Cliven Bundy Situation

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

I don't believe the Constitution is meaningless.

I am interested to know how you came to this conclusion about the corruption in the court system. Are there any particular cases that led you to this conclusion? Or maybe particular justices? Or is it that all Federal Judges are corrupt? If there is evidence of this I think it should be exposed immediately.

I am actually encouraged by some recent rulings of the court. Most notably the GIANT victory for gun rights in the District of Columbia v. Heller decision (2008). In Heller, the court held the government can't just arbitrarily restrict handgun ownership (YEAH!). But even more importantly, for the first time in the history of the country, the court affirmed that the general right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd amendment was an INDIVIDUAL right (as we all knew), setting an important legal precedence, and a crippling blow to the anti-gun movement.

I do not believe the constitution is meaningless either. However the governing effects of it are gone if supreme court justices hand down decisions based on personal or party beliefs instead of on whether or not their decision in constitutional. An example would be the ruling on whether obamacare is constitutional, the vote was split exactly down party lines except for Roberts who flip flopped towards the end (probably because he was pressured). If party lines weren't being followed, it would not be law. One of the most important tasks a president has is nominating new supreme court justices, this is because it can influence rulings in favor of the party for many years to come. My point is party and personal beliefs should not matter while interpreting the law, but it does. I bring this up because it has been stated that Bundy lost his court hearing, but did he really get due process if the ruling was handed down by a judge with liberal leanings that believes in big government even though the constitution is there in part to limit the federal governments power? (I have not investigated the judges on his cases, I am just speculating.).

 

[5MilesBack]

I do not believe the constitution is meaningless either. However the governing effects of it are gone if supreme court justices hand down decisions based on personal or party beliefs instead of on whether or not their decision in constitutional.

I completely agree. Just because the Supreme Court rules something constitutional or unconstitutional doesn't always make it so. It has always irked the heck out of me seeing these ridiculous 5-4 rulings. They could argue something as simple and obvious as "we need oxygen to survive" and it would still come back as a 5-4 decision if the party's desired differing results. That's utterly ridiculous. It's only a matter of time before the justices swing to a full liberal majority and life as we know it in the good ole USA will be over. But that still doesn't make it constitutional or right just because a few appointed nutjobs say it is so.

 

[Broz]

Instead of looking at this as simply legal or illegal, I think its important to also decide if its just or unjust. Also, what is missing is what would you do if you were Bundy. In my opinion this story is 3 pronged.

1. BUNDY - and his family have been working the land, paying grazing fees since 1951. In 1993 the BLM decides to cut his heard to only 150 head that would be able to graze. This is important because Bundy knew this would drive him out of business (like the 50 + other ranchers who used to work that area). Bundy WANTED to pay grazing fees but needed to pay much more than they would allow. So instead of signing away his livelihood and agreeing to a grazing rights permit that would put him out of business by only allowing 150 head he refused to sign and quit paying. He had 900 head of cattle on that land when they started rounding them up. What would you do?

2. Harry Reid - Reids former chief of staff just took over the BLM. Reids son represented a Chinese firm that purchased land for pennies on the dollar compared to a recent appraisal. Bundys land was supposed to be used as a "mitigation area" for the tourtois because of that plant. People say this story is debunked because the solar plant was not going to be built there, the media plans on you not being smart enough to know about "mitigation" areas. The BLM tried to remove all traces of the document referring to this from the web but thankfully it was cached and can be found here:

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Northeast-Clark-County-Cattle-Trespass.pdf

3. The way the protesters were treated as well as the free speech zones. The protesters were intimidated for days before the "malitia" ever showed up.

I think if any of us could find common ground it would be on one of these three issues. I for one feel strongly about all three and it still leads me to support Bundy on this one.

Here is a video from Feaux news. Dont really follow the mainstream media and dont know much about this gal but she breaks down the DIRT on Dirty Harry Reid and how it relates to this situation.

[video=youtube_share;58u03_EM5A4]http://youtu.be/58u03_EM5A4[/video]

Someone asked why I would state I supported Cliven and the Bundy Ranch 100% but didn't supply details. Gelton and some others have done it quite well already. There are more than enough facts to support why I stand behind The Bundy Ranch.

It probably doesn't help that when I was 6 yrs old My father , Mother and us 5 kids lived on an Iowa family farm of 800 acres. My parents were young then and worked harder than most anyone could even fathom in todays world to put a life together on family land. The Government (Core of Engineers) decided to build a dam and a lake. My family didn't want to leave but it was either leave or be condemned. There was no money to fight, we were only getting by. They took our family farm (private owned and deeded land) and paid us under $100 per acre. A price set by the government and cents on the dollar. There was no way to take that money and replace the land. I was only 6 but still remember my mother crying. Some things you do not forget and make an impression at that age when you are to young to really understand what is going on. We were forced to move to our elderly grandparents farm and my father get a factory job. A few years later they decided to widen a highway and took land from the front of this farm and also the house my grand parents had lived in for years, the house my parents, grand parents and brothers and sisters now called Home. Yet another hard ship and our home gone again. So, I have had a little experience with what happens when the government or the state decides you are in the way of "progress" I also under stand how money corrupts and what is a growing problem in our country today. I feel compassion for the families that get hurt. The couple with their dream cabin in CO. Oh, haven't heard about this???? Look it up. The ranchers and their deeded land in Texas and the BLM now in process of TAKING 90,000 acres. Oh you have not heard of this?? Look it up and many others if you care to search a little.

Unpaid grazing fees? The desert Tortious? , Cows? My aching ass!!!!! This is not about any of this people !!

Wake up my friends. When they come to your door I will support you too. I guess if you are nestled in to a cityliver community it does not appear to be your problem and casting judgment about the smoke screen of unpaid grazing fees are an easy way to side against an old man busting his ass to raise cattle and his family. If there is a fight I will be siding with the Bundy Ranch, if you are on the other side I wish you safety. Shoot straight.

Jeff

 

[Matt Cashell]

His belief is that the federal gov't has no right to charge the fees, that the money should go to the state.

This is an unconstitutional belief. The Federal government can charge the fees as laid out in the Constitution itself.

In the above post, you utilized the phrase "When the management objectives of that land changed". This, IMHO, is a hinge pin of the Bundy situation. These very "management objectives" are the ruse the feds utilize to take control of these lands.

The feds aren't taking control, they have had control. They are federal lands. They changed a management plan, and no longer plan on subsidizing Bundy's cattle. There is no doubt this is disappointing to Mr. bundy and affects his business, as many government decisions do to many businesses. Congress has the constitutional authority to change the management of the lands.

And BB, on SC Justices. Corrupt no. Political, absolutely. Are you gonna deny that Presidents appoint candidates to fill open SCJ seats that will help further their party's agenda????? Seems like Obama's appointment seems to be losing her mind over the latest affirmative action decision. Actually, that's not a great example. That one back fired on the Pres.

Sure they nominate justices that they think are like minded. However, those nominees have to be confirmed by the Senate, in another utilization of the separation of powers.

 

[Matt Cashell]

I completely agree. Just because the Supreme Court rules something constitutional or unconstitutional doesn't always make it so. It has always irked the heck out of me seeing these ridiculous 5-4 rulings. They could argue something as simple and obvious as "we need oxygen to survive" and it would still come back as a 5-4 decision if the party's desired differing results. That's utterly ridiculous. It's only a matter of time before the justices swing to a full liberal majority and life as we know it in the good ole USA will be over. But that still doesn't make it constitutional or right just because a few appointed nutjobs say it is so.

So if the Judicial Branch doesn't evaluate constitutionality, who does? Each of us? And when we disagree we just shoot it out and the guy left standing is right?

 

[realunlucky]

So if the Judicial Branch doesn't evaluate constitutionality, who does? Each of us? And when we disagree we just shoot it out and the guy left standing is right?

So a panel of 9 LIFETIME appointed yahoos govern. If it's not political and only the true question of constitutional viable why is it always split 5-4 along party lines?

 

[realunlucky]

When you follow the rules because they are the rules its upsetting when others fail to do so. When the rules apply to everyone but those who make the rules that is a ruling class distinction and unacceptable to me. Question now is how is this fixed? Elections sure but in a two party system where both players are almost the same is the result much different? When corruption discover is anything done? Hardly gets lip service these days except maybe by the other party if they are damn sure they can isolate themselves from the issue

 

[realunlucky]

As a life long rule follower I believe Bundy to be in the wrong. As a free thinker I believe it's more wrong to circumvent the long established rules to take advantage of the situation because of connection to those that make/change the rules for money.

 

[PA 5-0]

Congress has the constitutional authority to change the management of the lands.

And thank God THE PEOPLE have the constitutional authority to bears arms and protest that authority.

And I suspected, the Senatorial confirmation process would be the rebuttal. As with the latest appointment, that would be the Democratically controlled Senate correct?? More like a collaboration of powers, not a separation. But I do see your point.

I think we should all get some Poly-Sci college credits for this thread. Great debate and info.

 

[Matt Cashell]

So a panel of 9 LIFETIME appointed yahoos govern. If it's not political and only the true question of constitutional viable why is it always split 5-4 along party lines?

Well, it isn't always a 5-4 split, or even mostly, in either recent history or throughout history. The last two decisions were 6-3, with a different mix of justices in both cases.

I don't agree with every decision of the court, but I wouldn't describe them as "yahoos" either. I think it is certainly not perfect, but is still the best system in the world.

If you have a better way to decide constitutionality on a national stage, I am ready to hear it.

More like a collaboration of powers, not a separation.

Well, that is how the constitution has constructed it. Of course, even the Constitution can be changed through the amendment and ratification process if you have a better way. I for one am open to hear them.

Guys I have actually really enjoyed this discussion, but I am going to step away from it. Please continue. I have received a lot of messages both in appreciation and opposition. Most were civil, some were not. However, I have received a few messages that I have turned friends into enemies for my thoughts on this matter.

Once again,

carry on.

 

[realunlucky]

I firmly believe that we do have the best system in the world. After a hundred years or so even our system has been corrupted and what isn't corrupted has been outdated. I believe we are coming full circle back to the original debate of federal vs states rights. If nothing else the Bundy case should have opened all eyes on what means are acceptable to use to enforce decisions made against its own citizens.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

Well, it isn't always a 5-4 split, or even mostly, in either recent history or throughout history. The last two decisions were 6-3, with a different mix of justices in both cases.

I don't agree with every decision of the court, but I wouldn't describe them as "yahoos" either. I think it is certainly not perfect, but is still the best system in the world.

If you have a better way to decide constitutionality on a national stage, I am ready to hear it.



Well, that is how the constitution has constructed it. Of course, even the Constitution can be changed through the amendment and ratification process if you have a better way. I for one am open to hear them.

Guys I have actually really enjoyed this discussion, but I am going to step away from it. Please continue. I have received a lot of messages both in appreciation and opposition. Most were civil, some were not. However, I have received a few messages that I have turned friends into enemies for my thoughts on this matter.

Once again,

carry on.

Well I've enjoyed your thoughts. I still largely disagree but you've definitely given me pause for thought on some points. If you've lost friends because of your take, they probably didn't have the intellectual fortitude to be worth your time anyway.

 

[5MilesBack]

So if the Judicial Branch doesn't evaluate constitutionality, who does? Each of us? And when we disagree we just shoot it out and the guy left standing is right?

If that's what it takes. I guarantee you that if our Supreme Court (now or future) ever rules against the 2nd Amendment, or decides to change what their impression is of what it says........then yes........it just might be the last man standing that decides.

Every single case that comes before them seems very black and white to me as far as constitutionality goes, yet we still get dissenting votes. WHY? Most of this really is black and white, yet these days there is some really bizarre thinking in the world. And for whatever reason the justices don't seem to be immune from that bizarre thinking. It's no longer what is constitutional and what isn't. It's how has our society changed its views over the years, which then influences our politicians, and also our judicial system. Just because our society is degrading at an alarming rate, doesn't mean that our Constitution or the interpretation of the Constitution should as well.

 

[idcuda]

Every single case that comes before them seems very black and white to me as far as constitutionality goes, yet we still get dissenting votes. WHY? Most of this really is black and white, yet these days there is some really bizarre thinking in the world. And for whatever reason the justices don't seem to be immune from that bizarre thinking.

It is black and white...for each side. So, you end up with 5-4 and 6-3 votes in the Supreme Court. The pendulum swings both ways and it's fairly cyclical. The dems were sweating buckets and crying for 16 years straight through the Reagan/Bush years, then us gun-toting, right-wing wackos had to live through Clinton. Bush...Obama...yatta yatta yatta. Read about the fights that occurred in our government 200+ years ago; a lot of this malarkey nowadays is kid-glove stuff.

Sending "militia" snipers to point guns at federal agents (who probably have wives/kids/families) and putting them in that predicament is on par, mentally, with PETA lefties throwing paint on fur coats, in my opinion. I agree with a lot of points in this thread; mainly that there is the law of the land. It's not always right, but you don't get to pick-and-choose which laws to follow (at least not most of the time).

It's a good discussion, though. Some of us may be a tiny bit more dramatic than others, but that's what makes the world go 'round. It definitely makes the forums more fun sometimes.

 

[Sam Millard]

It is black and white...for each side. So, you end up with 5-4 and 6-3 votes in the Supreme Court. The pendulum swings both ways and it's fairly cyclical. The dems were sweating buckets and crying for 16 years straight through the Reagan/Bush years, then us gun-toting, right-wing wackos had to live through Clinton. Bush...Obama...yatta yatta yatta. Read about the fights that occurred in our government 200+ years ago; a lot of this malarkey nowadays is kid-glove stuff.

Sending "militia" snipers to point guns at federal agents (who probably have wives/kids/families) and putting them in that predicament is on par, mentally, with PETA lefties throwing paint on fur coats, in my opinion. I agree with a lot of points in this thread; mainly that there is the law of the land. It's not always right, but you don't get to pick-and-choose which laws to follow (at least not most of the time).

It's a good discussion, though. Some of us may be a tiny bit more dramatic than others, but that's what makes the world go 'round. It definitely makes the forums more fun sometimes.

Good post!

 

[Broz]

" You have to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything"

 

[Broz]

Sending "militia" snipers to point guns at federal agents (who probably have wives/kids/families) and putting them in that predicament is on par, mentally, with PETA lefties throwing paint on fur coats, in my opinion.

If I may, please let me point out what I have seen there. I don't think the support from militia or American Patriots was "sent". They came to defend an American citizen that also has a wife and children. But did so, only, after the BLM decided to point guns from snipers they sent in at him, his wife and children. Never have I seen a photo of one Bundy or Bundy Ranch hand armed. It was the over reach and extreme force displayed by the Fed's that brought on the extreme reactions from American citizens.

Anytime you see a display of over reach and extreme force follow the money.

In the end, I hope we all can agree this was handled poorly and should never have come so close to people loosing their life.

Jeff

 

[Darren Best]

The government should always be questioned, always watched carefully, never trusted.

It is perfectly clear they have been overstepping their authority and the mandates of the Constitution for years, it's time to bring them to heel and remind them who their master is. It is perfectly obvious many levels of our government are riddled with corruption from life long politicians who serve interests other those to whom that elected them.

There is so much corruption in this Cliven Bundy situation, it stinks.

A man is not only right in standing up to an unjust law, he is morally obligated to do so.

Remember, our founding fathers were breaking British laws, they were considered traitors and terrorists, they were shot and hung for their so called crimes. If they were still alive today, they would of already marched on DC and thrown every one and started over.

Remember, slavery was once legal and still is in many places of the world. Sharia law states it is okay to murder females of your family if they upset you, are these laws just or morally right simply because they are a law?

Is it just or morally right to steal a widows home for $110,000 that has a $280,000 value to pay a $6 fee or tax? Stealing is still stealing, even when wearing the cloak of a government official.

 

[PA 5-0]

..........I don't think the support from militia or American Patriots was "sent". They came to defend an American citizen that also has a wife and children. But did so, only, after the BLM decided to point guns from snipers they sent in at him, his wife and children. Never have I seen a photo of Bundy or Bundy Ranch hand armed...........

Jeff

Sir, in the midst of a lot of muddy water surrounding this event, those are facts that cannot be disputed.

 

[gelton]

I think the guy who summed it up best is the man that everyone loves to hate Ron Paul. He warned about this overreach in 1997:

Ron Paul Redux: Warns Against Arming Land Management Officials In 1997

Speaking on the House of Representatives floor on September 17, 1997, then-Rep. Ron Paul warned of the “massive buildup of a virtual army of armed regulators.” We saw the United States government’s armed agents in action recently at the Bundy ranch in Nevada. We also saw them back off, at least for now, when confronted by armed protestors. Paul’s concluding sentences of his 1997 speech seem apropos: "The gun in the hands of law-abiding citizens serves to hold in check arrogant and aggressive government. Guns in the hands of the bureaucrats do the opposite. The founders of this country fully understood this fact."

If you want to see the entire speech in full you can see it here - www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ozZN8n9psY