cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Veteran Advisor

Re: 2nd Revolution

Wanna bet that Harry Reid is behind this?
Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: 2nd Revolution

Since none of them have ever been in the military, that would seem to be valid!
Veteran Advisor

Re: 2nd Revolution

You read differently than I do. The only thing the govt did was to defuse a possible violent situation. They have not conceded that he is correct. they are just going to try to do it in a way that would hopefully, be non-violent.
Honored Advisor

Re: 2nd Revolution

If he isn`t, he`ll be hopping mad if he doesn`t get his standard cut from the sale of Bundy`s cattle...the damned old crook, Reid. 

 

The left is hoping that a backfiring pickup or something will set off a shooting war ...they might even have to shoot a few FBI informants in the melee. 

Senior Advisor

Re: 2nd Revolution


@NewAgJudge wrote:

 

.

Bundy owns his ranch's land, and was grazing his cattle on land outside of that ranch. He claims he owns that land, but has no documentation to show so, and so the BLM, which manages federally held land in the US, has been in a 20ish year fight with him. The problem is that he has not been paying grazing fees, which are a standard practice for all ranchers in the US wanting to graze on BLM land. After years of not doing anything about it, the BLM is finally barring him from grazing his cattle on these lands.

He is countering by saying the BLM is after his own land in order to give it to special interests, and that he was within his rights to "fire" the BLM. The main controversy goes back to who actually "owns" the land, as the Bundy's are using more sentimental ideals of ownership that the US government (and thus, the BLM) do not recognize.

So if he was that worried about the BLM taking his ranch, he wouldn't have stopped paying his grazing fees that are giving the BLM all the legal room in the world to harass him.


Seems like here is where the trouble started.

 

snip-

The dispute that  triggered the  roundup dates to 1993, when the BLM cited concern for the  federally  protected tortoise. The agency later revoked grazing rights for  Bundy, who is the last rancher in Clark County.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2603026/Senator-speaks-favor-Nevada-rancher-militias-join-ba...

Senior Contributor

Re: HE WON ---JUST THE BEGINNING

the demonrats will continue to hate freedom and the constitution--and they are going to get the war they want it will make nam look like a cakewalk--because this will be a war america wants to win and private and service people will fight side by side against a common enemy

Senior Contributor

Re: so they aint a loser like you

nuff said or do you need more

Senior Contributor

Retell them to try violence

obalmo has made america a ticking time bomb

Senior Contributor

Re: 2nd Revolution

The more I look into it, the more I read that he had years to get things straightened out, but failed to do so.  
He is claiming that the State has jurisdiction over the land, the BLM says the Feds do.   I have a feeling that the tortise will win this one, though, as protected species seems to fall under the Fed's jurisdiction.

Senior Contributor

Re: 2nd Revolution

From your link:  It seems that Federal law only supercedes State law, within the powers granted to it within the Constitution.   I belive since protected animals fall under Federal rule, you would be right, that in this case the Feds would have the final say:

 

Federal statutes and other federal laws are, of course, "supreme" only if made in pursuance of the Constitution, and Chief Justice John Marshall used this language in Marbury v. Madison (1803) to support his argument that the Constitution contemplates judicial review. Thus, the Supremacy Clause does not grant power to any federal actor, such as Congress. It deals with resolving a conflict between the federal and state governments once federal power has been validly exercised. It is a straightforward interpretative rule that is addressed to all legal interpreters, including Members of Congress, federal executive officials, federal judges, state-court judges, or other state officials. It does not preclude other strategies for dealing with potential national and state conflict, nor does it allocate power between the national and state governments. Other parts of the Constitution do that.