Posted by David Lory VanDerBeek at NevadaGovernor2014.com:
Cliven Bundy is not a racist. He is also not a polished politician in each carefully chosen word. Do you want to know what he is also not? He is not a domestic terrorist like Harry Reid who was willing to use the police state, sexual predators in the BLM to murder men, women, and children to steal Mr. Bundy’s land rights to give to Harry Reid’s friends in business. No, Cliven Bundy is not a racist or a polished politician, nor is he in control of the corporate-whore media of Harry Reid and company who will twist every word he says out of context. In any event, I do not have to agree with Mr. Bundy on each word he says or how he says it to know that he must be protected from the likes of Harry Reid. Thank you, DLV
Here is the full clip of his remarks in question, which are clearly not racist.
PF, I do believe we have agreement.
My only reservation is I don’t know if the Bundy family has “clearly” established their ownership of the land. I certainly see that he has a case, and I see that there has been a “custom” of homesteading in similar circumstances.
I’d probably need to go to law school and specialize in real estate law to offer a definitive opinion about the specifics of his case. Or do a LOT of lay study.
Of course, I do have sympathies with the Bundys (on one level), and I have consistently agreed that USG ownership (in the current construct) of SO much land seems entirely unjustified. Then again, given Bundy’s inartful public pronouncements on matters separate from this case, my sympathies for his lot have all but evaporated. I could say the same for McVeigh, but in his case, my sympathies for him and his cause COMPLETELY evaporated.
I’d prefer to see Ls steer way clear of haters and the zealously violent, especially if the violence is more “stunt” than concerted revolution for liberty, which seems like a good idea if the times are ripe, like they were in the 1770s.
I would say, though, that the Georgist construct could be compelling, but I certainly don’t think it should be used selectively (e.g., certain federal lands). There’d have to be widespread acceptance in a nation-state or territory (like a city or a state) of the Georgist approach for it to work. At least that’s my take at the moment!
Perhaps the feds did claim to own the land in question all those years? Yet, they clearly established through customary use, over generations, the grazing rights of Bundy’s family and that of their former neighbors. There’s a lot of precedent throughout hsitory for such long term customary use creating some non-titular property rights over time. The monarch can wave his hand and say he owns half the hemisphere, but does that justify his seventh-generation descendent forcing the seventh-generation descendent of the guy who homesteaded the land off of it?
a: Going by the rational that the federal government should own this land within a state which is not being used for any constitutional purpose, couldn’t the federal government just “own” all of the land in this country and then charge everyone a fee for using it?
me: According to Georgists, that would be ideal. I can’t say they have sold me, but they make a strong case that such a setup would be equitable, particularly if the proceeds were used to pay a citizen’s dividend and to fund a tiny domestic tranquility institutions.
Except they would say just all the land with no qualification.
A: Who is evading anything? Maybe I missed it, but I’ve yet to see an explanation as to what constitutional basis this land in question should be “owned” by the federal government. It should be an issue left to the state or to the people, as per the 10th amendment.
Me: Andy, I’ve answered this several times…Article 4, Section 3. I could count the number of times I’ve cited it in this thread if you find that helpful.
Yet you persist in completely ignoring the answer I’ve provided you numerous times. I just don’t know what to make of that! Hence, my propensity to repeat myself, please forgive me!
I can’t say for sure that you are a dogmatist, but this is behavior that one sees in dogmatists of various stripes. Direct evidence is presented to them, and they simply ignore or deny the clear evidence.
Will you ignore my response yet again? You can read NV’s Constitution as well, and ignore those words as well. Or, like PF, claim they meant something else in 1864 without providing what that something else was and why we should believe that something else was meant. Groundless assertions can of course be made, but I and most of humanity is generally skeptical of such things!
I am trying to broaden my responses and illustrations of why “libertarian” need not mean “lunatic fringe,” as it unfortunately has been positioned historically. I’ll continue to work on exposing the flaws in L theory that SOME claim is the L plumbline when other, more serviceable L theories of the nature of wo/man and state are available as analytical tools and provide the basis for relevant and possibly successful approaches to L politics.
Robert Capozzi said: “I’ve noticed that Andy and to a lesser extent PF have a tendency to evade when their positions are exposed as weak or even nonsensical. I’m pretty sure that most neutral parties reading this thread would see that. A dogmatist might not.”
Who is evading anything? Maybe I missed it, but I’ve yet to see an explanation as to what constitutional basis this land in question should be “owned” by the federal government. It should be an issue left to the state or to the people, as per the 10th amendment.
Going by the rational that the federal government should own this land within a state which is not being used for any constitutional purpose, couldn’t the federal government just “own” all of the land in this country and then charge everyone a fee for using it?
Speaking of tendencies, here are a couple of tendencies that I’ve noticed from Robert Capozzi:
1) He claims to be a Libertarian, yet he seems to spend most of his time arguing against liberty with fellow Libertarians.
2) He seems to bring up the same things over and over again in multiple threads, even after people have refuted him, such as with his assertions about the Civil War, the “cult of the omnipotent state,” carrying guns in places where the public has access, etc…. Topics such as these have already been beaten to death here, yet it seems that Capozzi keeps bringing up the same things even though people have already debated these topics with him ad nauseam.
^ Amusing pingback…
No evasion here and I am no dogmatist. I have a tendency to walk away from conversations that are taking too long because I am badly overextended timewise. Take a typical day like yesterday for example, up at about 5 or 6 AM and out the door by six something, busy til I got back after 10 PM, then sort through a few hundred emails, leave a few short comments here with nine tenths of my brain already asleep, drift off to sleep some time after midnight with the computer on the bed, wake up several times in the night too tired to fall asleep but also too tired to turn computer back on or alternatively move it off the bed, drift in and out of sleep til giving up on the idea at 7 am this morning. That’s sleeping in late because my ride/co-worker has some other business this morning, normally I would already be on my way to work by now.
So no, I am not interested in any involved or protracted debates and it is not because I am evasive.
I’d like to post links to some of the articles I have read that I think summarize it better than the Atlantic article you linked; but I really have other things to do than try to find those links again right now. And that is unlikely to change soon.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-irony-of-cliven-bundys-unconstitutional-stand/360587/
Nice summary of the sitch….
a: What business does the federal government have “owning” this land?
me: First, I find this particular matter fascinating on many levels. Not only the law and politics of it, but more what appears to be the workings of the dogmatic mind. Why it evades when it can easily recognize that, at minimum, the narrative it has adopted is weak.
For ex., I have REPEATEDLY said in many ways that I don’t think the Feds should own this land. Yet, you persist in asking this question. Why do that? Do you not see that I agree with you?
Take yes for an answer!
a: What constitutional purpose does it serve for the federal government to “own” this land?
me: Interesting question. The “constitutional *purpose*.” Dunno. The “purpose” is expressed in the preamble as I see it, and I s’pose some could make the case that holding that property is a way to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
To be clear, I don’t make that case.
Again, though, there is constitutional AUTHORITY to hold that land here:
“The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; ”
LANGA: Personally, I find “debating” him to be like having a conversation with a six-year-old who keeps asking “Why?” over and over again. Sure, you could continue answering, but what’s the point?
me: Sorry you feel that way. The truth is I don’t spend much time at all on here, I write fast.
Sometimes, the conversation gets interesting, like here, not so much because of the current issue (Bundy) or even the interpretation of the Constitution.
I’ve noticed that Andy and to a lesser extent PF have a tendency to evade when their positions are exposed as weak or even nonsensical. I’m pretty sure that most neutral parties reading this thread would see that. A dogmatist might not.
I’m fascinated by this phenomenon, mea culpa!
Asking “why” down to the bottom is the radical way. It seems children are innately radical, until they are moulded by parents and teachers into the dysfunctional thought systems that we see messing this world up every day.
“Deran May 11, 2014 at 11:44 pm
And even more loathsome than Mr. Bundy ripping me off by not paying land use fees to me are these ignorant selfish people on the ATVs and motorcycles trashing more public land that had not only native american archaeological sites,”
LOL! How did Cliven Bundy rip you off? Do you realize how large the federal budget is? Do you realize how many people are in the USA, and how large the country is geographically? You acting as though you have personally been ripped off by Cliven Bundy not paying these fees is rather absurd, and the question of by what constitutional authority does the federal government “own” this land has still not been answered.
And even more loathsome than Mr. Bundy ripping me off by not paying land use fees to me are these ignorant selfish people on the ATVs and motorcycles trashing more public land that had not only native american archaeological sites, but also historical sites of early US and Spanish colonialism in the region. They are incredibly selfish. All their running around on those machines will last a short while, and what they destroy is destroyed, permenantly. Loathsome people.
No one is running away. I have been busy and offline.
You’ll have to forgive RC. He doesn’t seem to understand that, unlike him, most people’s lives don’t revolve around IPR, and they may have other things that are more important or more interesting than pointing out his logical fallacies. You know, like watching paint dry, for example.
Personally, I find “debating” him to be like having a conversation with a six-year-old who keeps asking “Why?” over and over again. Sure, you could continue answering, but what’s the point?
“Robert Capozzi May 11, 2014 at 5:54 am
PF and Andy, I really hope you guys don’t run away from this. It could lead to an epiphany.”
“paulie Post authorMay 11, 2014 at 3:51 pm
No one is running away. I have been busy and offline. ”
Me too. Some people work for a living.
Robert Capozzi said: “Do you have evidence that the lands Bundy was using for grazing were NOT been held by the Feds since 1864 and before?”
Nevada became a state in 1864. What business does the federal government have “owning” this land? What constitutional purpose does it serve for the federal government to “own” this land?
pf: Key word is seems. For example: Income tax may seem like a straightforward phrase to someone today, but a century ago wages were not considered income; income back the meant profits from investment.
me: Yes, the language has changed SOME since the 19th century. Yet, if it has for the words in question, it seems that the onus is on YOU to show what they meant then, and how it differs from their meaning today. Bold assertions don’t cut it. Your income-tax example is irrelevant to this conversation. Nor would the 18th century meaning of a “well-regulated militia” apply in this case.
What we call “red” today may have been “blue” in 1864, too. If you believe that, show us. Otherwise, the word “red” written in 1864 would mean “red” (like on a stop sign) in 2014…at least for me. 😉
Recall, btw, that this discussion started by my addressing Andy’s question:
“Once again, how did the federal government come to own this land, and by what constitutional authority does the federal government own this land?”
I have answered both. NV territories were annexed as part of the settlement over the Mexican War. The properties were EXPLICITLY kept as federal lands as part of the NV Constitution, as part of the effort to make NV a state. And A4, S3 of the Constitution gives the authority. All in plain English.
pf: Because you assume with no proof or evidence that these have been federal lands all along just because some federal lands are mentioned in the Nevada constitution.
me: Fair point in theory. However, IF Bundy’s grazing lands are was not federal land since at least 1864, IOW, if the USG got those PARTICULAR lands later, I don’t see that as relevant. The feds can by the Constitution acquire land, despite my counsel that they shouldn’t.
If the title was not held by the USG, and by someone else, then – yes – this would be a very different matter. I’ve seen no claims to the contrary. I’ve only heard that Bundy is claiming in effect that he SHOULD have title, since he has homesteaded the land. That’s grand, but if there was no program in place for him to do so, he was not following the rule of law.
You Paulie may think you should have title to the Throgg’s Neck Bridge. You might paint it pink to make your case. You might drive back and forth on it many times as a way to make your case.
Yet, since the Throgg’s Neck is owned by other entities, sadly, your claim to it, despite your improvements, would likely not get you title to the bridge. Unfortunately for you, the owners of the Throggs Neck have not put it on the market, nor have they made it available to be homesteaded. 😉
pf: That is why I advised historical research.
me: I’ve done it, as have others. Mine has not been exhaustive, admittedly.
Let me turn that around and ask whether YOU have done exhaustive historical research. If so, share it or point to it. You seem awfully sure of your position. Frankly, I’d never looked into the Sagebrush Rebellion. But, like the revisionism surrounding the Confederate Elite Insurrection, the more I look into it, the more I see very large holes in the arguments.
Perhaps you reject plain language interpretations. Yes, well, the Constitution does say the USG can own land, but they only meant for certain purposes, and that’s all conditioned on the 9th and 10th Amendments,you might say.
And, yet, you can easily read A4, S3 and nowhere are any conditions laid out.
pf: Now did you make that leap [It was federal land and always was, per the deal that was struck in 1864]?
me: Fair question. At this moment, I can only say that “much” of the federal lands in NV have been held since 1864 and before. Again, I turn it around:
Do you have evidence that the lands Bundy was using for grazing were NOT been held by the Feds since 1864 and before?
You of course can run away, or make a glib one-liner. It’s a common tactic used by dogmatists when confronted with facts and truths that don’t fit their adopted narratives….
I won’t have time for any protracted back and forth any time soon. I have other things I should be doing right now.
Key word is seems. For example: Income tax may seem like a straightforward phrase to someone today, but a century ago wages were not considered income; income back the meant profits from investment.
Because you assume with no proof or evidence that these have been federal lands all along just because some federal lands are mentioned in the Nevada constitution.
That is why I advised historical research.
Now did you make that leap?
Pf: No one is running away. I have been busy and offline.
Me: Good to have you back.
Pf: Taken in historical context the language means that the would be state government (people inhabiting said territory) give up any future ability to tax (“right and title”) federal lands.
Me: Hmm, the language sounds VERY straightforward to me. So, it must be that I DID have an aneurysm! 😉 You are skipping over the relevant passages, it appears to me. McCollough v. Maryland did not allow states to tax federal lands, but given the history in AL, the Feds and NVers were cutting a hasty deal is what it looks like to me. Usually, as in AL, federal lands were turned over to the state. But, as NV was being fast tracked, they cut a separate deal.
Pf: I see no definition of how extensive those lands are either. Perhaps you could find out what percentage of Nevada was federal land in any given year and how that changed over the decades?
Me: I found no cites that address your point, but then why would the magnitude matter in this case?
pf: Your breakdown of the language is inaccurate misinterpretation of what the language meant historically and certainly has nothing to do with how the law was applied historically.
Me: Oh? I recognize your assertion, but I see no citations from you that indicates my 21st century reading of pretty darned plain language somehow differs from what was intended in 1864.
Pf: Again, Bundy, his neighbors and their ancestors have had their animals grazing this land for generations. If it was federal land all along and a matter covered in an 1860s constitution why were they allowed to do so all those years and just forced off this land in the last few years?
Me: Dunno. Perhaps its all so remote, no one was paying attention. Perhaps Bundy’s family is so far off the grid the feds didn’t know what they were doing. It’s immaterial to the question that Andy asked. It was federal land and always was, per the deal that was struck in 1864, and it IS constitutional for the feds to have property.
Is it a good idea? Not in my opinion.
No one is running away. I have been busy and offline.
Taken in historical context the language means that the would be state government (people inhabiting said territory) give up any future ability to tax (“right and title”) federal lands. I see no definition of how extensive those lands are either. Perhaps you could find out what percentage of Nevada was federal land in any given year and how that changed over the decades?
Your breakdown of the language is inaccurate misinterpretation of what the language meant historically and certainly has nothing to do with how the law was applied historically.
Again, Bundy, his neighbors and their ancestors have had their animals grazing this land for generations. If it was federal land all along and a matter covered in an 1860s constitution why were they allowed to do so all those years and just forced off this land in the last few years?
I believe that federal land cannot be taxed by states or localities, generally speaking. I also believe that to make up for this the feds send a transfer payment to the state to cover the lost tax income. DC had to give up their transfer payments as a condition of getting out from under the financial control board back prior to Mayor Williams.
PF and Andy, I really hope you guys don’t run away from this. It could lead to an epiphany.
pf: That means the state does not tax federal land.
me: I read this a few hours ago, and re-read the NV Constitution several times. Either I’ve had an undetected brain aneurysm, or you are not paying attention.
Let me break the language down for you, and you can tell me where I’m wrong, if you’d be so kind.
****
Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory,
THIS REFERS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE NV TERRITORY GIVING UP ANY CLAIMS ON FEDERALLY OWNED LANDS IN WHAT WAS ABOUT TO BECOME THE STATE OF NEVADA.
and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;
REITERATES THAT THE USG WOULD KEEP THESE FEDERAL LANDS, SOLELY AND ENTIRELY..
and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof;
THOSE WHO HOLD LAND IN NV BUT LIVE IN ANOTHER STATE WON’T BE TAXED AT RATES HIGHER THAN IN-STATE NV LANDHOLDERS.
and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.
USG-OWNED LAND IN NV WILL NOT BE TAXED BY THE STATE OF NV unless THE U.S. CONGRESS AGREES TO IT.
Paulie, you’ve always struck me as both an intelligent and fair guy. Yes, your statement is true, but it misses VERY key points in the NV Constitution, ones that run counter to the 10th amendment narrative that you seem to cling to.
To become a state, NV had to give up claims and taxing authority on USG lands.
Apparently, NV was rushed into statehood as it spend only a short time as a territory. The Rs wanted it in the Union in time for the 1864 presidential elections, and so they people of the NV territories were amenable to any number of concessions to become a full-fledged state.
Despite that, and despite 19th century phraseology, I can’t read this language as being simply about land taxes, as you assert.
Perhaps you can elaborate on how you conclude what you do.
Shutting computer down – turning phones back on. Call me if anyone wants to get a hold of me the next few hours, and send me any photos/video/whatever.
We’ll try to get more candidates signed up also now thru June 3rd.
All speakers done. Heading to the Birmingham Barons vs. Pensacola at the baseball park for our evening fundraiser.
That means the state does not tax federal land.
From the Nevada Constitution:
Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.
Federal lands are lands in the United States for which ownership is claimed by the U.S. federal government, pursuant to Article Four, section 3, clause 2 of the United States Constitution.
“The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State”
This does not explain which property belongs to the US (government) and how it so came to be owned.
PF, OK, I’ll play along:
“Federal lands are lands in the United States for which ownership is claimed by the U.S. federal government, pursuant to Article Four, section 3, clause 2 of the United States Constitution.[1]”
and
“The Homestead Acts were several United States federal laws that gave an applicant ownership of land, typically called a “homestead”, at little or no cost. In the United States, this originally consisted of grants totaling 160 acres (65 hectares, or one-quarter section) of unappropriated federal land within the boundaries of the public land states.”
Notice the term “federal land”. Sounds like ownership to me.
So, now having looked it up and validated the near-universal understanding of how land title is allocated and recognized in a civil society, it sure looks like the USG got the land in NV after the Mexican War, and, IMO, made a bad decision to not open it up much of it for homesteading and private development.
Sadly, they still own it. If they DON’T own it, then it seems sensible that you actually make the case.
Or Andy could, since he’s seems to skip over sections of the Constitution if they don’t fit his narrative. 😉
Please look up historical research. You have access to search engines just like I do and I am busy liveblogging our state convention right now.
You presume incorrectly that they ever owned it before then. Please look it up.
Use phrases such as Homestead Act, Federal Land Ownership, and so on.
PF, OK, now we’re talking. If there was a “land grab” in this case, then that deserves investigating.
Still, the notion of “unowned” seems slippery to me, unless we’re talking about atolls or something. If, when OK was a territory, there was a specific program that allowed for homesteading, that looks like a domestic-tranquility enhancing legal process.
If there was such a program in place in NV and no one took advantage of it, then I’d say the feds continued to own it. If Bundy is making an ex post case that he’s been homesteading all along despite the feds not having a homesteading policy in place, well, I’m not a supporter of ex post cases as a general rule, nor is the Constitution IIRC.
I guess I can’t get my head around the idea that land in a nation (or state) is “unowned.” I don’t believe the issue is addressed in the Constitution IIRC. Seems that if a nation claims a territory, it owns it unless a citizen has claimed it, following proper titling conventions and laws.
I would, of course, want the property to be made available for private ownership as quickly as possible, following a reasonable rule of law. It’s a disaster that the feds haven’t done so, IMO, for I can see no possible justification for them owning so much land.
You seem to presume that it was federal land when it was a territory? I’m not aware of anything even remotely resembling that. Most land in territories was considered unowned and opened to homesteading (Oklahoma for example). Federal land grabs began in earnest after all the states were formed, at least after the lower 48 were all states.
PF, sorry, “states” or “state”? If “state,” in 1848, NV wasn’t a state, it was a territory.
And there’s nothing in the Constitution that I can see that after a territory was admitted to the Union as a State that all lands were ceded to the State (though I like the idea).
Is there?
And I like the idea of homesteading as well.
But is that mechanism in the Constitution?
At least grant that your INTERPRETATION of the Constitution is an extrapolation, that there’s no specific language that says how federal properties should be released to the State it’s in on admission.
Like the “insurrection clause” empowers the feds to put down insurrections like the one of 1860, A4, S3 of the Constitution empowers the feds to own property. These may well be dysfunctional aspects of the Constitution, but it seems impossible to deny their existence.
You and perhaps Andy may wish to apply the 9th and 10th Amendments, but their vagueness on this specific matter seem clearly trumped by explicit language of the Constitution.
States and the people thereof, and generally it got opened to homesteading.
PF, it’s a GREAT question. Starting in 1848 (call it), who owned the vast majority of land in NV?
I am certainly with you that the feds own way too much land. But it doesn’t feel like an “edict” to say it owned all the unclaimed lands on acquisition of NV, though. If the feds didn’t own it, who did, per the Constitution?
I don’t know of what constitutional mechanism caused a majority of the land in most Western States to be federal land. Seems to have been a bureaucratic edict without any specific authorization that I can see.
PF, yes, so I’m guessing that yer making a “homestead” case, that Bundy should have title to the land.
Could be.
But Andy appears to be making a constitutional case that is separate from whether Bundy is the rightful owner of the land or not. He seems to be suggesting that the feds could not have owned this land, per the Constitution.
He might be correct! I really don’t have an opinion on the matter, I’m just looking at his words and the words in the Constitution, and I’m not getting the same answer.
I’m open to the Andyan interpretation, truly. I’d just like to hear one. My mind is open and pliable…school me!
Once again the land has been grazed by Bundy, his neighbors and their families for many generations
A, I don’t know the answer to both aspects of the question. I’d – like you – like to hear a good answer.
I simply have pointed to a potential piece of the answer. NV was a territory for quite some time before becoming a state…looks like from 1848-1864. Perhaps that land remained federal property from those days. Was it? I don’t know, and since I don’t have a dog in this fight, I’m not inclined to research it.
I don’t see anything in the Constitution about what happens to federal land when a territory becomes a state. Is there language covering that that I’ve missed?
Personally, I’d be inclined to cede federal lands in territories over to states on admission into the Union, but you’ve framed this as a CONSTITUTIONAL question, versus a broader public policy one.
Of course, that language does allow the federal government to own and regulate land IN states as well with the clause “other property belonging to the United States.” At least, that’s how I read it. Do you read it differently?
I’d like the feds to own as little land as possible, to be clear. Were it up to me, it might get rolled back to the Capitol, the Supreme Court, maybe the White House and probably some Coast Guard bases. Once accomplished (in theory in possibly a century, best case) we can look at shrinking it further still, if so indicated at that (hypothetical) time.
“Robert Capozzi May 10, 2014 at 7:59 am
‘Andy: Once again, how did the federal government come to own this land, and by what constitutional authority does the federal government own this land?’
me: A4, S3 does say this:
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.”
The land in question is within one of the 50 states, and is not being used for a federal court house or a US military base, so once again I ask, how did the federal government come to own this land, and by what constitutional authority does the federal government own this land?
“Robert Capozzi May 10, 2014 at 8:56 am
P, it potentially answers the second half of the question.”
I fail to see how this answers any of the question.
Shouldn’t this be a 10th amendment issue, as in something that is left to the states, or to the people?
P, it potentially answers the second half of the question.
That presumes the property belong to the United States (government) which was actually the question.
Andy: Once again, how did the federal government come to own this land, and by what constitutional authority does the federal government own this land?
me: A4, S3 does say this:
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
“Deran May 10, 2014 at 12:22 am
Mr. Bundy is thief – he has stolen over a million dollars he owes me from making a profit off of land I, as a member of the US public own outright.”
Once again, how did the federal government come to own this land, and by what constitutional authority does the federal government own this land?
Deran,
If Mr. Bundy was ranching on your land for all these years, he wouldn’t owe you a cent. He would be in adverse possession of it, past the statute of limitations. You’d have no monetary claim against him.
Could you please drop the nonsense about him owing you money personally? It’s ineffective hyperbole.
Comparing “racist” with “duck” is also a poor analogy. “Racist” is a subjective term. It is often used in a political context (as Deran perfectly demonstrates above) to antagonize opponents while avoiding the merits of their argument. Use of it is controversial. On the other hand, “duck” is an objective term. It is not controversial, but factual.
Mr. Bundy is thief – he has stolen over a million dollars he owes me from making a profit off of land I, as a member of the US public own outright. And it turns out Mr. Bundy is a racist. Surprise, surpise.
I do not think the comparison to Ruby Ridge is accurate. While a racist and white supremacist, Mr. Weaver and his family, to my knowledge, were not engaged in activity that earned them a profit via illegal use of my/public resources.
As I’ve said before, I blame the BLM for incompetenence in collecting all the money owed me and the public from Mr. Bundy. This was allowed to drag on way to long, now I doubt I will ever see one cent from Mr. Bundy.
And if the armed gimbas that showed up to defend Mr Bundy were actually concerend about who owned the land Mr. Bundy was illegally using and the expansion of federal land control, they would be all about seeing the land retiurned to the Indian tribe(s) it was stolen from in the first place. These people aren’t interested in protecting property rights.
“a lot more freedom than we have not. ”
Should read, “a lot more freedom than we have now.”
The comparison with the Holocaust is ironic, since one of the best arguments against casual accusations of racism is that they tend to trivialize actual, legitimate accusations of racism, much as casual use of the term “holocaust” trivializes the actual, historical Holocaust:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_trivialization
Another good analogy would be the claims of certain ultra-radical feminists that all forms of heterosexual intercourse are tantamount to rape, which clearly trivializes actual cases of rape.
“Cody Quirk May 9, 2014 at 11:32 pm
You guys aware that a lot of Nevada Libertarians are backing Vanderbeek, right? David even has a ‘Libertarians for Vanderbeek’ organization up and running, with legitimate Libertarians as members.”
I did not know this, but I’m not surprised. The Libertarian Party of Nevada is still recovering from several years of dysfunction, so it is not surprising that there are Libertarians who are backing a candidate from another party for Governor. Hopefully the LP of Nevada will get their shit together so they can fully get behind their own candidate for Governor next time.
“You guys aware that a lot of Nevada Libertarians are backing Vanderbeek, right? ”
He’s the only opposition candidate on the ballot, unless the Greens win their lawsuit, so if I was in Nevada I’d probably vote for him. But on this we very much disagree.
Andy: exactly.
paulie Post authorMay 9, 2014 at 10:52 pm: “Exactly. Only difference in the current case is that the feds backed off (at least for now).”
If more Americans would follow the example set by those people who stood up for Cliven Bundy, we might actually have a free country, or at least one that has a lot more freedom than we have not.
This is what the Militia is supposed to be. Americans taking a stand like this could have stopped Ruby Ridge, Waco, the raid on the home of Ed & Elaine Brown, and many, many other instances where the government overstepped its constitutional bounds and violated people’s rights. Some of these incidents are well known, but many of them are incidents about which most people have never heard.
I heard that some members of the Free State Project in New Hampshire are doing something like this with CopBlock, as in if somebody is being harassed by the police, they send out a distress call and CopBlockers show up with video cameras.
The question to ask here is would other ducks recognize Launchpad McQuack as a fellow duck? I quack fluent duck, some of my best friends are ducks, and I say Launchpad McQuack is no duck! At best he is some kind of terrifying genetically modified gene spliced human-duck hybrid, and that’s on a good day.
You guys aware that a lot of Nevada Libertarians are backing Vanderbeek, right? David even has a “Libertarians for Vanderbeek” organization up and running, with legitimate Libertarians as members.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Libertarians-For-David-Vanderbeek/416992218430504
I’m with langa 100% Bundy’s comments, while insensitive and ignorant, were not racist and certainly were taken out of context.
It’s disappointing that some LP’ers on here have that politically-correct, overly broad & leftist distorted view of the definition of racism, and I certainly don’t buy the media’s BS about his comments; in fact I find it hypocritical how all these big-wig politicians and government officials threw a fit over the actions and misinterpreted comments of an average, humble rancher stuck between a rock and a hard place right now.
I still stand with Cliven Bundy, regardless.
It’s important to draw the distinction between a duck and a cartoon drawing of something that somewhat resembles a duck in certain respects. While the human brain may interpret “Launchpad McQuack” as a duck, in reality it is just some lines on a piece of paper, projections on a screen or a guy in a duck suit. And even the drawing is not exactly of a duck…it’s kind of like a duck, but talks like a human, wears human clothes, etc.
So, no, Launchpad McQuack is most definitely not a duck 🙂
Be sure to look for my next article;
Jed Lory VanDerZiggler: Launchpad McQuack is Not a Duck
“The bottom line is that the federal government (or more accurately, the national government) has no constitutional authority to own that land or to even be there to harass Cliven Bundy in the first place.”
Not disagreeing at all.
It doesn’t sound good in context either.
As I already said, it should not.
Very good comparison.
Exactly. Only difference in the current case is that the feds backed off (at least for now).
Correct.
I don’t know if Cliven Bundy is a racist or not, although it sounds like some of what he said was taken out of context. Regardless of this, even if he is a racist, why should this change anything?
This kind of reminds me of Ruby Ridge. Yes, Randy Weaver was a white separatist, which made him a racist, but this does not mean that he was not screwed over by the government, because he was most definitely screwed over by the government. Randy Weaver did nothing wrong and was minding his own business in rural Idaho. He was set up by a BATF agent over a shot gun that was 1/4″ too short, which is an absolutely ridiculous and unconstitutional charge. The feds tried to pressure him into working as an confidential informant, he refused, which was his right, so they raided his house and blew his wife’s brains out, shot his son, and even killed his dog. It should be blatantly apparent that the government over stepped its constitutional bounds, and Randy Weaver having been a racist did not make any of this OK.
It really does not matter if Cliven Bundy is a racist or not as far as the issue at hand goes. The bottom line is that the federal government (or more accurately, the national government) has no constitutional authority to own that land or to even be there to harass Cliven Bundy in the first place.
“Why is it so important to you guys to brand this guy as a racist”
The same reason it’s so important to brand a quacking, feathered water fowl as a duck. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. I don’t need to, nor will I stoop to, defend my declaration that it is a duck, because it just is.
At least we agree that they are ignorant drivel.
I’m sure that Jews were also better off during the holocaust.
Did you miss the part where I said his comments were “undoubtedly stupid”?
Why is it so important to you guys to brand this guy as a racist, rather than just denouncing his comments for what they were, which is ignorant drivel?
Yes, it helped build a sense of Jewish solidarity, which gets lost in more tolerant circumstances. But clearly, there’s nothing anti-semitic in pointing that out.
I’m sure that Jews were also better off during the holocaust.
OK, saying that blacks were/would be better off as slaves is not racist. You’ve convinced me.
He said blacks were better off under slavery. I don’t care what else he said or what the context was, that’s fucking racist.
How so? He’s not saying (at least not anywhere I’ve heard) that they deserved to be slaves, or that their current situation is their fault. His comments were undoubtedly stupid, but I don’t see how they were racist, per se.
Of course, it’s possible that he is a racist, but I don’t think it can be automatically inferred merely from what he said. Bigotry of any kind is a very serious charge, and unlike some people around here, I try not to throw those sorts of accusations around unless I have something more substantial to base them on. Of course, you can say whatever you want.
Yep!
He said blacks were better off under slavery. I don’t care what else he said or what the context was, that’s fucking racist.
I don’t feel like getting dragged into a debate over the definition of racism to me. His comments seemed racist to me but YMMV. I agree that he is a poor spokesman, but I also believe he is a guy who has been screwed by the government, along with his former neighbors that have been driven out of business.
Whether Bundy is a “racist” really depends on how you define that term. For me, the term “racist” implies someone who harbors some sort of animosity toward members of other races, and that’s not really the sense I get from Bundy (at least not from his ill-advised comments on welfare). Rather, I get the sense that he’s a guy who likes to shoot his mouth off about things that he has very little knowledge of, and then when he gets called out, he’s too stubborn to back down. So, I would say he’s just a loudmouth, rather than a racist, unless your definition of “racist” is a lot broader than mine.
In any case, though, he’s a very poor spokesman for liberty, mainly because I don’t think he really cares much about it. He often tries to cloak his arguments in an ideological veneer, but it seems quite obvious that he is actually motivated only by self-interest, and would be happy to say that the Federal Government was the rightful owner of the land, if he felt that arrangement would be more beneficial to him.
He is a racist, but not a thief. The feds have no legitimate claim to the land his family’s cows have grazed for generations.
“Mike Indiana May 3, 2014 at 1:18 pm
Even if he is not a racist (which he obviously is) he is a thief. He stole from you from me and the rest of the American public. Federal land is public land! what makes him think that he doesn’t have to pay grazing fees when everyone else does”
How did the federal government come to own this land in question, and by what constitutional authority does the federal government have to own this land?
“You can go back into your media induced comas now.”
I don’t pay attention to mainstream media at all other than to gather articles for this site. So nice try. Racism is racism, period. End of story.
Come out of your media induced coma. Doesn’t matter what shills or dishonest people say,,, the man is accurate in describing Mr. Bundy. You can go back into your media induced comas now.
Even if he is not a racist (which he obviously is) he is a thief. He stole from you from me and the rest of the American public. Federal land is public land! what makes him think that he doesn’t have to pay grazing fees when everyone else does. As far as I’m concerned Cliven Bundy owes me a steak.
Does he not know how to use a space bar, or is that really his last name?
I’m convinced too. It’s unanimous!
Ah, one white guy claiming another white guy is not racist. I’m convinced!