I have the right to use government land (now with slavery!)

[Viritica]

Eh, I think that's a bit of a stretch.

He is breaking the law. No argument there. But is this really such a huge deal that they need to send armed agents down there to remove his cattle? He's not hurting anyone, and that desert tortoise shit was just that - shit.

And I was saying that the people who came down there to support him were Tea Party activists.

Generally the police seize property whether they are seizing it for private or public claims. There are exceptions of course, normally to do with contracts.

Now why he is upset yes I agree with him. It makes no sense for Nevada to be 85% federally owned, it is a waste of federal tax payer money ( federal government has to duplicate services already provided at the state level), and it limits Nevada's property tax revenue ( a large part of why they turned to casinos).

IT is the manner of his protest that is wrong. Pay your grazing fee or stop grazing your cattle on federal land.

I agree with he everything you've said.

I just think the way the Feds are going about this is all wrong. Sending armed agents down there to seize his cattle looks bad and tazing the guy's son didn't help at all. In truth, they provoked this response from the public and gave Bundy more to preach about.

[Jocabia]

Generally the police seize property whether they are seizing it for private or public claims. There are exceptions of course, normally to do with contracts.

Now why he is upset yes I agree with him. It makes no sense for Nevada to be 85% federally owned, it is a waste of federal tax payer money ( federal government has to duplicate services already provided at the state level), and it limits Nevada's property tax revenue ( a large part of why they turned to casinos).

IT is the manner of his protest that is wrong. Pay your grazing fee or stop grazing your cattle on federal land.

I agree with he everything you've said.

I just think the way the Feds are going about this is all wrong. Sending armed agents down there to seize his cattle looks bad and tazing the guy's son didn't help at all. In truth, they provoked this response from the public and gave Bundy more to preach about.

They tazed the guys son after he kicked a police dog. It wasn't just out of the blue.

As far as sending armed agents, this is something that has been on-going for 20 years. All previous attempts at any other resolution has resulted in the rancher outright ignoring them and in many cases issuing threats or giving very odd responses.

[Geilinor]

Yes.



Yes, he is. Besides the damage done to the public land by overgrazing, he's dishonestly grabbed an advantage over his fellow ranchers who are honest. By stealing the grazing from that land, he's (a) preventing another rancher who pays the fees from using that land for grazing their own cattle, (b) cutting his production costs in ways that no-one else can *legally* match and (c) encouraging other grazers to also start competing to steal grazing from public land, leading to overgrazing of same.

He's hurting *lots* of people - mind you, he's doing it in a way which would greatly please the Koch brothers (misappropriations of public lands for private gain). Hence why the right-wing media has covered this so extensively.



Er, no it isn't. Biodiversity is important, in case you didn't know that.

Texas is plenty biodiverse without 85% of the land being held by the federal government.

If Bundy wants the federal government to sell land, he should become a politician or start a special interest group.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Texas is plenty biodiverse without 85% of the land being held by the federal government.

If Bundy wants the federal government to sell land, he should become a politician or start a special interest group.

Alternatively, as an act of civil disobedience to draw attention to the issue, violate the law in regards to using that land while insisting it's the state's land.

[Geilinor]

If Bundy wants the federal government to sell land, he should become a politician or start a special interest group.

Alternatively, as an act of civil disobedience to draw attention to the issue, violate the law in regards to using that land while insisting it's the state's land.

He's targeting the wrong entity, it isn't Nevada policy.

[United States of Devonta]

16,000 farmers pay up... Why can't he? Land management agents are big bad guys. If I was a tyrant I would not use land management.

[Death Metal]

16,000 farmers pay up... Why can't he?

Because people who know gutless bullies with guns are above the law, apparently.

[Union of Christian States]

Funny how everyone(especially the government) ignores about the constitutional limits on federal land

Article I, Section viii, Clause 17:
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;

Pretty sure this land doesn't fit any of the above categories. Last I checked, land doesn't qualify as a building. Funny what happens when you actually do research.

[Geilinor]

Funny how everyone(especially the government) ignores about the constitutional limits on federal land

Article I, Section viii, Clause 17:
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;

Pretty sure this land doesn't fit any of the above categories. Last I checked, land doesn't qualify as a building. Funny what happens when you actually do research.

That section establishes Washington, D.C. See "over such District".

[United States of Devonta]

Funny how everyone(especially the government) ignores about the constitutional limits on federal land

Article I, Section viii, Clause 17:
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;

Pretty sure this land doesn't fit any of the above categories. Last I checked, land doesn't qualify as a building. Funny what happens when you actually do research.

Don't like it take it to the supreme court.... Otherwise don't have a ton of crazy losers with guns come and threaten people.

[Llamalandia]

Texas is plenty biodiverse without 85% of the land being held by the federal government.

If Bundy wants the federal government to sell land, he should become a politician or start a special interest group.

I'd say, he has, it's just that his group uses the both the first and the 2nd amendment to get their point across. But, yeah, his contention is that the feds don't even own the land.

Never the less I don't remember seeing such vehement support for private property ownership rights, during the Occupy Wall Street non sense. I mean, really the way I see it this isn't really all that different, it's just that his cowers are the ones doing the occupying (well that and they're likely cleaner than the hippy occupy wall street scum).

[Geilinor]

Funny how everyone(especially the government) ignores about the constitutional limits on federal land



Pretty sure this land doesn't fit any of the above categories. Last I checked, land doesn't qualify as a building. Funny what happens when you actually do research.

Don't like it take it to the supreme court.... Otherwise don't have a ton of crazy losers with guns come and threaten people.

That clause establishes the District of Columbia, it has nothing to do with this.

[United States of Devonta]

Don't like it take it to the supreme court.... Otherwise don't have a ton of crazy losers with guns come and threaten people.

That clause establishes the District of Columbia, it has nothing to do with this.

Well then thats even better... Lucky I was not there if I seen a ton of the crazy militia men approach me with weopons some ones going to end up dead. I'm not cut out to be a patient government agent.

[Occupied Deutschland]

That clause establishes the District of Columbia, it has nothing to do with this.

Well then thats even better... Lucky I was not there if I seen a ton of the crazy militia men approach me with weopons some ones going to end up dead. I'm not cut out to be a patient government agent.

Judging from what I've seen, there actually was justifiable cause for the BLM agents to fire on certain segments of the militia there.
This fuckwit, for instance.

However, there were other segments that shouldn't have been, and doing so would've been a PR nightmare rightly decried unless those specific people were somehow targeted for arrest/police interdiction.

[Union of Christian States]

Funny how everyone(especially the government) ignores about the constitutional limits on federal land



Pretty sure this land doesn't fit any of the above categories. Last I checked, land doesn't qualify as a building. Funny what happens when you actually do research.

That section establishes Washington, D.C. See "over such District".

Yes, it does allow the government to create DC. Now read the rest of it. Beginning with "and to exercise like Authority..."

[United States of Devonta]

If Bundy wants the federal government to sell land, he should become a politician or start a special interest group.

I'd say, he has, it's just that his group uses the both the first and the 2nd amendment to get their point across. But, yeah, his contention is that the feds don't even own the land.

Never the less I don't remember seeing such vehement support for private property ownership rights, during the Occupy Wall Street non sense. I mean, really the way I see it this isn't really all that different, it's just that his cowers are the ones doing the occupying (well that and they're likely cleaner than the hippy occupy wall street scum).

Occupy was on public land not federal and the cops reacted like this.

[Llamalandia]

I'd say, he has, it's just that his group uses the both the first and the 2nd amendment to get their point across. But, yeah, his contention is that the feds don't even own the land.

Never the less I don't remember seeing such vehement support for private property ownership rights, during the Occupy Wall Street non sense. I mean, really the way I see it this isn't really all that different, it's just that his cowers are the ones doing the occupying (well that and they're likely cleaner than the hippy occupy wall street scum).

Occupy was on public land not federal and the cops reacted like this.

Zucoti park was privately owned, and yet, despite this protester were even able to get a temporary restraining barring the owner from removing the protesters and their stuff from the park.

[Union of Christian States]

I'd say, he has, it's just that his group uses the both the first and the 2nd amendment to get their point across. But, yeah, his contention is that the feds don't even own the land.

Never the less I don't remember seeing such vehement support for private property ownership rights, during the Occupy Wall Street non sense. I mean, really the way I see it this isn't really all that different, it's just that his cowers are the ones doing the occupying (well that and they're likely cleaner than the hippy occupy wall street scum).

Occupy was on public land not federal and the cops reacted like this.

Federal land is public land. Public land is actually defined as government land.

[AiliailiA]

Occupy was on public land not federal and the cops reacted like this.

Zucoti park was privately owned, and yet, despite this protester were even able to get a temporary restraining barring the owner from removing the protesters and their stuff from the park.

Wikipedia disagrees with you:

Because Zuccotti Park is not a publicly owned space, it is not subject to ordinary public park curfew. New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said on September 28, 2011, that the NYPD could not bar protesters from Zuccotti Park since it is a public plaza that is required to stay open 24 hours a day. "In building this plaza, there was an agreement it be open 24 hours a day," Kelly said. "The owners have put out regulations [about what's allowed in park]. The owners will have to come in and direct people not to do certain things." A spokesperson for Brookfield Properties, the owner of the park, expressed concern: "Zuccotti Park is intended for the use and enjoyment of the general public for passive recreation. We are extremely concerned with the conditions that have been created by those currently occupying the park and are actively working with the City of New York to address these conditions and restore the park to its intended purpose."

On October 6, 2011, it was reported that Brookfield Office Properties, which owns Zuccotti Park, had issued a statement which said, "Sanitation is a growing concern ... Normally the park is cleaned and inspected every weeknight... because the protestors refuse to cooperate ... the park has not been cleaned since Friday, September 16th and as a result, sanitary conditions have reached unacceptable levels." To protect and clean the park, protesters volunteered to sweep the areas of the plaza and posted signs urging each other to avoid damaging the flower beds.

Starting at roughly 1 am local time on November 15, NYPD began clearing Zuccotti Park. After a court order was released allowing them to return, police refused to allow them back in. Later that day, the New York Supreme Court that issued the injunction ruled against allowing protesters to camp or sleep in Zuccotti Park. At midnight on December 31, 2011 about 500 protestors clashed with police when they attempted to re-occupy the park. Sixty-eight people were arrested within several hours.

Steel barriers restricting access to the park were removed on January 10, 2012. On January 24, Occupy Wall Street protesters dropped their lawsuit against the city and Brookfield for the imposition of rules which prohibited their tents, generators, and other installations from the park. The rules restricting these items had been upheld in court and enforced in the park.

The "private property" was encumbered with a city ordinance requiring that it be open 24 hours a day to the public. Protestors used that legal right to camp there until the court ruled they couldn't and those that tried were arrested.

If that's the precedent you want applied to Bundy's supporters I'm all for it.

[Llamalandia]

Zucoti park was privately owned, and yet, despite this protester were even able to get a temporary restraining barring the owner from removing the protesters and their stuff from the park.

Wikipedia disagrees with you:

Because Zuccotti Park is not a publicly owned space, it is not subject to ordinary public park curfew. New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said on September 28, 2011, that the NYPD could not bar protesters from Zuccotti Park since it is a public plaza that is required to stay open 24 hours a day. "In building this plaza, there was an agreement it be open 24 hours a day," Kelly said. "The owners have put out regulations [about what's allowed in park]. The owners will have to come in and direct people not to do certain things." A spokesperson for Brookfield Properties, the owner of the park, expressed concern: "Zuccotti Park is intended for the use and enjoyment of the general public for passive recreation. We are extremely concerned with the conditions that have been created by those currently occupying the park and are actively working with the City of New York to address these conditions and restore the park to its intended purpose."

On October 6, 2011, it was reported that Brookfield Office Properties, which owns Zuccotti Park, had issued a statement which said, "Sanitation is a growing concern ... Normally the park is cleaned and inspected every weeknight... because the protestors refuse to cooperate ... the park has not been cleaned since Friday, September 16th and as a result, sanitary conditions have reached unacceptable levels." To protect and clean the park, protesters volunteered to sweep the areas of the plaza and posted signs urging each other to avoid damaging the flower beds.

Starting at roughly 1 am local time on November 15, NYPD began clearing Zuccotti Park. After a court order was released allowing them to return, police refused to allow them back in. Later that day, the New York Supreme Court that issued the injunction ruled against allowing protesters to camp or sleep in Zuccotti Park. At midnight on December 31, 2011 about 500 protestors clashed with police when they attempted to re-occupy the park. Sixty-eight people were arrested within several hours.

Steel barriers restricting access to the park were removed on January 10, 2012. On January 24, Occupy Wall Street protesters dropped their lawsuit against the city and Brookfield for the imposition of rules which prohibited their tents, generators, and other installations from the park. The rules restricting these items had been upheld in court and enforced in the park.

The "private property" was encumbered with a city ordinance requiring that it be open 24 hours a day to the public. Protestors used that legal right to camp there until the court ruled they couldn't and those that tried were arrested.

If that's the precedent you want applied to Bundy's supporters I'm all for it.

Open to the public doesn't mean you have a right to live their though. I mean, clearly even as a POPS it was being abused by the occupiers. Plus, i'm pretty sure the cops routinely tell homeless people to move along even if they're in public parks.

[AiliailiA]

That section establishes Washington, D.C. See "over such District".

Yes, it does allow the government to create DC. Now read the rest of it. Beginning with "and to exercise like Authority..."

It's lost in the quote pyramid now, so I'll quote it all again:

Article I, Section viii, Clause 17:
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;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever ... 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;

Hopefully it's clear to you now. The US federal government has undisputed authority in "Places" of a specific kind: military installations. Those can only be established with the consent of the state in which they are, but once established they are outside of any state's jurisdiction.

So for instance, this clause would prohibit Nevada state police from pursuing a suspect onto the Nevada Test Range (without prior consent from the Feds). But it have no bearing on whether they could pursue a suspect into Moapa Valley National Wildlife Refuge.

There is a provision that the "Places" must be bought with the consent of the State. Presumably this would preclude the Federal government from claiming land by eminent domain (ie no consent of the State legislature), stationing a soldier on it and calling it a military base. However, that provision is moot in the case of land owned by the Feds before Nevada became a State.

I think what you're trying to do is show that one clause of the Enumerated Rights does not grant the Federal government rights to seize land from States, therefore they don't have a right to own land at all (other than that enumerated in Clause 7).

But that doesn't work without some further clause which isn't there, like "and shall have exclusive Legislation in no other case".

What's worse for your argument is that Clause 18 follows apiece with Clause 17. Notice the semicolon. The sentence isn't over!

--And

Article I, Section viii, Clause 18.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The "and" is signifcant. Without it, Clause 18 is not a full sentence. The constitution is ALL written in full sentences. Clause 18 is a continuation of the same sentence as Clause 17.

"[something] and to make all Laws which shall be necessary ..."
The [something] is "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever".
Clause 18 allows that for all "Powers vested by this Constitution" not just those in Article 1 Section viii.

Helluva clause that one.

[AiliailiA]

Wikipedia disagrees with you:



The "private property" was encumbered with a city ordinance requiring that it be open 24 hours a day to the public. Protestors used that legal right to camp there until the court ruled they couldn't and those that tried were arrested.

If that's the precedent you want applied to Bundy's supporters I'm all for it.

Open to the public doesn't mean you have a right to live their though. I mean, clearly even as a POPS it was being abused by the occupiers.

The Supreme Court of New York ruled that way, yes.

Do you think you're helping your argument here? Yes, "they did it too" but when a court ruled that they couldn't, law enforcement prevented them from doing it. Exactly the same should happen to Bundy's cattle.

Or if you're not making that argument (that what applies to Occupy should apply to Bundy) then stop with the off-topic drivel.

Plus, i'm pretty sure the cops routinely tell homeless people to move along even if they're in public parks.

Irrelevant.

That facial tic you have is really hampering your social interactions. Talk to your doctor about it: a minor bit of neurosurgery can fix that.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

I'd say, he has, it's just that his group uses the both the first and the 2nd amendment to get their point across. But, yeah, his contention is that the feds don't even own the land.

Never the less I don't remember seeing such vehement support for private property ownership rights, during the Occupy Wall Street non sense. I mean, really the way I see it this isn't really all that different, it's just that his cowers are the ones doing the occupying (well that and they're likely cleaner than the hippy occupy wall street scum).

Occupy was on public land not federal and the cops reacted like this.

Can you blame them? Beating up unarmed college kids is a lot more fun than taking on an angry 30-something MURRIKEN with a gun. I mean, somebody might get HURT in that sort of situation!

[Llamalandia]

Open to the public doesn't mean you have a right to live their though. I mean, clearly even as a POPS it was being abused by the occupiers.

The Supreme Court of New York ruled that way, yes.

Do you think you're helping your argument here? Yes, "they did it too" but when a court ruled that they couldn't, law enforcement prevented them from doing it. Exactly the same should happen to Bundy's cattle.

Or if you're not making that argument (that what applies to Occupy should apply to Bundy) then stop with the off-topic drivel.

Plus, i'm pretty sure the cops routinely tell homeless people to move along even if they're in public parks.

Irrelevant.

That facial tic you have is really hampering your social interactions. Talk to your doctor about it: a minor bit of neurosurgery can fix that.

Arguably government land is generally meant for public use. Bundy is part o the public therefor he should be able to use the land at least intermittently (which is kinda how grazing works). But no the feds don't want to let bc/ turtles.

Also, my point is that others are arguably inconsistent. I mean liberals decry removing hippies from a privately owned park, yet have no problem saying the government should kick this good hardworking american beef produce off land no one is even using.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

The Supreme Court of New York ruled that way, yes.

Do you think you're helping your argument here? Yes, "they did it too" but when a court ruled that they couldn't, law enforcement prevented them from doing it. Exactly the same should happen to Bundy's cattle.

Or if you're not making that argument (that what applies to Occupy should apply to Bundy) then stop with the off-topic drivel.



Irrelevant.

That facial tic you have is really hampering your social interactions. Talk to your doctor about it: a minor bit of neurosurgery can fix that.

Arguably government land is generally meant for public use. Bundy is part o the public therefor he should be able to use the land at least intermittently (which is kinda how grazing works). But no the feds don't want to let bc/ turtles.

Also, my point is that others are arguably inconsistent. I mean liberals decry removing hippies from a privately owned park, yet have no problem saying the government should kick this good hardworking american beef produce off land no one is even using.

It's like people see a difference between confiscating cattle and shooting people in the head with teargas canisters while burning their books.