FWIW, the Posse Comitatus Act does not prevent the military from offering equipment, training, or advice for law enforcement purposes. It also doesn't apply to State Guard Units.
That means that they can give LEO's a tank, train them to operate it, and advise them as they operate it. Like what happened in Waco, TX with the Texas National Guard and the FBI.
Me thinks that the Act needs to be updated.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
Well SB there's 7 reservatons here in Montana, and I can tell you for certain that they are way more sovereign than us. They have no taxes, abide by different laws, have casino's hunt when they want, etc etc etc. They even have signs on the lake that say "ONLY TRIBAL MEMBERS ALLOWED ON BEACH"
I could go on but thats a whole other topic.
The tribes, for any practical discussion are completely beholden to the fed. They are only "sovereign" to the point the feds let them be, until they decide they're not.
As to the constitution, you need to read a little further down in Article I section 8, the part requiring purchase of any land and only when agreed upon by said state legislature, and only for very specific purposes.
When did the federal Government purchase lands in Nevada without the state legislatures approval? This is the first time I heard of such blasphemy.
So do you mean: Article IV Section 3? Because there's nothing in Article I Section 8 stating what you claim.
Quote
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.
That means: Congress has charge of the public lands within the states, which in the West constitutes an enormous amount of land. Congress also governs acquired territories, which today include Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
I wanted to take a scalp, but the kill was not mine.
My wife and son got into an argument this evening. Both were wrong in their actions, but the debate quickly became a question of who was more wrong. Nothing could be resolved until both parties acknowledged that they each owned their own behavior and disrespected each other.
As soon as disrespect was put forth, all listening ended and the hostilities began.
Some think that's the crux of the issue. I don't. When it comes to Americans pointing guns at Americans I think the question of who is most wrong is not important.
Progress will only be had when both parties acknowledge their roles in bringing things to such a confrontation and right the wrongs.
As Conservatives we always preach about personal responsibility and accountability. It would be nice to see it exercised in this case.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
It is astounding to read folks comparing mistakes by a single rancher, to the debacle we just witnessed by agencies of the United States Government, and/or any Nevada state or local law enforcement.
You're in denial. Bundy brought some of this on to himself over 20 years. The Feds should have acted sooner and a bit more incrementally to avoid the debacle.
I have no use for the Feds and BLM the way they have evolved, but I live here and encountered "Bundys" all my life. They think they have their own little fiefdoms and deserve to rule public lands.
There are plenty of good honest hard working ranchers who work within the system, such as it is. I don't envy them at all, but they don't get their tit in the wringer like Bundy did.
The BLM, and worst...the Forest Service look at these lands as theirs, not ours, just like the Bundy-types do. The comparison is glaring.
Hunt with Class and Classics
Religion: A founder of The Church of Spray and Pray
Acquit v. t. To render a judgment in a murder case in San Francisco... EQUAL, adj. As bad as something else. Ambrose Bierce “The Devil's Dictionary”
I have a serious question concerning the Possee Comitatus Act. How was it in the 1950s when President Eisenhower sent elements of the U.S. Army 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce what I believe was the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court decision to enforce racial integration? Was this not have been a clear violation of this law? I well recall in the early 1960s living in Alabama, talk of the Kennedy administration threatening to federalize the Alabama and Mississippi National Guard units for the purpose of enforcing federal will upon those states. Also, for the purpose of preventing those state governments from using their guard units for their state law enforcement. The feds never did this, but they did certainly threaten to do so. Sorry for the possible thread hi-jack, but I am really curious about this.
"...why, land is the only thing in the world worth working for, worth fighting for, worth dying for,... because it is the only thing that lasts."
Neither condemning nor condoning Bundy's actions, just comparing what one man has done to that of Gooberment agencies with hundreds if not thousands of supposedly educated trained men.
Wish some real facts would come to light on all this... as to Bundy's claim that him and his relatives have ranched and grazed their cattle on public land in the Bunkerhill area since the late 1880's. Fact or fiction it seems like nobody is really saying. I've read in a couple places that it was only distant Mormon ancestors on his mothers side that were in the Bunkerhill area and located miles from where the ranch is now located, and saying that Cliven Bundy's father and family located to the area in the 1940's from Arizona, and that their original grazing permit was issued in 1954.
Seems like a lot of this could be easily verified one way or the other.
Counselor I never said Bundy was right. I think he was a fool in the way he handled this entire travesty. He has no legal leg to stand on. Do not put words in my mouth.
But if you or any other jackass think that I would stand idly by and watch my saint of a mom being blindsided and body slammed then you are a straight up damn fool. Don't give a damn if it is over a turtle, some damn cows, or my soul.
ICYMI: CrowRifle you are arguing this with an officer that may well body slam your mom some day and his attorney that would ensure he that got a paid vacation and a bonus for so doing.
The government plans these shootings by targeting kids from kindergarten that the government thinks they can control with drugs until the appropriate time--DerbyDude
Whatever. Tell the oompa loompa's hey for me. [/quote]. LtPPowell
I was referring to the incident. Nobody but idiots would get in a situation like that.
Dunno. I can't say it's a smart thing to do, but I can't see any other path for Bundy in which he would still be ranching in 2014. Follow the court orders and he'd have had to sell out because 150 head isn't enough to keep ranching. Fight in court with great lawyers and he'd have had to sell out to pay the lawyers. Couldn't keep paying the lease since I'm sure the BLM wouldn't have accepted payments until he reduced his herd - after which he'd have been out of business.
Reminds me a bit of the folks who bought the lot to build a house on but then the EPA declared it a wetlands despite there being no water. Smart people would have cut their losses and sold. Only an idiot would have fought the EPA in a process where the only legal appeal was through the EPA - but they did and they finally won.
A lot of our history was determined by "idiots" who got themselves into situations that no rational person would have.
“The Savage 99 Pocket Reference”. All models and variations of 1895’s, 1899’s and 99’s covered. Also dates, checkering, engraving.. Find at www.savagelevers.com
Isn't it interesting that the BLM backed down when it became common knowledge that armed civilians were showing up.
That is because rightousness is more powerfull than evil. That is why George Washington was under gunned, under manned, under supplied and still won. The rightous looked into the eye of the evil and evil backed down. Evil is a coward like the BLM. We just need to stare them in the eye and stand up to them. This is why the only person they physically touched was a frail woman, noone else. They needed tazers on men like cowards. If we stand up, they will back down. Many here will say government employees will shoot us or round us up cause they don' want to loose their jobs and retirement plans. I say bull. Even satan said " a man will give up everything he has to save his life when talking to God about Job. These "men " are not going to risk their lives for a few dam cows and turtles. The BLM thugs knew full well they could easily have been all killed and there would be little defense on their part.
Good post...
Ex- USN (SS) '66-'69 Pro-Constitution. LET'S GO BRANDON!!!
Reminds me a bit of the folks who bought the lot to build a house on but then the EPA declared it a wetlands despite there being no water. Smart people would have cut their losses and sold. Only an idiot would have fought the EPA in a process where the only legal appeal was through the EPA - but they did and they finally won.
A lot of our history was determined by "idiots" who got themselves into situations that no rational person would have.
Geez, Calhoun, I can't believe you said that..
So, lemme get this straight.. Just suppose the EPA comes to YOUR place with some bogus BS and says, "you gotta move and we're takin' over your land/house and (whatever) because of ---- new law, and we're payin' you 5 cents on the dollar - or less if you refuse".
You gonna act like a sheep? Or an idiot? (serious question with no malice intended...)
Ex- USN (SS) '66-'69 Pro-Constitution. LET'S GO BRANDON!!!
So if the evil Harry Reid and his evil spawn that want the land to mitigate their solar farm are removed from the equation, what happens?
Could the BLM excuse his fines and re-instate his lease? He then begins paying grazing rights and all goes back to as it was before the turtles were brought into the equation?
Seems to me that the players behind the scenes are driving this one.
If he indeed follows Nevada's laws, he should note this part in the Nevada State Constitution, Article 1, Section 2:
"All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the [b]Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority."[/b]
I have a serious question concerning the Possee Comitatus Act. How was it in the 1950s when President Eisenhower sent elements of the U.S. Army 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce what I believe was the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court decision to enforce racial integration? Was this not have been a clear violation of this law? I well recall in the early 1960s living in Alabama, talk of the Kennedy administration threatening to federalize the Alabama and Mississippi National Guard units for the purpose of enforcing federal will upon those states. Also, for the purpose of preventing those state governments from using their guard units for their state law enforcement. The feds never did this, but they did certainly threaten to do so. Sorry for the possible thread hi-jack, but I am really curious about this.
Because the president can send in troops when there is a danger of violence because of non-compliance with the U.S. Constitution. (Back when it meant something, of course.)
Quote
An exception to Posse Comitatus Act, derived from the Enforcement Acts, allowed President Eisenhower to send federal troops into Little Rock, Arkansas, during the 1958 school desegregation crisis. The Enforcement Acts, among other powers, allow the President to call up military forces when state authorities are either unable or unwilling to suppress violence that is in opposition to the constitutional rights of the people.
We should send the troops right away to Washington D.C.! All sorts of Constitutional non-compliance going on there daily.
![[Linked Image]](http://i1288.photobucket.com/albums/b489/jrobb400/E63EF1DA-D142-445F-BD27-464205126B8E_zpstdsp6h3u.jpg)
