URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Bleacher Bums Forum
  HTML https://bbf.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Archives
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 176328--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
   DIR By: otto105
       Date: April 17, 2014, 7:06 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Keep the women and children out front...
       #Post#: 176333--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
   DIR By: WshflThinking
       Date: April 17, 2014, 7:54 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       JJ apparently you don't want those plane pics. I sent you a
       message above to show you how it works.
       #Post#: 176336--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
   DIR By: davep
       Date: April 17, 2014, 8:08 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: WshflThinking link ---
       >
       > The issue at stake really is the land rights that go back to
       the 1880's which is the source of the disagreement. That issue
       should be brought before the Supreme Court. Its like the old
       Spanish land grants. Some of those claims aren't honored.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       The issue at stake is the Endangered Species Act, which HAS been
       before the courts.  And the family has taken it to court and
       lost three separate times.  Their cases may well work their way
       up to the Supreme Court, but until then, they have to obey the
       law like the rest of us.
       Just because they have been using Federal Land for a long period
       of time does not give them ownership in it, absent any Federal
       law that does so.  And even if they had such a right, the fact
       that they have not paid grazing rights for almost two decades
       certainly would have ended that right.
       The Constitution gives the Federal Government the authority to
       manage Federal Lands.  If they do not like the way it is being
       managed, they can  try to win in court.
       #Post#: 176337--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
   DIR By: Pekin
       Date: April 17, 2014, 8:21 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Legally the Bundy's don't have a leg to stand on.  Place a lien
       and be done with it.  No need to bring in a bunch of armed men,
       taze people, and spend tax dollars rounding up cattle.  They are
       not endangering anyone.
       Cattle do not trample tortoise, they go around them.  However
       the ATV's that can run on the land do not.
       
       #Post#: 176339--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
   DIR By: WshflThinking
       Date: April 17, 2014, 8:50 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: davep link ---
       >
       > The issue at stake is the Endangered Species Act, which HAS
       been before the courts.  And the family has taken it to court
       and lost three separate times.  Their cases may well work their
       way up to the Supreme Court, but until then, they have to obey
       the law like the rest of us.
       >
       > Just because they have been using Federal Land for a long
       period of time does not give them ownership in it, absent any
       Federal law that does so.  And even if they had such a right,
       the fact that they have not paid grazing rights for almost two
       decades certainly would have ended that right.
       >
       > The Constitution gives the Federal Government the authority to
       manage Federal Lands.  If they do not like the way it is being
       managed, they can  try to win in court.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       But that land used to be state land and it was taken over by the
       Feds. And he was paying grazing rights to the state, but not the
       Feds
       #Post#: 176345--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
   DIR By: Pekin
       Date: April 17, 2014, 9:16 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       He claims he would have continued to pay the state but no one
       would take the money.  Regardless he is an idiot for not paying
       the grazing rights and endangering his family.
       He is not the only one though.  There are many ranchers who
       refuse to pay.
       #Post#: 176350--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
   DIR By: WshflThinking
       Date: April 17, 2014, 9:54 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       There is another rancher who has taken the Govt to court and
       won. Apparently they are using the same tactics with all the
       ranchers and this Fed judge Jones came down hard on the Feds.
       #Post#: 176363--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
   DIR By: otto105
       Date: April 18, 2014, 12:22 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Nice reach, the cases are not the same.
       #Post#: 176370--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
   DIR By: Jes Beard
       Date: April 18, 2014, 5:49 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: otto105 link ---
       >
       > From the Nevada Constitution.
       >
       > Atlantic contributor Matt Ford pointed out Monday that Article
       1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution directly contradicts
       Bundy’s actions:
       >
       >
       > “... Whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof
       attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the
       Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of
       the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to
       its Authority.”
       > Bundy isn’t upholding state sovereignty—he’s upholding his own
       personal conception of state sovereignty.
       >
       > Can any of you olde white militia types explain what olde
       clive is standing in?
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       That provision of the Nevada constitution is only relevant if
       someone in Nevada is attempting to secede from the federal
       government.  When is it that Bundy said he was trying to do
       that?
       #Post#: 176372--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Politics, Religion, etc. (4.15.14 - 9.10.15)
   DIR By: Sportster
       Date: April 18, 2014, 7:14 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I don't know the true specifics of this case, as do none of us,
       but for me I'm glad to see folks standing up to this out of
       control Government. There need to be checks and balances in this
       and this was a time when the people 'checked' the Government and
       basically said 'Enough! You've come so far, you'll go no
       further!'. I like that....otherwise we're not a Government for
       the people, but to control the people.....
       *****************************************************
       Page 10 of 817
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page