Interesting post from Free Republic concerning Bundy vs. BLM

[El Laton Caliente]

A quick background as to why the BLM should not be harassing Cliven Bundy. This issue goes all the way back to the Confederation Papers, prior to the writing of our US Constitution.
Please remember that the Supreme Court has reversed more than 150 of earlier Supreme Court decisions on natural law. Is that what you would consider as someone being consistent and reliable in interpreting the Constitution?

The Resolution of 1780, "the federal trust respecting public lands obligated the united States to extinguish both their governmental jurisdiction and their title to land that achieved statehood."

In the Constitutional Convention of 1787, The Charter of Liberty contained these words, "The new Federal Government is an agent serving the states.", "The delegated powers are few and defined", "All powers not listed are retained by the states or the people", "The Resolution of 1780 formed the basis upon which Congress was required to dispose of territorial and public lands", "All laws shall be made by the Congress of the United States". (not agency bureaucrats!)

That should be sufficient for you to determine who all public lands belong to, hint - NOT the Federal Government!

"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, it's meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted. it means now". So said the Supreme Court in South Carolina v United States in 1905

Articles of Confederation, Article VI, clause 1 All engagements entered into before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. In Article IX "... no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States."

Formation of a "more perfect union" does not absolve that union of prior engagements, including those obligations establish by the resolution of 1780 and the Articles of Confederation.

Our government system is established by compact, not between the Government and the State Governments but between the States as Sovereign Communities. By James Madison 1821 (This is what make the County Sheriffs the highest law enforcement officer in that County and gives him/her the authority to tell the BLM, the FBI or any other Federal Agency to get out of the County or they will be arrested and jailed.)

What I have written here is but a short piece of the process that the Founder went through to establish our Constitution and system of government.

Please view these videos and see if they don't change your mind about whether or not Cliven Bundy is in the wrong by defying the BLM.

People keep pointing out that there is no restriction on the Federal Government owning land in the Constitution. HOWEVER, it was already in the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution requires the Federal Government to comply with prior restrictions and commitments.

[El Laton Caliente]

......

[El Laton Caliente]

.....

[El Laton Caliente]

Here's one that shows why the Sheriff of Clark County is duty bound to keep the BLM and all Federal agents from arresting Cliven Bundy.

(Posted the other vids...)

[5.56NATO]

Geat vids!

[5.56NATO]

“They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists,” Reid said, according to the paper. “I repeat: what happened there was domestic terrorism.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...tics+-+Text%29

[FunkyPertwee]

“They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists,” Reid said, according to the paper. “I repeat: what happened there was domestic terrorism.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...tics+-+Text%29

“They had sniper rifles in the freeway. They had weapons, automatic weapons. They had children lined up. They wanted to make sure they got hurt first … What if others tried the same thing?” he said.

Sounds like a taste of things to come.

[l921428x]

what were the people that used to drop nukes on Nevada?

[Gunner1558]

“They had sniper rifles in the freeway. They had weapons, automatic weapons. They had children lined up. They wanted to make sure they got hurt first … What if others tried the same thing?” he said.


What if others tried the same thing?” he said.


Call in Len Hariuchi? (Sp?)

[El Laton Caliente]

Lon Tomohisa Horiuchi

May he rot in hell...

[Kadmos]

Sorry, but the idea that the federal government can't own land is ridiculous. 3/4ths or so of the US was purchased by the Federal government from foreign countries. And yes while these were at first territories, allowing the states to form didn't mean the federal government lost all rights to any land they bought.

Further, most of the states don't have the budget to properly maintain the land that the federal government now manages. They would either be forced to let them fall into total disrepair, or sell them off, which would deprive all the citizens from having access to those lands, except the new owners of course.

As to the Articles of confederation argument, the Constitution replaced the AoC, not amended them. They have no current legal status, the government was literally disbanded and replaced. New elections were held. The Confederation ceased to exist.

[El Laton Caliente]

Sorry, but the idea that the federal government can't own land is ridiculous. 3/4ths or so of the US was purchased by the Federal government from foreign countries. And yes while these were at first territories, allowing the states to form didn't mean the federal government lost all rights to any land they bought. Ummm, yes, that is exactly what the prior obligation meant

Further, most of the states don't have the budget to properly maintain the land that the federal government now manages. They would either be forced to let them fall into total disrepair, or sell them off, which would deprive all the citizens from having access to those lands, except the new owners of course. So, it would revert to nature? Is that repulsive to the "greens"? And why wouldn't the states allow access and being local, do a better job of it than the Feds?

As to the Articles of confederation argument, the Constitution replaced the AoC, not amended them. They have no current legal status, the government was literally disbanded and replaced. New elections were held. The Confederation ceased to exist.What happened to "Prior obligations"?

Are you really OK with the Jews in the Ukraine registering? Just wondering... since that is the side you support... history and all...

The entire United STATES of America is based on the Christian version of Classic Liberalism. You might review John Lott. And most of the Federalist Papers... Then think about original intent and not a living Constitution.

[imanaknut]

Actually the Constitution recognized the Articles of Confederation and specified that the prior law be accepted as current law under the new constitution.

[Kadmos]

Ummm, yes, that is exactly what the prior obligation meant

Um no, the federal government bought those lands, allowed the states to administrate them, but keep some parts of those lands as "federal property"

So, it would revert to nature? Is that repulsive to the "greens"?

It's not an issue of it just reverting to nature, its an issue of access. If the states can't maintain the roads and the facilities, then the people lose

And why wouldn't the states allow access and being local, do a better job of it than the Feds?

They don't have the funds. And even if they did have the funds for a short time, they might not always have the funds. It's much easier for a state to sell off those lands than it is for the federal government. It would take an act of congress to sell off our national parks.

Are you really OK with the Jews in the Ukraine registering?

Where the hell did that come from? No, I'm not ok with it, and screw you for implying it.

The entire United STATES of America is based on the Christian version of Classic Liberalism. You might review John Lott. And most of the Federalist Papers... Then think about original intent and not a living Constitution.

Whatever you may think of it, it's certainly no longer based on the Articles of Confederation.

BTW, remind me again who it was that made the Louisiana purchase again, buying all that land for the Federal government?

[Kadmos]

Actually the Constitution recognized the Articles of Confederation and specified that the prior law be accepted as current law under the new constitution.

Do you mind pointing out where it says that? I'm not recalling offhand it saying anything of the sort...