|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,850
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,850 |
Complete BS on your part!! The fact that I'm pointing out that a lot of posters here talk about freedom and don't recognize when someone does something about it means exactly the opposite of what you're babbling. You're clearly clueless. Try to learn a lot more about systems of government before reaching unfounded conclusions and making ignorant remarks. Typical low information voter. 
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty of give me death! P. Henry
Deus vult!
Rhodesians all now
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,124
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,124 |
Is anyone here naive enough to actually believe resisting arrest earns a fair fight with the law.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Interesting questions about the details of the shooting at the roadblock. Armed confrontations with an emplaced Federal LE force executing a pre-planned operation is, almost always, likely to result in the death of the resistor(s). Based on the silent airborne video perspective, LE acted justifiably in the shooting. However, don't see Finicum's actions as SBC.
The important questions really arise from the pre-filmed video Finicum left, explaining his interpretation of the US Constitution and the Founders' intent with respect to Federal Government power and land ownership. One would be hard pressed to disagree with anything he said and I believe that most strict constructionists would agree with most of his points.
We seem to forget that the Revolutionary War was inspired by the abrogation of individual unelienable rights. Freedom is an individual right in our Nation's construct.
It's obvious that Finicum's interpretation of individual freedom and rights, while consistent with the Founders', is different than a number of posters on this Forum. We are FREE to disagree, but inpugning the man's motives, the sincerity of his beliefs, and whether he bought new chaps for a video, are really irrelevancies and beneath the dignity of most members on this Forum.
Let's not forget that only 3% of Colonists were in the field during the War of Independence, with roughly twice that number as active supporters. These patriots were viewed as radicals by the majority of the population then, especially the majority Tories in their midst.
By the standard many posters seem to apply here, the Founders' would be viewed as radical right-wing nut jobs. Fortunately for us, they understood the basis for their beliefs, were committed to them, (see the Declaration of Independence) and persisted for long years to achieve freedom.
We might draw a distinction between constitutionally accountable local LE - county sheriffs, some PDs - serving the interests of the People, and the politically led Feds. Just my 2 cents. Even insinuating this bunch is in ANY WAY comparable to the Founders is ludicrous to the extreme. We know...you're a Tory! Yeah, bull chit. However, I am smart enough to tell the difference between men like the Founders and a bunch of welfare-ranching, gov't check cashing congenital retards.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 894
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 894 |
What I think is the best general piece I've seen written on the criminal Bundy's: http://www.hcn.org/articles/im-not-so-different-from-the-bundys-heres-what-id-like-to-say-to-them"Like the Bundy brothers now illegally occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Oregon, I'm a lifelong rural Westerner, and I believe that if I were to talk with them, we'd most likely find we have a lot in common.
There's the way our lives were shaped by the land, for instance. I was born in Nevada, and I grew up and now live in southwestern Idaho. Though my family worked as carpenters, we lived on small farms where we raised cows and grew hay for the winter. Like the Bundys and many of their allies, I come from hard working, blue-collar folks.
From them I learned to love the land, especially the Northwestern high desert. I've hunted the uplands of eastern Oregon from Juntura to Rome, and from Leslie Gulch to the Imnaha. Much of that country is open range where cattle graze. Thanks to ranchers, I've watered my bird dogs at troughs where ranchers had enhanced a spring, benefitting both cattle and wildlife.
I imagine that if the Bundys and I sat down over coffee, we'd start trading stories about our early years. Pretty quickly, though, our differences would emerge. They'd insist that taking over a wildlife refuge is speaking for "the people" – Westerners frustrated by the federal government. I couldn't let that stand.
Want to read more of our coverage of the standoff and what led to it? Find it here.
I'd respond by saying: That wildlife refuge you're occupying belongs to me and to 320 million other Americans. You are trespassing, taking advantage of the hospitality and tolerance of the rest of the American people. You are abusing the rights you so readily invoke by occupying the refuge indefinitely. I would remind you that you are free to stay a maximum of 14 days, because that is the camping limit in most places, and it was put in place so that everyone can share the land.
If they let me continue, I'd suggest they go home and read Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau and perhaps brush up on their history about Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement. Parks didn't wave guns around and threaten to kill people on the bus.
Then I'd say: "You are carrying firearms and threatening to commit violence if you don't get your way. You say you want this to be a peaceful protest, but in the same breath you warn that you will fight and die for your cause. You bluster, trying to provoke a response, all the while using the media to protect you and further your cause.
"You are abusing your rights as an American. There are legal ways to change systems if you feel that they aren't working. I have heard nothing from you about your responsibilities, only demands about what you want, though ultimately, what you want is to control a resource that belongs to me and to every other American. Public lands are our birthright, and you have no right to commandeer them for your own purposes.
"Frankly, I don't want my land – which includes all the federal land in the West – turned over to people who behave like you. I want to be free to hunt, fish, hike, ride my horse, my mountain bike or all-terrain vehicle, to picnic, camp, and to bird watch on the nation's vast tracts of federal ground, and I don't want to have to ask for your permission to do so.
"Your protest is nothing more than an elaborate tantrum conducted with firearms. If you actually won claim to any public lands, I think you'd intimidate and bully others the way you and your followers did in Nevada, and the way you are doing now. Furthermore, your family owes me and 320 million of my fellow Americans more than a million dollars in back grazing fees for using public land without paying your fair share.
"When I cut firewood on nearby Forest Service land, I purchase my 10-cord, personal use permit. I pay my camping fees. I buy my hunting license. I pay to park and use ramps on wild rivers where I kayak. I pay fees because they are used to improve recreation opportunities for everyone.
So I want you to go home and start paying me and your fellow citizens what you owe us. That's what good citizens and neighbors do. Thanks for the conversation."Chris Dempsey is a contributor to Writers on the Range, the opinion service of High Country News. He lives in Idaho. I'd have to agree with a lot of what this guy is saying. Good write-up!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,519
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,519 |
You flee from a felony arrest stop and then run a roadblock, you get what you get.
Nobody had to die. He chose his path.
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." ![[Linked Image]](http://www.rockymtnrefl.com/TetonFenceBarncd1985987.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,519
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,519 |
I think folks need to do some research about federal lands, cession of jurisdiction and the Acts admitting each western state into the Union.
There are some Supreme court rulings on federal jurisdiction, the ceding of jurisdiction of federal lands and additionally, the history of federal land grants through expansion, Homestead Acts and mineral and transportation development.
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 18,243
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 18,243 |
We're at the tip of the iceberg imo
For all I know this is Finicum guy may have just decided to do suicide by cop
But I find it hard to trust a gov't that takes every 3rd day of your & mine labors as their own & is not only dead flat broke but in debt doing so
Also makes it difficult to trust them when they pass laws for us but exempt themselves
And even when they are subject to the same laws they are treated vastly different than the citizens they are purported to serve when found in violation of those laws
They add insult to the injury of our taxation by rubbing it in our faces with many of the outrageous & ridiculous applications of our tax dollars
They go on 1st class trips all at taxpayer expenses
They may not have been in the wrong in this instance but please spare me that those in the US gov't are working for the good of the people of the USA
I may never be a Mensa candidate but this ole country boy has enough sense to know when we're being pizzed upon only to be told it's raining The enemy is far greater than just the socialists.
The root problem is that govt isn't the "people" anymore. It has a life of it's own, and feeds on "the people". And there lies the problem.....right or wrong it's hard not to be suspicious of a government that seems to spend every waking hour trying to take more and more of my freedoms and money....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 840
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 840 |
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...
Last edited by Bugout4x4; 02/08/16.
When I no longer have the right to protect my own person or property...my person and property have become public property in common.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
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... There's a classic example of a complete misunderstanding of the law and "rights" vs a contract. Ex post facto laws are retroactive and unconstitutional. However, all the way back to 1798 the Constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws was determined to be only applicable to criminal law. I.e., the Congress and by incorporation under the 14th Amendment the states cannot pass a law and make something criminally illegal that was previously legal and THEN prosecute prior actions when they were legal under the law. That would be an ex post facto law. Congress and the states are well within their powers to change laws and require compliance AFTER passage of said laws. Further, this has absolutely nothing to so with any contractual agreement between the Feds (or any other party) as landowners/landlords from renegotiating lease agreements, or enforcing change provisions in said agreements. THAT is applicable to the various ranchers, including the Bundys. The Bundys do not have a "right" as defined and protected under the Constitution, but they have a contract with the Federal government under a lease agreement. To think that they have a "right" to do whatever they want on certain lands because they have had a lease for some period of time is akin to thinking that a rentor/tenant has the "right" to do whatever they want to a property even after the landlord and owner has refused to renew the contract, or is changing certain provisions of that contract for continued use. This is further compounded when rentors/leasors like the Bundys then refuse to pay their fees as determined in the lease agreement. To conflate Rights, such as the Constitutionally enumerated and protected Right to Keep and Bear Arms, with a contractual interest is a severe flaw in understanding the Constitution, the law, and the situations at hand.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,520
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,520 |
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 840
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 840 |
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... There's a classic example of a complete misunderstanding of the law and "rights" vs a contract. Ex post facto laws are retroactive and unconstitutional. However, all the way back to 1798 the Constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws was determined to be only applicable to criminal law. I.e., the Congress and by incorporation under the 14th Amendment the states cannot pass a law and make something criminally illegal that was previously legal and THEN prosecute prior actions when they were legal under the law. That would be an ex post facto law. Congress and the states are well within their powers to change laws and require compliance AFTER passage of said laws. Further, this has absolutely nothing to so with any contractual agreement between the Feds (or any other party) as landowners/landlords from renegotiating lease agreements, or enforcing change provisions in said agreements. THAT is applicable to the various ranchers, including the Bundys. The Bundys do not have a "right" as defined and protected under the Constitution, but they have a contract with the Federal government under a lease agreement. To think that they have a "right" to do whatever they want on certain lands because they have had a lease for some period of time is akin to thinking that a rentor/tenant has the "right" to do whatever they want to a property even after the landlord and owner has refused to renew the contract, or is changing certain provisions of that contract for continued use. This is further compounded when rentors/leasors like the Bundys then refuse to pay their fees as determined in the lease agreement. To conflate Rights, such as the Constitutionally enumerated and protected Right to Keep and Bear Arms, with a contractual interest is a severe flaw in understanding the Constitution, the law, and the situations at hand. There is so much wrong with your statement. You apparently had less than the 8th grade required education of the Constitution test I was required to pass before I could go to High School. This is what they would like you to "Understand it as" coming from an educator who's job it is to redefine the terminology to fit their personal agenda. Give me a bit and I will break it down for you bit by bit in relation to your statement points and proposed side skirting of the Constitution and what it upholds. First we have to start with the actual facts of both situations... Now keep in mind that we had folks "Disappear" on their way to testify in Court against the BLM take over back in the 70's...so this particular topic has been very dear to my Heart for many many years now.  YET...WE DID NOT SELL OUT TO THE EXTORTION...
When I no longer have the right to protect my own person or property...my person and property have become public property in common.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
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... There's a classic example of a complete misunderstanding of the law and "rights" vs a contract. Ex post facto laws are retroactive and unconstitutional. However, all the way back to 1798 the Constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws was determined to be only applicable to criminal law. I.e., the Congress and by incorporation under the 14th Amendment the states cannot pass a law and make something criminally illegal that was previously legal and THEN prosecute prior actions when they were legal under the law. That would be an ex post facto law. Congress and the states are well within their powers to change laws and require compliance AFTER passage of said laws. Further, this has absolutely nothing to so with any contractual agreement between the Feds (or any other party) as landowners/landlords from renegotiating lease agreements, or enforcing change provisions in said agreements. THAT is applicable to the various ranchers, including the Bundys. The Bundys do not have a "right" as defined and protected under the Constitution, but they have a contract with the Federal government under a lease agreement. To think that they have a "right" to do whatever they want on certain lands because they have had a lease for some period of time is akin to thinking that a rentor/tenant has the "right" to do whatever they want to a property even after the landlord and owner has refused to renew the contract, or is changing certain provisions of that contract for continued use. This is further compounded when rentors/leasors like the Bundys then refuse to pay their fees as determined in the lease agreement. To conflate Rights, such as the Constitutionally enumerated and protected Right to Keep and Bear Arms, with a contractual interest is a severe flaw in understanding the Constitution, the law, and the situations at hand. There is so much wrong with your statement. You apparently had less than the 8th grade required education of the Constitution test I was required to pass before I could go to High School. This is what they would like you to "Understand it as" coming from an educator who's job it is to redefine the terminology to fit their personal agenda. Give me a bit and I will break it down for you bit by bit in relation to your statement points and proposed side skirting of the Constitution and what it upholds. First we have to start with the actual facts of both situations... Now keep in mind that we had folks "Disappear" on their way to testify in Court against the BLM take over back in the 70's...so this particular topic has been very dear to my Heart for many many years now. YET...WE DID NOT SELL OUT TO THE EXTORTION... I am quite sure I've studied more on the Constitution than you, and clearly have a FAR better grasp of it than you do. Please, if there are flaws in what I posted point them out WITH specific citations to the Constitution and pertinent SCOTUS case law. This, should be interesting.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 840
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 840 |
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 Fed dollars to do this and all they have spent so far on these "lands" was to put up a couple high classed signs. They won't even now allow the Roads to be repaired, even by volunteers. 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.
Last edited by Bugout4x4; 02/08/16.
When I no longer have the right to protect my own person or property...my person and property have become public property in common.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,469
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,469 |
I didn't expect many to actually read the link, it is a little long for most. I mainly posted it for RobJordan who was inclined to research the issue after I had found a cogent starting place.
There really are two issue that get lumped together. Whether the federal government has a right to own land, and whether "use rights" such as grazing rights rise to property rights. Water law is a similar "use right".
As noted by the article as to whether the federal government can own land- "The U.S. Constitution addresses the relationship of the federal government to lands. The Property Clause, Article IV, § 3, Clause 2, gives Congress authority over the lands, territories, or other property of the United States. It reads: 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."
Last edited by KRAKMT; 02/08/16.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
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.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
I didn't expect many to actually read the link, it is a little long for most. I mainly posted it for RobJordan who was inclined to research the issue after I had found a cogent starting place.
There really is two issue that get lumped together. Whether the federal government has a right to own land, and whether "use rights" such as grazing rights rise to property rights. Water law is a similar "use right".
As noted by the article as to whether the federal government can own land- "The U.S. Constitution addresses the relationship of the federal government to lands. The Property Clause, Article IV, § 3, Clause 2, gives Congress authority over the lands, territories, or other property of the United States. It reads: 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."
I'll certainly read it. Thanks for posting.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 840
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 840 |
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... There's a classic example of a complete misunderstanding of the law and "rights" vs a contract. Ex post facto laws are retroactive and unconstitutional. However, all the way back to 1798 the Constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws was determined to be only applicable to criminal law. I.e., the Congress and by incorporation under the 14th Amendment the states cannot pass a law and make something criminally illegal that was previously legal and THEN prosecute prior actions when they were legal under the law. That would be an ex post facto law. Congress and the states are well within their powers to change laws and require compliance AFTER passage of said laws. Further, this has absolutely nothing to so with any contractual agreement between the Feds (or any other party) as landowners/landlords from renegotiating lease agreements, or enforcing change provisions in said agreements. THAT is applicable to the various ranchers, including the Bundys. The Bundys do not have a "right" as defined and protected under the Constitution, but they have a contract with the Federal government under a lease agreement. To think that they have a "right" to do whatever they want on certain lands because they have had a lease for some period of time is akin to thinking that a rentor/tenant has the "right" to do whatever they want to a property even after the landlord and owner has refused to renew the contract, or is changing certain provisions of that contract for continued use. This is further compounded when rentors/leasors like the Bundys then refuse to pay their fees as determined in the lease agreement. To conflate Rights, such as the Constitutionally enumerated and protected Right to Keep and Bear Arms, with a contractual interest is a severe flaw in understanding the Constitution, the law, and the situations at hand. There is so much wrong with your statement. You apparently had less than the 8th grade required education of the Constitution test I was required to pass before I could go to High School. This is what they would like you to "Understand it as" coming from an educator who's job it is to redefine the terminology to fit their personal agenda. Give me a bit and I will break it down for you bit by bit in relation to your statement points and proposed side skirting of the Constitution and what it upholds. First we have to start with the actual facts of both situations... Now keep in mind that we had folks "Disappear" on their way to testify in Court against the BLM take over back in the 70's...so this particular topic has been very dear to my Heart for many many years now. YET...WE DID NOT SELL OUT TO THE EXTORTION... I am quite sure I've studied more on the Constitution than you, and clearly have a FAR better grasp of it than you do. Please, if there are flaws in what I posted point them out WITH specific citations to the Constitution and pertinent SCOTUS case law. This, should be interesting. Sure no problem...The 10th amendment is still in effect as precedent from what I understand...I'll be back...
When I no longer have the right to protect my own person or property...my person and property have become public property in common.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
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... There's a classic example of a complete misunderstanding of the law and "rights" vs a contract. Ex post facto laws are retroactive and unconstitutional. However, all the way back to 1798 the Constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws was determined to be only applicable to criminal law. I.e., the Congress and by incorporation under the 14th Amendment the states cannot pass a law and make something criminally illegal that was previously legal and THEN prosecute prior actions when they were legal under the law. That would be an ex post facto law. Congress and the states are well within their powers to change laws and require compliance AFTER passage of said laws. Further, this has absolutely nothing to so with any contractual agreement between the Feds (or any other party) as landowners/landlords from renegotiating lease agreements, or enforcing change provisions in said agreements. THAT is applicable to the various ranchers, including the Bundys. The Bundys do not have a "right" as defined and protected under the Constitution, but they have a contract with the Federal government under a lease agreement. To think that they have a "right" to do whatever they want on certain lands because they have had a lease for some period of time is akin to thinking that a rentor/tenant has the "right" to do whatever they want to a property even after the landlord and owner has refused to renew the contract, or is changing certain provisions of that contract for continued use. This is further compounded when rentors/leasors like the Bundys then refuse to pay their fees as determined in the lease agreement. To conflate Rights, such as the Constitutionally enumerated and protected Right to Keep and Bear Arms, with a contractual interest is a severe flaw in understanding the Constitution, the law, and the situations at hand. There is so much wrong with your statement. You apparently had less than the 8th grade required education of the Constitution test I was required to pass before I could go to High School. This is what they would like you to "Understand it as" coming from an educator who's job it is to redefine the terminology to fit their personal agenda. Give me a bit and I will break it down for you bit by bit in relation to your statement points and proposed side skirting of the Constitution and what it upholds. First we have to start with the actual facts of both situations... Now keep in mind that we had folks "Disappear" on their way to testify in Court against the BLM take over back in the 70's...so this particular topic has been very dear to my Heart for many many years now. YET...WE DID NOT SELL OUT TO THE EXTORTION... I am quite sure I've studied more on the Constitution than you, and clearly have a FAR better grasp of it than you do. Please, if there are flaws in what I posted point them out WITH specific citations to the Constitution and pertinent SCOTUS case law. This, should be interesting. Sure no problem...The 10th amendment is still in effect as precedent from what I understand...I'll be back... Oh, good Lord... if you somehow think the 10th Amendment protects the "rights" of a leaser/renter to claim the use of property owned by someone else beyond an actual contractual lease/rental agreement - and that said use "rights" then continue in perpetuity after transfer of the property to other owners, AND after the renter/leaser stops paying on said lease/contract - then whomever "taught" you Constitutional law needs to be bitch slapped.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 840
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 840 |
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. "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." YES..Until that Lease has expired. Which in Bundy's case it had not...UCC upholds like kind Contracts without question...Bundy never entered into agreement to pay the new Fed lease Fees. Here is where he was in the right. All the DOI had to do was wait until his State Contract expired and was up for renewal. No...A show of force from the all powerful Central Government had to try and set an example of what happens when you use local rights to defend yourself. Funny thing...Jefferson was a Federalist too. Go figure.
Last edited by Bugout4x4; 02/08/16.
When I no longer have the right to protect my own person or property...my person and property have become public property in common.
|
|
|
|
|
277 members (160user, 2500HD, 163bc, 12344mag, 2UP, 28 invisible),
1,896
guests, and
1,023
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,190,492
Posts18,452,304
Members73,901
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
