Cliven Bundy, called 'lawless and violent,' to stay in jail

We should set up a blind date between him and Kim Davies...both crazy and desperate to extend their 15 minutes....

a reply to: Sublimecraft

I'm glad to see you're not carrying on with the illogical "slap an ankle monitor on him and let him go" shtick. You're absolutely correct, law enforcement is likely very concerned that he would create another armed stand off.

And that's an absolutely valid reason to deny bail to somebody. Like it or not, it is what it is.

As to your post history? I didn't challenge your consistency. No need to go there. I simply pointed out that previously you had well reasoned and worded insight to offer. Now it just seems to be the same rhetorical statements with a few words changed here and there.

"The US government is a terrorist organization." That's it in a nutshell. I genuinely miss the days of your eloquent and, frankly, genius level posts.

*shrug*

a reply to: Vector99

This is a fallacy, promoted by the sovereign citizen* movement. Show me where the constitution forbids it? Just because it isn't explicitly enumerated does not mean it is not allowed. The COTUS says the Congress makes the laws. They did. If you don't like it, change the system from the inside. Not these extralegal shenanigans.


*sovereign citizen is a complete oxymoron.
Citizen, by law, means that you are a member of a country. If you are a sovereign, (in this case, free from United States federal government control) then you can't call yourself a citizen.
IMHO the entire movement is Un-American! All the photos of these yahoos wrapped in the American flag won't change my feelings.

a reply to: buster2010
a reply to: Vector99

Well lets see...

The Bundys have stated they dont recognize the Federal government. They claim the federal government cant own land even though the property clause in the Constitution says otherwise, and never mind the antiquities act.


* - The Antiquities Act
* - Property Clause US Constitution

"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."

Hell Washington DC is a Federal District whose budget is controlled by Congress.

Gee I wonder why they are being viewed in the manner they are.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Glad you mentioned that, are the states themselves owned by or part of the United States?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I just did, you just ignored it. Congress is the federal government. All funding comes from them. The Constitution limits them from owning more than 10 mile square parcels inside sovereign states of the United States and only for military purposes or "necessary" purposes.

Now, would you like to provide support for your claim that any document or court decision made anywhere at any time states that the United States cannot own property ... because there are multiple examples (provided as well as easily accessible) that state the absolute OPPOSITE to your claim.

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: WP4YT

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: WP4YT
I'm confused as to how it's fair and legal to charge someone millions for animals eating grass.

When ranchers want to allow their cattle to feed on government land they have to pay grazing fees. He owes so much because he stopped paying well over a decade ago.

I understand, but... Grass doesn't belong to the government. It grows in nature. They can't charge fees for animals eating it. This is stupid.

...would you say that if they were grazing on your land?

The thing is, the government isn't supposed to own land.

Absolutely and utterly false.

See the US Constitution.

After that, consult the Enabling Acts that created every State west of the Mississippi.

I didn't say allowed to, I said SUPPOSED to. The states are SUPPOSED to own the land, but through assbackward lawmaking the federal government didn't allow that to happen.

where did I make that "CLAIM"?

originally posted by: Olivine
a reply to: Vector99

This is a fallacy, promoted by the sovereign citizen* movement. Show me where the constitution forbids it? Just because it isn't explicitly enumerated does not mean it is not allowed. The COTUS says the Congress makes the laws. They did. If you don't like it, change the system from the inside. Not these extralegal shenanigans.


*sovereign citizen is a complete oxymoron.
Citizen, by law, means that you are a member of a country. If you are a sovereign, (in this case, free from United States federal government control) then you can't call yourself a citizen.
IMHO the entire movement is Un-American! All the photos of these yahoos wrapped in the American flag won't change my feelings.

I did, right here

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vector99



The Constitution.

You mean this thing?

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Building

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Xcathdra

Glad you mentioned that, are the states themselves owned by or part of the United States?

The States are a separate sovereign from the Federal Government, with their respective authority and relation spelled out in the constitution.

A US citizen essentially holds dual citizenship. For domestic issue they are a citizen of the state they reside in, even when they travel to another state. When they travel outside the US their are citizens of the US.

The states are a part of the Union that constitutes the United States as a whole. The civil war settled the question on whether states can leave the union and the manner that can occur under.

That explanation work or you want more detail?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: buster2010

Those ranchers... Always wanting $ million freebies from the government...

On a serious note, it's probably good that he's not being released. He's been violent before.

Wrong, those ranchers simply want to be left alone and not given any hand-outs. What do you suppose the punishment should be for the people who imprison people for five years because of $100 in damages.

A rational person would conclude the "government" agency has then shed all their legitimacy as an organization and is a false authority. These are the kind of people you support.

This "government" of yours denies families the right to give a blankets to prisoners in their family when they are cold.

This "government" of yours, they put someone in prison over gardening plants they don't approve of, then charge their families a 1,000% profit margin to call them at jail for a conversation.

Unacceptable means unacceptable. The "government" does 100 things that cross the line of being totally unacceptable. To a liberal like you that means they need more power and authority to tax and harass people. To someone like me, it means they have lost their authority and are no different from a convicted murderer in terms of respect that we have for them.

The US "government" was over as a serious organization after they murdered native Americans. They've been a total joke that long. Your favored organization "the government" is a disgrace to humanity, and that you would associate with this band of murderers is disappointing. They are a disgrace. One murder is too many. And the millions of murders the US has done in the last few decades just reaffirms that they are not a serious organization or any kind of authority over anyone. They are a joke.

a reply to: Xcathdra

As you said

The States are a separate sovereign from the Federal Government

Therefore NOT territories. Meaning the federal government (aka congress) can own land inside states in 10 square mile parcels, not entire reserves. That land is constitutionally state land, not federal. I've quoted the source that says it.

a reply to: Vector99

Uhm no, and the constitution says they can own land.

You are ignoring the parts of the constitution / law that doesnt work with your argument to make your argument. The city / county / state / federal government can own land. A state can only be created by an act of congress. A state cannot change state boundaries (external border) without an act of congress (Texas is the only exception). A portion of a state (think California and Colorado) cannot form their own state on their own. It would require state / federal approval.

Federal land within state boundaries are governed by the federal government. The federal government can create national parks as well.

Is there any particular reason you are ignoring the constitution - Property clause? Secondly where does it say they are limited to a 10 square mile section? I ask that because unlike Maryland, Virginia never followed through with transferring their 10 square mile section to the federal government to add to the district they were making (DC was suppose to be 20 square miles).

With respect this is what im talking about. If you don't do research / know history you are going to continue arriving at wrong conclusions. In turn you form an opinion based on that wrong information which leads to views of the federal / state / county / municipal governments that are incorrect.

Like the Bundy's have done.

The Federal government is a conglomeration of the consent of the people and the states whose authority is geared towards long term / international / interstate / good of the whole.

The President - Commander in Chief / Chief diplomat. He represents the US as a whole on the world stage.
The Congress - House represents the people / Senate represents the states.
The Judicial - SCOTUS / federal courts deal with violations of federal law / constitutional issues.

Since the state of New York can't pass a law and enforce that law in Arizona you need an entity that can. One state suing another state cant have jurisdiction over the case in either state since they are the involved parties.

Federal court house, Federal law enforcement, Federal military bases, federal agencies...
They are Federal entities requiring their own infrastructure since the state is not responsible for them.

The federal government can purchase / manage land / property.

I can't enforce federal law any more than a federal agent can enforce state law (certain exemptions are present). Tribal lands are not subject to the state they are located in. They interface directly with the federal government.

A separate sovereign means 2 entities with their own laws / authority (see the line above). The states are responsible for what occurs inside their boundaries. If something occurs in that state that violates federal law / occurs on federal property the federal government is responsible for it. The states of New York and Arizona are separate sovereigns.

Make sense now...

Any lawyers around to answer / correct my info if its wrong?

a reply to: Vector99

Please listen carefully:

the Constitution
does not limit
the Federal Government,
i.e. the United States
to only owning
"10 miles square"

You are mistaken in this belief.

Everyone who says this is mistaken.

That clause (interestingly called "the ENCLAVE clause") establishes that the UNITED STATES may establish areas, like Washington DC, military reserves, etc, that are not part of ANY STATE and where the UNITED STATES has SOLE JURISDICTION (legislative power) and these are called Federal ENCLAVES.

In light of 200 years or so of history, thousands of laws and Court decisions, the position you are espousing is ABSURD.

We are done.

Clarification -
In order for the Federal government to acquire land within a state the state has to agree to the purchase. My apologies for the incorrect info. With that said it does not change anything.

* - United States v. Fox 94 U.S. 315 (1876)
* - Federal Acquisition of Land Within States

There are many examples in which the supreme Court has upheld the state’s position to determine who can own and control land within the boundary of a state. An example of this is in a case where a citizen of the State of California willed property to the Federal government. The State, by act of the legislature, denied the transfer of title to the federal government. The United States sued California to force the state to relinquish control of the land the federal government considered theirs. The supreme Court Ruled in favor of the state’s position disallowing the federal government to claim ownership of the willed property.

A portion of the statement in the court’s decision may help us to understand; “California’s decision (by act of the legislature) to permit itself and its subordinate municipalities to be unlimited governmental beneficiaries under the wills of its domiciliaries is based on a permissible distinction,” In another passage, the Court elaborated on its view: “The United States would have no claim here were it not for wills probated under California law. The Fox (United States v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315) case is only one of a long line of cases which have consistently held that part of the residue of sovereignty retained by the states, a residue insured by the Tenth Amendment, is the power to determine the manner of testamentary transfer of a domiciliary’s property and the power to determine who may be made beneficiaries. It would be anomalous to hold that, because of an amorphous doctrine of national sovereignty, federal constitutional law reached into a California statute and made impotent that state’s restrictions on the designation of beneficiaries.”

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vector99

Please listen carefully:

the Constitution
does not limit
the Federal Government,
i.e. the United States
to only owning
"10 miles square"

You are mistaken in this belief.

Everyone who says this is mistaken.

That clause (interestingly called "the ENCLAVE clause") establishes that the UNITED STATES may establish areas, like Washington DC, military reserves, etc, that are not part of ANY STATE and where the UNITED STATES has SOLE JURISDICTION (legislative power) and these are called Federal ENCLAVES.

In light of 200 years or so of history, thousands of laws and Court decisions, the position you are espousing is ABSURD.

We are done.

PLease listen carefully, Article 1 Section 8 states they cannot. You were the one to cite plain english. Well in plain english it says

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

It says that. How can you misinterpret plain english?

Nevada Enabling Act (1864)

Section 4:

Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that the lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without the said state shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States.

This language is mirrored in the Enabling Acts of virtually every State which entered the Union beginning with Ohio.

Any statement that the United States cannot own land is utterly absurd. I applaud your patience.

a reply to: Gryphon66

you conveniently forgot the first paragraph

Section 1. Authorization for formation of state. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the inhabitants of that portion
of the territory of Nevada included in the boundaries hereinafter designated be, and they are hereby,
authorized to form for themselves, out of said territory, a state government, with the name aforesaid, which
said state, when formed, shall be admitted into the Union upon an equal footing with the original states, in
all respects whatsoever

a reply to: Vector99

Dude.

Now you're denying the obvious.

originally posted by: intrptr

"Lawless" is what the BLM is doing to ranchers and land owners. They want to drive people out so they can exploit their property to frack and mine and deforest… at will.

People should remember, with dwindling resources available abroad and increasing resistance to "US Humanitarian aid" over seas, the vultures are coming home to roost more, and they're some greedy somabitches.

As they say that dog won't hunt. They could care less able about a couple of hundred acres when they own hundreds of thousand around it. They were given that land by the gov in the first place. By the way BLM can't make decisions on fracking and mining only congress can authorize that. An I can say beyond a doubt congress isn't sitting around trying to figure out how to steal land from the Bundy's. This is what's called a straw man argument to hide the fact they want to use federal lands without restrictions.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vector99

Dude.

Now you're denying the obvious.

Which is what? That the federal government is allowed to own "territory". There is ZERO territory in the continental US. It is all appropriated as state land. Well except Indian reserves.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Vector99

Uhm no, and the constitution says they can own land.

You are ignoring the parts of the constitution / law that doesnt work with your argument to make your argument. The city / county / state / federal government can own land.

I'm NOT ignoring the parts of the constitution that limit land ownership, YOU are.