U.S. Constitution that, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land ...”
This ensures that no other document or law created can supersede the Constitution. No case law, no code, no regulation, no foreign law, no act of congress … nothing can supersede the Constitution when it comes to governing the people. It must be pursuing the purpose and intent of the original Constitution or it is not lawful.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution further restricts and clarifies that the central government (federal) we have created is our servant, and not our master. That it does not have authority to make or take any authority or power that the people did not specifically give.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
These two amendments simply clarify that the federal government does not have unlimited power, that the powers have been granted from the People, and that those powers are limited to performing specific functions.
So, now the question can be asked. Where in the Constitution have we given Congress, (i.e. the Federal Government) the right to control or administer land, and under what conditions may they do it?
We only authorize Congress to use the land for five purposes, "for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." Four of the five are strait forward uses, military uses and shipping. Other needful building’s is a bit open-ended but is restricted to a building and not of vast lands.
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.
Little overreaching on your part.
