Cliven Bundy Situation

[gelton]

Of course! And glad to see you join the discussion. As I have stated several times the view of bundy from people out west seems to be more negative than from those out East and it's you guys perspective that matters most since if any of these laws/injustices are going to be changed or stopped it's mainly up to you that live out there to help fix the problem if there is one. To be honest because we don't have these large tracts of publicly owned land we aren't as well versed on it as y'all are.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Sure,

Here goes:

1. The United States Government was founded on the US Constitution, which organized the government into three branches, and separating powers, so that they would limit the powers of the other branches. (USC 3.2.1)

2. The Supreme Court and all lesser courts Congress may establish were established by the Constitution to settle matters of law, including those involving the United States Government as a party (USC 3.2.1.3) It has long been settled that constitutional law falls under this authority. (Marbury v. Madison (1803), and numerous subsequent decisions)

3. The Constitution also gives the US Government the right to own (I prefer manage) lands and Congress the authority to establish “Rules and Regulations” for said lands. (USC 4.3.2) The Supreme Court has held Congress has this authority “without limitation.” (Klepp v. New Mexico 1973)

4. The Constitution guarantees Bundy the right to due process (USC 5th Amendment), which he has received for over 20 years, and several court rulings, up to and including a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

5. The Consititution protects Bundy from a warrantless seizure (USC 4th Amendment). The BLM authorities had said warrant, sworn upon oath and signed by a judge, when they went to seize the cattle.

6. Bundy contends that the management of the lands his cows are on should be by the state, and confirms this by attempting to pay the state of Nevada for the grazing fees. This is also a concession that the lands are not his, but rather public. However, Nevada in its state constitution relinquishes all control of their public lands to the US Government.

It seems Mr. Bundy disagrees with the US laws, and Nevada Constitution, and only agrees with himself and his supporters.

I do support Federally managed public lands, although I DO NOT agree with all of their management decisions. I personally show up to the meetings, write letters, and contact my representatives about my position. I do not advocate violence when the decisions do not go my way.

I make no argument in support for how the BLM went about dealing with the situation.

 

[tstowater]

Nice job BB. This does not imply that you are right and any other positon is wrong, but is a good job of stating your argument with supporting "law".

 

[PA 5-0]

I would like to give a shout out to AZ Vince and PA 50 - thank GOD there are still a few liberty lovers that carry the badge and honor their oath. The day guys like you are no longer in the police force is the day it's all over for the American way of life.

I greatly appreciate those thoughts. Thank you.

 

[Matt Cashell]

I suppose I could also address the position that Steve Miller wrote about (Love those old songs BTW ) regarding the Pollard v. Hagan case.

Miller contends the following:

“But in 1845 the U.S. Supreme Court, in Pollard vs. Hagan, a case dealing with the admission of Alabama to the Union under almost identical language, had held that such conditions were in violation of the U.S. Constitution and therefore void.”

This is pretty much an irresponsible misrepresentation of that case, and its set of circumstances were wildly different than that of adding Nevada to the union.

Had Mr. Miller read the court decision on the Pollard case he would have known the issue at hand was regulation of navigable waterways, and ruled that "submerged lands" and the regulation of them was left to the state, citing an earlier case, Miller v. Waddell's Lessee.

In Miller the Court affirmed that navigable waterways are relinquished to the states, so they can regulate travel and commerce on the waterways, which was extremely important in the pre-highway US.

There are, in fact, only Supreme Court cases that uphold the US Government's constitutional authority to manage federal lands.

Of course, Congress could pass legislation offering management of public lands to the states, but I have a feeling lots of Western states would rather not take on the financial cost of doing so.

 

[Shane]

Bundy isn't a polished speaker (news flash). But there is more to it than a guy just trying to find a loophole so he can graze his cattle for free, as the media would have us believe. This stuff has been going on for decades. The late Wayne Hage was a much better spokesman, and these videos do a good job of explaining the situation from his perspective. His situation was very similar to Bundy's, from everything I've been able to learn. By the way, it's a crying shame that it is so hard to get the whole story and all the facts. Nobody in the media these days cares to do their job. They all seem to just want short sound bites that they can run with to make whatever political point they favor (on both sides). The media's portrayal of Bundy has never made sense to me. I just don't believe that a guy would be willing to fight to the death, let his family fight to the death, and let friends and even strangers fight to the death just so he could graze for free. Whatever the real and full set of facts are, there is a LOT more to it than what the media is lazily putting out.

These videos are long, but very interesting. If you have a couple hours to kill, you'll learn stuff.

http://vimeo.com/8520897

http://vimeo.com/9776367

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

You're right they are long! Who has that much time to watch videos that aren't about hunting jeez.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Actually those Hage videos are about hunting, in a way.

BTW, I have followed these issues for quite some time, and my opinions are those I have arrived at based upon my own research. It comes up locally here in the Bitterroot on and off, with now being one of the "on" times, as one of our election-year commissioners has decided to attempt to take over the Forest Service here.

Part of Mr. Hage's issues with the Government was they reintroduced elk to the National Forest and BLM in the headwaters of areas that he had water rights. He contended that because he had the rights to that water, he owned the grass it nourished, and subsequently he took issue with the elk feeding on grass owned by him. The Courts denied this argument and ruled in the favor of the Government, and the elk. You can read the documents yourself if you want.

Since I have engaged the conversation in this thread, be sure to note these opinions are mine alone, and do not reflect any opinion of Rokslide's. I will not moderate this thread in any way.

 

[Broz]

I will not go into all the details but I have spent many many hours in research of the Bundy Ranch situation myself. I want to publically state I am in 100% support of Cliven Bundy and the Bundy ranch.

Mark my word boys. One day you WILL be denied use of the some said "Public Lands" and eventually most all of it. It has already happened in many places. It is just a matter of time and the clock is ticking fast.

Jeff

 

[Broz]

The more I learn the more I agree with Mr Bundy. It seems that it was settled law that the first to put the water to use had title to the water and grazing. Then starting at the turn of the last century the Forest service was created and there were voluntary agreements made and fees agreed to allow for maintenance of the land. The the Congress passed the Taylor act in 1934 and started charging fees involuntarily and not for land maintenance. Now it has progressed to regulating the ranchers out of business and seizing their claims. What at first seemed to be ridiculous claims to land he didn't own now seem much more valid and the federal claims very questionable. I some ways it is the final nails in the coffin of states rights and individual rights that was started with the northern war of aggression and has continued to this day. I've come to the conclusion that the federal government is out of control and will either completely render the constitution irrelevant or there will be violent revolution.

I agree Shrek.

 

[realunlucky]

I personally think the problem is elected officials are no longer allowed to govern everything is challenged in court. Which is how our system was designed to work. The problem becomes that the judicial system is fully run by political standing and pay back system. Lawyers just file with a judge that favors the view they are looking for, the other side appeals until finally it arrives and is heard by the supreme court the ultimate political pay back and its decided along party lines usually a 5-4 split. This is not how America founding father's fore saw the future governing of its people

 

[T43]

I will not go into all the details but I have spent many many hours in research of the Bundy Ranch situation myself. I want to publically state I am in 100% support of Cliven Bundy and the Bundy ranch.

Mark my word boys. One day you WILL be denied use of the some said "Public Lands" and eventually most all of it. It has already happened in many places. It is just a matter of time and the clock is ticking fast.

Jeff

Why would you be willing to make these statements but not provide details?

 

[T43]

The media's portrayal of Bundy has never made sense to me. I just don't believe that a guy would be willing to fight to the death, let his family fight to the death, and let friends and even strangers fight to the death just so he could graze for free. Whatever the real and full set of facts are, there is a LOT more to it than what the media is lazily putting out.

Just some quick arithmetic. A cow needs about 25 lbs of feed a day. Feed prices vary but a good average over the past few years is probably $140 a ton. If you had 1000 cows you would be spending about $1750 a day to feed them all not including labor, fuel and equipment. Now spread that over 20 years and you should start to see why he is willing to fight for free grazing.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

I personally think the problem is elected officials are no longer allowed to govern everything is challenged in court. Which is how our system was designed to work. The problem becomes that the judicial system is fully run by political standing and pay back system. Lawyers just file with a judge that favors the view they are looking for, the other side appeals until finally it arrives and is heard by the supreme court the ultimate political pay back and its decided along party lines usually a 5-4 split. This is not how America founding father's fore saw the future governing of its people

I have to agree here. The legal system and therefore the law are influenced heavily by politics and favors which in turn means it is broken. If supreme court decisions are being handed down based on party lines rather than the constitution, then the constitution is meaningless.

 

[gelton]

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]

 

[Matt Cashell]

gelton,

You make some interesting points, but it seems you are moving the target, and your points are separate from Bundy's legal arguments, which don't hold water.

in regards to your points:

1. I agree that Bundy was benefiting from public lands for years, and as such grew a substantial herd. When the management objectives of that land changed, it certainly affected his business. However, the government didn't restrict the size of his herd, they just restricted where the cattle could graze on lands they managed. Mr. Bundy had the options of moving his cattle to other grazing grounds or selling the cattle. He could have aquired other lands either by purchase or leasing them from another owner. It is certainly possible that getting these additional grazing grounds could be prohibitively expensive, and may have ended his business. He chose to ignore the laws and took his case to court where he lost. That is unfortunate for him.

2. That Reid situation reeks, like most of his politics. We can definitely agree on that, and likely has much to do with why his vocal rhetoric in this situation, but doesn't make Bundy's case any more legitimate. My enemy's enemy is my friend? No thanks. I can disagree with both Bundy and Reid. There is a constitutionally based remedy for Reid however, and that is the good people of Nevada voting him out of office.

3. Like I mentioned originally I believe this issue could have been handled better by the BLM, and by Bundy. I am glad nobody got hurt.

 

[Matt Cashell]

I have to agree here. The legal system and therefore the law are influenced heavily by politics and favors which in turn means it is broken. If supreme court decisions are being handed down based on party lines rather than the constitution, then the constitution is meaningless.

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.

 

[Mark]

There is a constitutionally based remedy for Reid however, and that is the good people of Nevada voting him out of office.

We're working on it...

Dirty Harry has done a few positive things for the state, but overall he's done more for himself than he has for the state of Nevada.

 

[PA 5-0]

Just some quick arithmetic. A cow needs about 25 lbs of feed a day. Feed prices vary but a good average over the past few years is probably $140 a ton. If you had 1000 cows you would be spending about $1750 a day to feed them all not including labor, fuel and equipment. Now spread that over 20 years and you should start to see why he is willing to fight for free grazing.

He is not fighting for free grazing. The state of Nevada has acknowledged Mr. Bundy has been willing to pay and has attempted to pay the state many times. His belief is that the federal gov't has no right to charge the fees, that the money should go to the state.

 

[PA 5-0]

gelton,

You make some interesting points, but it seems you are moving the target, and your points are separate from Bundy's legal arguments, which don't hold water.

in regards to your points:

1. I agree that Bundy was benefiting from public lands for years, and as such grew a substantial herd. When the management objectives of that land changed, it certainly affected his business. However, the government didn't restrict the size of his herd, they just restricted where the cattle could graze on lands they managed. Mr. Bundy had the options of moving his cattle to other grazing grounds or selling the cattle. He could have aquired other lands either by purchase or leasing them from another owner. It is certainly possible that getting these additional grazing grounds could be prohibitively expensive, and may have ended his business. He chose to ignore the laws and took his case to court where he lost. That is unfortunate for him.

2. That Reid situation reeks, like most of his politics. We can definitely agree on that, and likely has much to do with why his vocal rhetoric in this situation, but doesn't make Bundy's case any more legitimate. My enemy's enemy is my friend? No thanks. I can disagree with both Bundy and Reid. There is a constitutionally based remedy for Reid however, and that is the good people of Nevada voting him out of office.

3. Like I mentioned originally I believe this issue could have been handled better by the BLM, and by Bundy. I am glad nobody got hurt.

BB, I have greatly enjoyed your commentary and knowledge regarding this situation. If I may:

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. Managing for a tortoise, for a rare plant, for a rare rock. So when Reid wants to take over this piece of land, his Fed machine produces some studies about how a rare turtle must be protected. How the management objectives have changed. Then when all the Cliven Bundy's are gone and all the local jobs they create are gone, Reid and his son can pair up with the Chinese and put in a solar farm or whatever. And he, his son, and the feds make a ton of money. For all the People against Bundy, I guess you are OK with that?? I hope you all hold the same opinion when the Fed changes management objectives and closes the public land you hunt because there is a risk you may step on a rare grasshopper.

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.