Here's the deal...This all relates to Commercial Law. Our Courts uphold Commercial Law without question. If you sign a Contract to give up your first born then it is still held as needing to be honored and due by the signer.
An example would be the Old Spanish Land Grants that we had to purchase even though we had Won a war in Texas and redrawn the borders. Our own Constitution outlaws "Ex post facto" laws...Period.
So if a Rancher whether right or wrong has "Grandfather Rights" through the State or through a contract with an Indian Reserve it has legal standing and cannot be challenged.
This is where we are now with this Hammond situation and the Bundy situation. No matter what happened they are in the right and the Government has absolutely no right to even think about placing retroactive regulations on these old contracts.
This is a Constitutional fact. The most recent example of abuse of this is the State of California and the new Diesel Air Quality Standards.
They can indeed require any new vehicles to meet their standards but it is totally unconstitutional for them to make everyone "Retrofit" the vehicles or Engines that are already out there in use built prior to when the law was placed into effect.
This is Ex post Facto and Retroactive and completely unconstitutional whether we like it or not per the Constitution Article 1 Sec 9 Clause 3.
When we start to turn our heads to these facts we are all done for as owners of Firearms. Because we are next...
Here's the deal...This all relates to Commercial Law. Our Courts uphold Commercial Law without question. If you sign a Contract to give up your first born then it is still held as needing to be honored and due by the signer.
An example would be the Old Spanish Land Grants that we had to purchase even though we had Won a war in Texas and redrawn the borders. Our own Constitution outlaws "Ex post facto" laws...Period.
So if a Rancher whether right or wrong has "Grandfather Rights" through the State or through a contract with an Indian Reserve it has legal standing and cannot be challenged.
This is where we are now with this Hammond situation and the Bundy situation. No matter what happened they are in the right and the Government has absolutely no right to even think about placing retroactive regulations on these old contracts.
This is a Constitutional fact. The most recent example of abuse of this is the State of California and the new Diesel Air Quality Standards.
They can indeed require any new vehicles to meet their standards but it is totally unconstitutional for them to make everyone "Retrofit" the vehicles or Engines that are already out there in use built prior to when the law was placed into effect.
This is Ex post Facto and Retroactive and completely unconstitutional whether we like it or not per the Constitution Article 1 Sec 9 Clause 3.
When we start to turn our heads to these facts we are all done for as owners of Firearms. Because we are next...
Or the deal could be that Cliven Bundy signed a lease contract and didn't pay the rent? The Spanish land grants in texas were honored after the Mexican war as that was one of the conditions of the peace treaty and also many of the Texas politicians and settlers land claims arose from those grants. Had nothing to do with ex post facto
Bundy had a lease agreement with the State before the area was stolen from the State by the Feds using the "Endangered Species Act". They just did this exact thing without any just cause or excuse at all with over 2 million acres bordering and now annexing my property.
Feinstein slippped it through without even giving notice to the private land owners at all. She appropriated Millions of dollars to do this and all they have spent so far on these "lands" was to put up a couple high classed signs.
I would like to know where the hell the rest of these exuberant funds went???
In reality this is what it is all about...Embezzlement.
Okay, so Bundy had a lease agreement with the State. The State was the landowner/landlord. That landowner/landlord transferred title of the property to the Feds making them the new landowner/landlord. The Feds now control the lease agreement. The Feds didn't "steal" the land; it was transferred to them.
What you're advocating is that any tenant under a lease can subsequently try to force a new landowner/landlord to be beholden to that lease in perpetuity. That is directly counter the concept of property rights, no matter WHO the landowner/landlord is. It's analogous to a renter in an apartment demanding that his rent not be increase, or that he not be evicted, when the apartment building is sold to another landowner/landlord who wants to remodel or tear that building down to build something else. Sorry, that doesn't fly. It certainly doesn't fly when the renter then decides to NOT pay the fees assessed by the new landlord.
Bundy has no "vested right" in rented or leased property any more than any other renter or leaser has in theirs. They provisions are governed by the language of the contract, subject to change by the landlord/landowner. If the renter/leaser doesn't like those new provisions, then they may quit the lease. They do not somehow get "rights" to the rented/leased property outside of the contract from the landowner/landlord, and certainly no "rights" beyond the contract that they then do not have to pay for under the terms of the contract.
