Desert ranch confrontation

[bark_bark_bark]

Bundy and his fellow Klan members, are just pissed that some of the land is reserved for wildlife and that they can't do whatever the fuck the want on it.

[dancytron]

Seems like the whole Bundy family is intent on highlighting excessive Federal control over land. This article here mentions Ammon Bundys stand against the amount of land in the Western US owned by the Federal government. I feel sure I read somewhere that the Federal government is constitutionally forbidden from owning land outside of Washington DC but this article says:

Code: Select all

On one side of the Oregon flare-up is the federal government, which owns surprisingly vast swaths of the western half of the country, ranging from 29.9 percent of Montana to 84.5 percent of Nevada, and just over half, 53.1 percent, of Oregon.

So is it unconstitutional for the Feds to own land or not?

No it is not unconstitutional for the Feds to own land. No court, no law professor, nor any real reporter has ever said that it is with a straight face.

This is one of several off the wall, totally false beliefs that members of the "Patriot" movement and the only slightly more nutty, "Sovereign Citizen" movement have.

They shout "Constitution" all the time, but they have no idea whatsoever what it actually says. They never, ever win a court case based on their off the wall beliefs. Never.

[rokytnji]

That dog don't hunt in Texas. Texas Rangers just posse you down and put a bullet in you.

Matson was shot dead by Texas Rangers two days later,

You can however occupy your own place and tell the govt. to go to hell.

One family in Texas has been doing it for years.


But take over public lands.

Never happen in Texas. Hell. I do not even own the mineral rights on any of my 2 properties. Those belong to someone else.

I imagine those boys are in for a world of hurt in the long run before everything is said and done.

[gcmartin]

Does anyone care to stop and take a look at "Bundy". He has been on a racist tear ever since the 2008 election of the US President. He is not a resident in that state, yet he found an audience and successfully encouraged them to take over a government installation. WOW...

You really need to understand the being he is. I am surprised, he too, is not running for President. Maybe he will emerge.

Look at his bio and his history when he began to surface couple years ago.

This is NOT about government, at all. (One past insider seems to think he personally intends to start a US Civil War to push back relations of women and minorities in US.)

Oh well. Watch this unfold with the GOP candidates trying to sort how to respond in efforts to garner votes for the upcoming Presidency. Bundy expects their help on his push to a War in US.

Doesn't believe in human diversity. Doesn't believe in evolution. Doesn't believe in Man's contribution to the ozone layer. Doesn't believe in others views of Religion except his. His definition of Christ is not consistent with Bible teachings. Hard to believe that in the 21st Century in the most powerful country on the planet, this kind of thinking gets even a minor consideration, must less anyone cheering this kind of mind.

I'm not sure how he has been allowed to get this far and I feel for those who have chosen to use their kids as shields in this ridiculous provocation. This is NOT Waco, this is a whole 'nuther step. Waco was about the ability of Government to investigate on their private lands. This has NOTHING to do with Waco. No comparison with Waco at any level. This is a takeover of Public property by terrorist to shut down government. We must remember that terrorist are citizens too.

[greengeek]

No it is not unconstitutional for the Feds to own land. ...

This is one of several off the wall, totally false beliefs that members of the "Patriot" movement and the only slightly more nutty, "Sovereign Citizen" movement have.

Looking from a distance (ie as a non US citizen on the underside of the world) it doesn't seem quite so clear.

Certainly this article takes a different view.
Quote: "Article One, Section 8, Clause 17, offers the only provision in the Federal Constitution for federal ownership of land. It provides for the creation of Washington, D.C. as the seat of the federal government and allows the federal government to purchase lands in a state with “...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.

[bark_bark_bark]

.... His definition of Christ is not consistent with Bible teachings....

I'm pretty sure that all the bigotry that guys like Bundy and the GOP spread would be 1:1 of what the bible says.

[dancytron]

No it is not unconstitutional for the Feds to own land. ...

This is one of several off the wall, totally false beliefs that members of the "Patriot" movement and the only slightly more nutty, "Sovereign Citizen" movement have.

Looking from a distance (ie as a non US citizen on the underside of the world) it doesn't seem quite so clear.

Certainly this article takes a different view.
Quote: "Article One, Section 8, Clause 17, offers the only provision in the Federal Constitution for federal ownership of land. It provides for the creation of Washington, D.C. as the seat of the federal government and allows the federal government to purchase lands in a state with “...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.

[gcmartin]

Here's one problem that all of mankind faces with EVERY foundational document EVER created. "As time move on, the basis changes."

The US founders recognized this and as such, Congress is given the powers to expand/enhance the foundation, thru Articles and subsequent laws.

This has occurred in many ways that sometimes is buried into what is called "Pork" as they execute their Constitutional powers in the laws they craft. In technology we call that "bloat", but in essence it is the same.

Articles and laws, recraft the origin to a better and current view of the land while giving the Government the power to execute those laws, given. When laws are enacted thru Congress, this is carried out thru the enforcement powers of the Executive branch and the Penalty assessment powers of the Court System Branch.

Some people, even in today's world, feel that giving women a voice is absolutely wrong. If you have any knowledge of the US Constitution, you will find that the origin excluded women from having a voice. It took new Articles to "amend" that to reflect the current thinking.

Looking for some 1 statement to be used as an instrument for armed confrontation of your government is NOT a part of any country's Constitution.

... No matter how much you hate your President because of his minority birth!

You must remember that this intends to fuel or start a Civil War to do "Ethnic Cleansing that GW Bush talked about avoiding when dealing in other countries". Its a backward approach to starting the War, but, could be their method of achieving such. As such, they, by arming, intend to martyr themselves as the inspirational starters of such a Civil War.

Doesn't this sound familiar? This is NO different than any of the other Terrorist we see. Just enacted a little differently for a similar reasoning.

[rokytnji]

I just can't help myself I guess.