Standoff in Nevada as Militias "mobilize" to support rancher

[Elfdart]

It's funny how public school teachers, sanitation workers and others who are getting their pay cut and their pensions snatched away don't point rifles at the government officials who screwed them over. Maybe they should. It worked like a charm for this welfare cowboy.

[Darmalus]

I can understand how a "free speech zone" can be considered unconstitutional. Free speech is supposed to be allowed everywhere. However, there needs to be a way to keep protestors out of the way of a legal Federal operation. I mean for instance even though it's not called such, using barricades to keep protesters away from government buildings is a form of a free speech zone. "Yeah protest as much as you want...on the other side of this barricade."

That really sounds more like a peaceably assemble thing than a free speech thing. Probably falls under the same laws as how you can't just walk into a crime scene investigation area even if it happens in a public park.

[loomer]

I believe I mentioned earlier that people are still crying over Koresh and Weaver earlier. We now have proof on our very own forum!

[Simon_Jester]

The shorthand for acceptable limits on free speech is "time, place, and manner." If the exercise of free speech occurs in a certain time and place, in such a way as to disrupt the normal operations going on there, that is not exercise of free speech. I don't have a right to block a street or prevent an arrest in order to exercise free speech, in other words.

So yes, the government is within its rights to set up a fence between you and a building, then tell you you can only protest outside the fence. In this case the restriction is not on your right to say what you please. It's on your right to say it here, in this place where your presence and activity would be disruptive. The First Amendment does not protect your 'right' to be disruptive.

If you're in a situation where you have federal agents moving about across a wide open patch of land in order to accomplish some goal, and 'protestors' are expected to show up in large numbers, the only way to ensure the agents' actions can occur normally is to exercise some degree of control over where the protestors can and cannot go.

[Lord MJ]

How the other side thinks. They think the whole concept of the Federal government owning land is Unconstitutional.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co ... deral-land

Western States Want Feds to Surrender “Federal” Land
Written by Alex Newman


font size decrease font size increase font size Print E-mail
Western States Want Feds to Surrender “Federal” Land
Elected officials from across the American West, from top lawmakers to county commissioners, held a historic gathering in Utah in recent days to discuss how Western states could wrest control of the almost 50 percent of land in the region currently claimed by the federal government. Aside from constitutional concerns — with a few exceptions, the U.S. Constitution does not authorize ownership or control over land by the political class in Washington, D.C. — the Western leaders and legislators cited economic harm, environmental degradation, loss of tax revenue, and numerous other reasons for the effort.

Meeting at the Utah Capitol late last week for the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands were more than 50 elected officials from nine Western states: Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana. Multiple state House speakers were in attendance. Even U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), who is developing a reputation as one of the few solid Constitution-supporting lawmakers in the Senate, addressed the gathering in support of Western states and their mission to gain control of the territory in their borders.

Meanwhile, across America, and especially the West, growing masses of citizens celebrated the effort to put the out-of-control federal government back where it belongs — inside its constitutional cage rather than in states where it has no legitimate business. Following the nationwide scandal surrounding the abuse of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his supporters in an effort to crush his business by the Obama administration’s Bureau of Land Management, the outrage over out-of-control federal land machinations is reaching a boiling point.



While the summit was organized before the Bundy-BLM fiasco stirred national fury against the federal actions, the confrontation at the ranch between productive citizens and rogue bureaucrats reportedly provided additional urgency to the efforts. “What’s happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem,” explained Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart, one of many high-profile leaders in the state who say the federal government needs to hand over the land. “The majority of these states have more federal land within their borders than land of their own. It is about fairness.”

Utah State Rep. Ken Ivory, one of the summit organizers, noted that there is an estimated $150 trillion in mineral resources “locked up in federal lands” across the West — wealth that is desperately needed by struggling American families in a flailing economy. Aside from that, the federal government has been an especially poor steward of the land, he added, endangering Utahans and other citizens across the Western states.

“The acres harvested are dropping precipitously,” Ivory was quoted as saying. “At the same time, the catastrophic wildfires are increasing dramatically, the cost, the acreage. That’s killing millions of animals; it’s destroying habitat and watershed. So, if we don’t stand up to act now, and seeing that trajectory of what’s coming, we know that down the road those problems are only going to get bigger.”

Indeed, state officials in Utah, facing an increasingly power-hungry federal government with a “current fiscal trajectory” that is “unsustainable,” have been taking the lead on the effort. Among other initiatives, state policymakers are preparing for a future where Utah will have to become financially independent of a federal behemoth that is drowning the public in debts. To that end, the state passed a law in 2012 demanding that the federal government surrender control over the land inside Utah borders that bureaucrats and politicians in D.C. claim to own.

Outside of Utah, those sentiments are growing as well. Numerous state lawmakers and leaders from across the West said the time had come for the people of the Western states to take control of their destiny. Instead of mandates from faraway politicians and bureaucrats infamous for their inability to balance a budget or properly manage much of anything, participants said states could do a better job.

“It’s time the states in the West come of age,” Idaho Speaker of the House Scott Bedke was quoted as saying, adding that land managed by states was being kept in far better condition than forests and rangeland controlled by the federal government. “We’re every bit as capable of managing the lands in our boundaries as the states east of Colorado.” Others said much of the land should simply be put in private hands, perhaps auctioned off to bidders with the proceeds used to pay down the federal government's gargantuan and growing debts.

Organizers of the summit also said states could and would do a better job — although that is far from the only reason for the feds to relinquish the vast expanses of territory it purports to own. “Those of us who live in the rural areas know how to take care of lands,” declared Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder, one of the summit organizers, adding that federal lands have increasingly been managed with “politicized science” and bad policy. “We have to start managing these lands. It's the right thing to do for our people, for our environment, for our economy and for our freedoms.”

While the federal government claims to “own” relatively small amounts of land in the east of the country, when it comes to states on the other side of the Mississippi river, the situation is radically different. Nevada, for example — the site of the recent showdown between heavily armed federal “land” bureaucrats and the ranching family — Washington, D.C., purports to own more than 80 percent of the state’s territory. In Alaska, the figure is about 70 percent. In Utah, where the meeting was held, the feds claim about two-thirds of the land. By comparison, in New York, it is less than one percent.

Much of the land purportedly under federal jurisdiction contains extremely valuable resources: oil, timber, coal, minerals, water, and more. If it was under state or private control, the people of the American West would be able to benefit from that vast wealth much more directly. Instead, with the feds claiming to be in charge, states and citizens are reduced to begging the D.C.-based political and bureaucratic classes for permission to do anything and for crumbs that may be left over from whatever economic activities are permitted.

Perhaps the most important factor in the escalating showdown, though, is the U.S. Constitution — the contract whereby state governments delegated certain limited powers to the federal government. In Article I, Section 8, the American people, acting through their sovereign states, granted this authority to their agent: “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, dockyards, and other needful buildings.”

In other words, the federal government’s purported claims of jurisdiction over an estimated one-third of America’s landmass are brazenly unconstitutional. Whether federal courts are willing to concede that should be irrelevant — the language of the Constitution is clear, and there is no need for "interpretation" by federal supremacists in the federal judiciary.

Federal land-lording is also unwise for a variety of pragmatic reasons, experts argue, and there can be little doubt as to how America’s Founders would have felt about it. “I would say the last thing you want is the federal government's ownership of lands,” R.J. Smith, a senior fellow in environmental policy at the National Center for Public Policy Research, told Newsmax. “That's not why this country was founded. That's what the Founding Fathers were trying to escape — the king's house, the king's land, the king's everything.”

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.

[Borgholio]

Not a bad insight...I can feel the rght-wing tripe oozing out of every paragraph though.

[Elheru Aran]

That is an interesting question. Who owns the "public" land in the US, and why exactly has it been placed into the Federal government's hands?

I suspect part of the answer is that original territorial deals (such as they were, you can't really call them "deals" but...) with the Native Americans were generally between the tribes and the Federal government, not the states. In general the nation asserted its ownership of the lands of the West, and then established territories within those lands, which then became states. Land not owned by private individuals or the states thus remain within the ownership of the federal government, even if there isn't anything specifically stating that it was sold or given to them.

See this (PDF warning):
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/c ... 032007.pdf

Especially page 5.

[Elheru Aran]

Also this Slate article is pertient.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ution.html

Notable examples:
Canfield v. United States, Kleppe v. New Mexico.

Of course the libertarians will say those are after the fact of the government asserting illegal control over the land...

[Lord MJ]

It's the difference between sovereignty, jurisdiction, and ownership. The Bundy dispute may be on "Federal Land" but it is still under the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the state of Nevada. He has to pay taxes to both the state, and whatever county those lands are located in. If he commits a crime under Nevada law, he is tried and punished via Nevada courts.

If I sold my house to the Federal government, that house and the land on it (assuming I owned the land) would now be Federal land.

[Elheru Aran]

He's grazing his cattle on federal land, however, which is under the authority of a Federal branch (BLM). He was specifically not paying Federal taxes upon his cattle. That was the problem, along with violating some regulations for grazing upon those lands.

The problem with the specific case of Bundy is that there seem to be some issues with establishing jurisdiction. If Bundy didn't have to pay extra taxes, perhaps he might have been happier with the situation he was in. The guy seems to be a nut though, given that he claims the Federal government has no jurisdiction whatsoever within Nevada...

[Lord MJ]

Meant to say he still needs to pay the state of Nevada, his county, as well as any fees associated with being able to use public (Federal) property for his own private business purposes.

Are there any additional taxes that he wasn't paying? I thought it was specifically grazing fees associated with Federal land use, not taxes (in which the issue of "Federal Lands" would not even be relevant).

[Block]

It's 20+ years of Federal grazing fees, he went to court, lost and threw a temper tantrum with the backing of morons with guns.

[Wing Commander MAD]

It's 20+ years of Federal grazing fees, he went to court, lost and threw a temper tantrum with the backing of morons with guns.

It get's better. The Daily Show showed a clip where one of said morons stated that in the event of a firefight they were planning to use women (& children?) as human shields to make law enforcement look bad. Such courage from these true patriots, hiding behind the presumably unarmed and defenseless.

[Block]

The next time he uses Federal land, unless he's paid all back taxes, they should just drone strike his herd, making sure not to hit him. He's had his day in court and lost, thus received due process before being deprived of property, should be perfectly legal.

[Terralthra]

Yes, because I'm sure bombing the Federal land is going to be much better for it than cattle grazing on it.

[Block]

Yes, because I'm sure bombing the Federal land is going to be much better for it than cattle grazing on it.

That's hardly the point and you know it.

[The Romulan Republic]

It's 20+ years of Federal grazing fees, he went to court, lost and threw a temper tantrum with the backing of morons with guns.

It get's better. The Daily Show showed a clip where one of said morons stated that in the event of a firefight they were planning to use women (& children?) as human shields to make law enforcement look bad. Such courage from these true patriots, hiding behind the presumably unarmed and defenseless.

And Stewart tore Sean Hannity apart over this story tonight.

[Irbis]

Not a bad insight...I can feel the rght-wing tripe oozing out of every paragraph though.

What 'not bad insights'? It's pure right wing drivel. Did you read this?

Meanwhile, across America, and especially the West, growing masses of citizens celebrated the effort to put the out-of-control federal government back where it belongs — inside its constitutional cage rather than in states where it has no legitimate business.

Gee, it's as if I heard abortion and gay marriage ban advocates here

Utah State Rep. Ken Ivory, one of the summit organizers, noted that there is an estimated $150 trillion in mineral resources “locked up in federal lands” across the West — wealth that is desperately needed by struggling American families in a flailing economy.

This picture about sums this up.

Organizers of the summit also said states could and would do a better job — although that is far from the only reason for the feds to relinquish the vast expanses of territory it purports to own. “Those of us who live in the rural areas know how to take care of lands,” declared Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder, one of the summit organizers, adding that federal lands have increasingly been managed with “politicized science” and bad policy. “We have to start managing these lands. It's the right thing to do for our people, for our environment, for our economy and for our freedoms.”

“Politicized science”. Read, these global warming liars

As for taking care of lands, yeah, strip-mining mountains, oil drilling, gas fracking, and other shit practices taking place in red states demonstrate how true that claim is. Drill baby drill!

Much of the land purportedly under federal jurisdiction contains extremely valuable resources: oil, timber, coal, minerals, water, and more. If it was under state or private control, the people of the American West would be able to benefit from that vast wealth much more directly.

Man, I heard about corporate personhood, but I never heard about companies being exclusively called 'people' now. Or, at least, this is about the only way to read this sentence as anything even remotely approaching the truth.

Anyone who thinks gargantuan profits of US oil and mineral companies aren't hight enough yet, please do raise a hand.

[Borgholio]

What 'not bad insights'? It's pure right wing drivel. Did you read this?

I even stated that was drivel in my post. Thanks for conveniently ignoring that.

The fact is that, drivel or not, it provides an insight as to what they feel and why. For instance, we think that they're just being stubborn, greedy assholes. But when you read the article and read in their own words what the problem is, then it turns out to be totally different. They don't believe they're being greedy assholes. They sincerely do not believe that the land belongs to the Feds, and thus they don't owe anything to the Feds. Bundy himself doesn't even recognize the existence of the US Government at all! That specific fact is not insignificant, and matters a great deal when trying to negotiate with these people.

[Raj Ahten]

What's really depressing and even alarming about this whole situation is how much support the rancher and the militias are getting from the main stream right. At least two US senators are on his side, calling him a "true patriot" and other such bullshit. Fox news can't get enough of him either. Extreme states rights and the threat of force, if not armed resistance, to federal law is now main stream.

[Azazal]

So how many of the various elected repugs are going to back off from their support now?

Hey Bundy, how do you really feel?

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

[Elheru Aran]

Depressingly few, I expect. Sure, the majority of them will back the hell off from the guy for a few days of news, but then he'll say something else about the government being tyrants and then they'll all jump in the same boat (or plot of land?) with him again, and it'll be the same shit all over again.

[Irbis]

I even stated that was drivel in my post. Thanks for conveniently ignoring that.

Your "not a bad insight" sounded like agreeing with the article. Especially seeing 'though' at the end of following sentence hinted it had different subject, making first sentence point at article. Without it, yes, you'd say what you intended to. Perhaps you should have been clearer?

They don't believe they're being greedy assholes.

The problem is, yes, their views are consistent, but if you look closely at them they fall apart or have little in common with reality. I have no idea how anyone can repeat that with straight face unless forced to watch Fox News 24/7 without any capacity of independent verification.

[Metahive]

I guess it will surprise everyone here, but it turns out Clive "True American Hero" Bundy is also decidedly old-fasioned in some regards.

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/clive ... nows-about

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

[Borgholio]

Perhaps you should have been clearer?

Do you even know what "insight" means? It has absolutely nothing to do with agreeing with anything.

The problem is, yes, their views are consistent, but if you look closely at them they fall apart or have little in common with reality.

Right, WE can see that their views have little in common with reality, but it's been shown time and time again (especially in religious discussions here) that people can truly and honestly believe the craziest, most batshit-fucking-insane thing if they really want to. The trick to reasoning with or defeating these people is to do things according to their worldview, which you have to understand first. As an example, Bundy says he does not recognize the existence of the Federal Government, just Nevada. So if Nevada tried to collect the grazing fees instead, he'd no longer have any high ground for resisting. If he continued to resist, then he'd lose a great deal of support because he'd be viewed as a liar and a hypocrite as well as a thief.