The extreme right in Utah is using this as a takeover issue. The call to
moderation and recognition of the law is important. Unless you want the Militia
types riding around in pickup trucks with machine guns hoping for a fight.
There's nothing worse than preppers that have a million bullets and 10
years of food in the basement and nothing to do with it. So the
Nevada rancher says he wants a million dollars of free grass from the
government. Ok. I'm sure he's ok with everyone else just grazing there
free too? I say everybody should bring their livestock to his place and see what
One vote. You need to educate yourself about Ruby Ridge and Waco where it was
government thugs who were the ones riding around in trucks and machine guns
hoping for a fight, just like they almost did in Nevada. Our forefathers stood
up to abusive government thugs and we call them patriots, which they were.
American needs more patriots instead of lemmings.
Are you kidding me? Your effort to rationalize law breaking so you can have a
foot in both worlds is stunningly ridiculous. Your underlying premise is wrong,
including the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Yes, the rebels of
the West were upset that land was set aside for purposes that would exclude its
exploitation for their personal gain, but the land is owned by the people (as
represented by the Federal government) and we had every right to designate it as
a National Monument. There is nothing in limbo. Bundy is a lawbreaker and has
been for decades, unlike most of the other ranchers who obey the law. As I talk
to BLM folks, you assertion is completely false - they are sensitive to local
issues. The problem comes when certain local folks can't get what they
want, and it's always for their own selfish interests. For most of us,
take away the emotional arguments, and we will mostly agree that the federal
government is doing the right thing by protecting public lands for our
widespread use rather than closing them off so a few can profit.
This is a good, sensible editorial, but one gets the sense that a lot of the
"sagebrush rebels" want the land deeded to *them*, not to the state or
any county or any other form of government, which are all viewed as simply
differing levels of evil, all to be opposed.It's increasingly
apparent the vigilantes / patriots / welfare ranchers who are now railing
against Obama will immediately turn their sights to the Utah Legislature if/when
the United States is dumb enough to cede ownership of federal lands to the
states.Good luck getting that genie back in the bottle,
Fine, place a lien on Bundy's property, the government gets its money and
the problem solved! There was no need to send in 200 armed storm troopers,
threaten people, kill cattle and act like thugs and waste over a million dollars
of taxpayer money trying to show who's boss! That's the point!
I think the BLM could do a better job of communicating with the local natives
when making decisions. Especially decisions that affect the life and livelyhood
of the local natives. I think the fact that they are giving it some
time to de-escalate is a good development.I think both sides have
made some mistakes. To pretend that the Federal Government has never made a
mistake, or that they couldn't make a mistake now... is viewing reality
through very strict blinders that only allow you to see what you WANT to see.
Likewise assuming ranchers are always right... is a narrow view of reality.They need to work together and try to find compromise and make sure the
position of BOTH sides is explained and understood (not just crammed down other
side's throat because you aren't REQUIRED to discuss or explain).
They seem to have learned from our friends in Congress... that
"compromise" is a bad word, and shows weakness, and should be avoided at
all cost. Only confrontation, dramatically created standoffs, ideological
purity, and insisting YOU get everything YOU want... is needed.Yes... BOTH sides do this from time to time. Not just one side.
The government is forbidden to own land, except for a 10 mile square parcel of
land which is the District of Columbia and minor pieces of land for Forts,
Magazines, and Federal Buildings. That is what the Supreme Law of the Land
tells us. Obviously, the federal government thinks that it is above the law.
So, if both sides are lawless, which side should be rewarded?The
federal government needs to divest itself of all "public lands".
Mike Richards,Re: "The government is forbidden to own land"...As usual... there are different viewpoints.There are 3
different interpretations of the "Property Clause" of the Constitution
(ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 2)google "Property
clause"...The primary constitutional authority for the
management and control of this vast real-estate empire is the Property Clause.
The exact scope of this clause has long been a matter of debate. Broadly
speaking, three different theories have been advanced.The narrowest
conception, which can be called the proprietary theory, maintains that the
Property Clause simply allows Congress to act as an ordinary owner of land.The broadest conception, which can be called the police-power theory,
regards the clause as conferring not only the powers of ownership but also
general sovereign authority to regulate private conduct that occurs on federal
land or that affects federal land.there is also an intermediate
conception of the Property Clause, which can be labeled the protective
theory.It is not certain which of these three theories corresponds
with the original understanding of the Framers...It's still
being debated by the various Courts and Constitutional Scholars.
Read the Constitution. IT is the Supreme Law of the Land. Google is NOT the
Supreme Law of the Land.When people look for an excuse to excuse
government lawlessness, they will surely find like-minded "peers" who
prefer to get their "law" from the Internet.Either we have a
Constitution or we do not. I contend that we have a Constitution and that no
amount of lawlessness by the government or by government supporters overrides
So what happens when legal remedies through the courts have been exhausted?
@ One Old Man"So what happens when legal remedies through the courts
have been exhausted"? What should happen is Clive Bundy and the
anarchist surrounding him should be gathered up and thrown in jail. If they
don't go peacefully then take them by force.
@FT,Re: "If they don't go peacefully then take them by
force...My... you sound so Gestapo-like today... You're
mind-set fits perfectly when you have the SS or the Gestapo to round people up
and throw them in jail for daring to question the government.What is
this left in this country becoming???
FT. You would love life in Cuba, Iran, N.Korea, Hitler's Germany or Russia
because that is what they do there but not in America. You see, in America the
people tell the government what it can and can not do, not the other way around.
In America we have freedom to stand up to government abuses. Or at least we used
to but some people just don't get it! Some people would rather be subjects
@ 2 bitsNice straw man argument about the SS and the Gestapo. I happen to
believe in the rule of law and support our law enforcement. Clive Bundy has
been found guilty by the courts and refuses to comply to the rule of law.
Anyone protecting him from justice is obstructing the law. Go ahead and
question the goverment and get your day in court but no man is above the rule of
law. Clive Bundy and the ararchist surrounding him think they are and there is
no place in a civilized, democratic society like ours.
FT,There's nothing illegal about protesting, or possessing weapons.
We still believe in freedom of expression... don't we? Or can you now be
carted off by force and jailed for protesting this government action?Bundy may have broken a law... but what law did the people who showed up to
protest break???===You call them "Anarchists", I
call them "People".People who have just as much right to
protest as the Occupy Wallstreet people...===Question:Were you saying "If they don't go peacefully then take
them by force"... when the occupy wallstreet people were told they were
breaking the law by setting up their camps on private property, vandalizing
stores, etc?How about the anti-war protesters? Just call the SS
and cart them off to jail??Or is it just when the protesters
don't agree with you (or your party) that they need to be carted off to
jail (for protesting)?The BLM protesters broke no US Laws that
I'm aware of. The occupy people did though... and you tolerated their
"The government is forbidden to own land..."And yet it does
and has for two centuries, ample time to mount a concerted legal challenge. As
the legal maxim goes, res ipsa loquitur: the thing speaks for itself.
@ 2 bitsOnce again nice straw man arguments. If you can't win an
argument do you always recreate the facts? Where did the occupy Wall Street
protesters come into the equation here? Truthfully, I have no idea if they were
breaking the law or not. If they were they're no different than Clive
Bundy and I would support our law enforcement in doing what was needed to
enforce the law.As far as the armed protestors surrounding Bundy many of
them have threatned to use force if law enforcement comes to arrest him.
I'm not an attorney but it would seem to me that threatning the life of a
law enforcement officer from doing his sworn duty is breaking the law.
Protesting is fine, threats and indimation of our public law enforcement is not.
“ . . . There is room for compromise with BLM . . .”WRONG.The Federal Governement DOES NOT compromise with terrorists,
either foreign or domestic.Get used to it.Federal Lands
belong to “We the People of the United States . . . ”Federal Lands do NOT belong to the states or exclusively to local yokels
with attitude problems . . . even if they do strut around carrying guns while
shouting about how much they hate the government.The Federal
Governement DOES NOT compromise with terrorists, either foreign or domestic.
I agree, but your remarks are a might tepid. But this will liven things up.
The organizers of Burning Man (who do pay a user fee to the BLM) have declared
"Bundyfest" to be held right after Burning Man right across the road
from Mr. Bundy's ranch. Since Bundy has declared himself to be outside of
U.S. jurisdiction, Bundyfest will be an exercise in pure anarchy. Anything
goes, and I do mean anything. It should be quite an event. I will await your
editorial about that along about September.
They don't want compromise. Harry Reid is trying to provoke a civil war and
Cliven Bundy will only negotiate with the County Sheriff.
FT"What should happen is Clive Bundy and the anarchist
surrounding him should be gathered up and thrown in jail. If they don't go
peacefully then take them by force."Move to North Korea. Nobody
except for the Government has Guns and everybody below them is treated equal.
It's inhumane but at least it's equal and your all about equality. You
wouldn't have to worry about militias or anybody speaking out against your
Where's the right's towards occupy Wall Street and illegal aliens?I thought the law was the law? I guess the law only applies
Bundyfest sounds like a lot of fun. Keep us posted so we can be there.
@Mike RichardsAre you a SCOTUS Justice? A federal appellate or
district court judge? A Utah Supreme Court Justice? A Utah appellate or
district court judge? Or even a Utah justice court judge? If so, then you can
rule authoritatively on the constitutionality of an action (assuming it is
brought before you in a case in your jurisdiction); if not, then your opinion
and interpretation regarding constitutionality is just that -- a personal
opinion bearing no authoritative weight, and no more valid than any other
"lay person's" opinion regarding constitutionality, based on their
own interpretation. For anyone who is not an appointed judge to assume that
their opinion on all things constitutional is the final word on the matter is
the height of conceit and hubris.If you can cite case law
(preferably SCOTUS case law; while other case law is authoritative, it is also
subject to appeal) that requires the federal government to "divest itself of
all 'public lands'" under any part of the U.S. Constitution, then
I would gladly concede the point, as I'm sure would the others here who are
challenging your claim. Until then, it's just a personal opinion.
SG in SLC,Are YOU a citizen of the United States of America? Whose
Constitution is it, yours or the governments. Whose blood is spilled when we
are commanded to report for duty? Whose money is taken when the government
needs revenue?Wake up! You can read. You KNOW that the government
has been prohibited from "owning" more than a parcel of land 10 miles
square, but YOU don't care. YOU want the King to tell you what liberties
and what freedoms you have. We are free citizens of the United States of
America. We have no King. We are the keepers of the Constitution. As long as
you allow the government to define what your liberties and freedoms are, you
will lose those liberties and freedoms.You believe the balony that
politicians have fed you. Unlike Washington, Adams, Franklin and the
other's who pledged their all, you are satisfied with the crumbs from the
table of the "king". Shame on you.
Mike… show me the language that says the government can not own
land…. show us, please! Enough of this silliness. Either site precedent,
or be willing to learn. But minus something other than your opinion or
interpretation… it holds no weight…. what so ever. 240 years of law
says your wrong… with plenty of cases in the past to test the legality.
Find us one where any court has said the Federal Government does not have the
right to own land…. please! If you have something more than your
opinion… please share it… sensible people will learn from you
then.Back to the real topic…. my experience managing a
development that was located on EPA designated wetlands… I like the EPA
model where they contract with local governments to administer the lands
locally. The BLM could do the same… subcontract to the states to manage
the land. Locals know the land, understand the history and issues of the land,
and can best arbitrate just solutions. The EPA model would work very well.
@2 bits"There's nothing illegal about protesting, or possessing
weapons. "Here's the problem... are we supposed to believe
they would not use those weapons if the federal officials continued as they
were? Are the BLM employees just supposed to trust that or should they interpret
it as threatening gov't officials (surely there's a line somewhere
that must exist even if it's rather unclear what constitutes crossing it)?
@Mountanman"Some people would rather be subjects than
citizens."Not exactly, here's the thing..."You see, in America the people tell the government what it can and can
not do, not the other way around. "...what is the difference
between some American people telling gov't to go after tax evaders, and
some American people telling gov't to go after welfare fraud?
Bullying and tyranny can only be successful if citizens allow it.Cliven Bundy and his supporters are doing what we all should be doing.
Instead, we make excuses and try to rationalize the explosive growth of federal
alphabet soup agencies and their taking up arms against American citizens.The feds, up until now have been largely successful with their bullying.
Obviously, the BLM thought they could continue their nonsense unabated. The
BLM, undoubtedly is trying to figure out how to save face, while at the same
time making sure that NONE of this rubs off on Harry Reid. They have a
difficult task ahead of them!This is about WAY more than solar
panels!WHY NOT just disarm all the federal agencies, and if they
want force to be shown, go to the county sheriff, or even the state police to
make their case and have THEM handle the police work?What's
wrong with that?Besides the fact that the feds will no longer be able to
play "tough guy" without restrictions.
There are two things that citizens must remember when dealing with the
government on this issue. The first thing is: "We the People of the United
States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."We are in charge.The second thing is: Article 1, Section 8:
"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;"The government cannot own land, except the District
of Columbia, Forts, Magazines, arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful
buildings.Nevada is not owned by the Federal Government.
"You can read. You KNOW that the government has been prohibited from
"owning" more than a parcel of land 10 miles square, but YOU don't
care. YOU want the King to tell you what liberties and what freedoms you
have."In my law practice, I find that when my interpretation of
a law or statute conflicts with the way it's been interpreted by courts and
legal scholars for years, it's because I haven't done enough research
to understand it. I certainly don't jump to the conclusion that anyone who
disagrees with me is a closet monarchist trying to deprive me of my liberty."Unlike Washington, Adams, Franklin and the other's who pledged
their all, you are satisfied with the crumbs from the table of the
"king"."Please not another lecture on patriotic
sacrifice. I'm still finding Iraqi sand in my boots. "Cliven Bundy and his supporters are doing what we all should be
doing."Support to insurrectionist lawbreakers is hardly in
keeping with what conservatives purport to believe. Citizens cannot be
selective about the judicial decisions we should obey or not obey. The
alternative is anarchy.
Claiming to embody the true meaning of the Constitution in defiance of legal
authority and at the point of a gun doesn't automatically confer legitimacy
on your cause any more that it did on the Whiskey Rebellion, Nat Turner, John
Brown, the Confederacy, the coal miners at the Battle of Blair Mountain, the
Black Panthers, the 90s militia movements, or any number of other extremists of
all political stripes who are now in the dustbin of history.
Mike (and J Thompson),Yes, I am a citizen of the United States, and
it is my Constitution AND the governments, since the U.S. government is also
comprised of U.S. citizens, rather than foreign nationals or extraterrestrials
(in the "us versus them" characterization of government, the
"them" of government is really just a subset of "us" citizens).
All of "us" have skin in the game, whether as an elected/appointed
official, or a government staffer, or a private citizen.To the topic
at hand, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 gives Congress exclusive legislative
authority over the Capitol District (District of Columbia), limits its maximum
size, and gives Congress like authority over land purchased in proximity to D.C.
for the purpose of establishing defensive military installations for the
District. What it DOES NOT DO is prohibit the federal government from owning
any other land, particularly in light of Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2. To
argue that the federal government is constitutionally prohibited from owning
land is a bizarrely narrow and unorthodox interpretation of the Constitution,
and is prime evidence of why private interpretation of the Constitution, versus
Judicial Review, is problematic.***@Unreconstructed
Mike Richards -No, the Federal government has not been
"prohibited from "owning" more than a parcel of land 10 miles
square.""Conservatives" really come up with some
humdingers.The "ten miles square" in the US Constitution
refers to the nation's Capitol in DC.If what you say were true,
than America would have been prohibited by the Constitution from acquiring new
territory, including the Louisiana Purchase.I know there are a whole
lot of false claims circulating in Right Wing America, but if you just give
some of these outrageous tall tales a little thought, I think you could see how
ridiculous they really are.
I guess the Founding Fathers were Domestic Terrorists . As far as patience
wasn't 20 years enough for Clive Bundy? It was the BLM that showed up
heavily armed to enforce a tax bill . The editorial board needs to get out more
and see the state preferably on horseback before they cast any more digital
J Thompson.... your section you are quoting is taken way out of context. This
was a provision setting aside rules for the federal government to acquire land
from the states -"may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance
of Congress....and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the
Consent of the Legislature of the State,"Cession means that the
states currently have control or jurisdiction of the land, and are granting or
selling such such lands to the federal government. In the case of western
expansion, states did not exist on these lands. There was no recognized state
of Utah or Nevada. There was no state to grant or sell this land to the federal
government.There is no clause here that says the federal government
can't own land. This is a contract on how the federal government acquires
lands from states. There is not a single word in there about how lands can or
should be acquired from other countries.... or the disposition of those lands.
Compromise? How is that possible when Bundy refuses to budge. The only
compromise he will accept is to be left alone to herd his cattle on federal land
for free and with disregard for any regulations on grazing. If the courts or law
enforcement try to get him to obey the law or pay his backlog of fees, he has
his armed family and militias to stop them. They even said they would use women
as human shields. The worst terrorists do that. How can the DN suggest
compromise when one side is a free-loading, welfare cowboy, who flaunts the law,
disregards court orders, and is willing to use armed force.
Re:nonceleb"How can the DN suggest compromise when one side is a
free-loading, welfare cowboy, who flaunts the law, disregards court orders, and
is willing to use armed force"and who turns out to hold racist
views?No surprises here.
He even lost Hannity. Any one supporting this guy should evaluate his position
and the last one hundred and fifty years.