Obama could have stopped the militia with an open dialogue

originally posted by: CB328
Why pardon some redneck trash criminals?

No, this is not Obama's fault.

Have you seen the list of people he's pardoned?
www.justice.gov...

Meth makers, meth distributors, money launderers, embezzlers, firearms violators and numerous other offenses.
What does redneck have to do with it? Rednecks have the same rights as any other citizen, the same rights as you.

a reply to: onequestion

I'm sure if Obama did waste his time talking to them he would have been blamed for the death of that moronic militia man. Hell, I'm sure there are plenty of right wingers blaming Obama anyway.

That said, the POTUS does not waste his time with these idiots. They had their dialogue with POTUS representatives, the FBI and every other law enforcement agency, and they choose to be ignorant and threatening.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: diggindirt
You have not provided a court case that says that elected government officials don't have to respond to the people who elected them.

I have, but you refuse to accept the facts

even the Supreme Court can't re-write the Constitution, only interpret it.

Which they have done in this case, but you do not like their interpretation! But you not liking that does not change the reality.

No, it is you who haven't read the case, only the excerpt, which plainly states "government policymakers." Now show me how the "government policymakers" who do not have to swear an oath to the Constitution are equal to elected officials who do have to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Are you actually proposing that a committee of un-elected people working on a contract for teachers is equal to elected members of government? Seriously?
I'm sure if you look, you can find a civics class on-line that will explain these things to you. Understanding how the law works and knowing the definitions of words helps when trying to argue the law, especially Supreme Court cases.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: diggindirt
they don't have the same rights as the majority? Specifically the right to petition the government for redress of grievances?

They have the right to petition the government, they do not have the right to get a reply!

I explained this earlier, step by step. If you don't know the meaning of words and the use of grammar, you are ill-equipped to argue.

To petition (a verb transitive, meaning to file a formal, written request)
for (a preposition, means to obtain)
redress ( verb transitive, a remedy or the means to a remedy on the part of the Government)
of (preposition, means for or about)
grievance (noun, a real or fancied complaint)

The citizen/s must take action in the form of drawing up a petition in order to compel the government to supply a remedy or the means to a remedy for their complaint/s. The use of the verb transitive "redress" is the "guarantee" you seek because it requires action by the body being addressed by the very nature of the word.
Please show me how redress can occur without a response from the government being petitioned.

Again, I am not contending that the government must comply with the requests in the petition/s but they must provide a remedy or the means to a remedy. Do you not understand that the word "redress" is a verb transitive and by its very nature demands action on the part of the recipient of the petition?

Yet again, words have meaning and the authors of the Constitution knew the meaning of those words and used them carefully. The right to petition for redress of grievances had been a part of English law since the signing of the Magna Carta, a document, (one of many) upon which the founders of the US based the tenets of the Constitution. It was from this right that the inclusion of this passage in the Declaration of Independence sprung:



In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.



At the time of the Declaration, the colonists were under British law, a part of which was the right to petition for redress of grievances as found in the Magna Carta. The colonists were declaring that the King had violated the very law by which he was bound to provide a remedy or a means to a remedy, using that violation as one of many which compelled them to declare themselves independent of a tyrant.




If you'd spend a little time defining the word "petition," you'll see that there is no guarantee of success.



I've given the definition of "to petition" above. It is the act of filing a formal, written request. However, the framers of the Constitution didn't stop with the right to petition, they specified that the petition was for "redress of grievances" which by the very nature of the word---verb transtitive---means that action is required by those to whom the petition is addressed.
I don't know how to make it any plainer than simply using the definitions of the words used by the authors of the document.

Please show how the meaning of redress does not include actions by the recipients of the petition/s.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Byrd
Those reports of booby traps were obviously false.
www.usnews.com...

BURNS, Ore. (AP) — FBI officials said Friday they haven't found any rigged explosives or booby traps at the national wildlife refuge in Oregon that had been seized by an armed group.

Thanks for the clarification. I hadn't seen the followup.

So, are you saying that because there are only a minority of people who support them, they don't have the same rights as the majority? Specifically the right to petition the government for redress of grievances?

How is "capturing and occupying a building" a "petition for redress"?

I see no clause which limits the rights of a minority of people to petition for redress of grievances, indeed, the First reads, "the people", not "a majority of people who hold the same opinion" have the right to petition...

As I understand it, the government DID hear the grievances and didn't agree. Anyone who was awake during the civil rights movement in the 60's has seen this played out again and again.

Although the militia likes to pretend they speak for everyone, the truth is that there are a lot of other minorities (Native Americans, for instance, birders, conservationists, families who used the park regularly) who had a dog in this fight and whose needs and interests were not served by the militia's goals. Why should the militia's desires in this matter outweigh that of other citizens who also use the land?

originally posted by: diggindirt
Reply to Flatfish:

You have the right to petition for a redress of grievances.

Correct.
To petition (a verb transitive, meaning to file a formal, written request)
for (a preposition, means to obtain)
redress ( verb transitive, a remedy or the means to a remedy on the part of the Government)
of (preposition, means for or about)
grievance (noun, a real or fancied complaint)

The citizen/s must take action in the form of drawing up a petition in order to compel the government to supply a remedy or the means to a remedy for their complaint/s. The use of the verb transitive "redress" is the "guarantee" you seek because it requires action by the body being addressed by the very nature of the word.
Please show me how redress can occur without a response from the government being petitioned.

Again, I am not contending that the government must comply with the requests in the petition/s but they must provide a remedy or the means to a remedy. Do you not understand that the word "redress" is a verb transitive and by its very nature demands action on the part of the recipient of the petition?

Yet again, words have meaning and the authors of the Constitution knew the meaning of those words and used them carefully. The right to petition for redress of grievances had been a part of English law since the signing of the Magna Carta, a document, (one of many) upon which the founders of the US based the tenets of the Constitution. It was from this right that the inclusion of this passage in the Declaration of Independence sprung:

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

At the time of the Declaration, the colonists were under British law, a part of which was the right to petition for redress of grievances as found in the Magna Carta. The colonists were declaring that the King had violated the very law by which he was bound to provide a remedy or a means to a remedy, using that violation as one of many which compelled them to declare themselves independent of a tyrant.

If you'd spend a little time defining the word "petition," you'll see that there is no guarantee of success.

I've given the definition of "to petition" above. It is the act of filing a formal, written request. However, the framers of the Constitution didn't stop with the right to petition, they specified that the petition was for "redress of grievances" which by the very nature of the word---verb transtitive---means that action is required by those to whom the petition is addressed.
I don't know how to make it any plainer than simply using the definitions of the words used by the authors of the document.

Please show how the meaning of redress does not include actions by the recipients of the petition/s.

Look, the petition is a "request" and there's nothing "compelling" about it.

The petition or request could very well be deemed to be unreasonable and/or without merit and not worthy of relief or redress.

Nowhere does it state that the government is compelled to provide relief, or a means to relief, just because someone or some group files a petition requesting it.

Hell when I was 16, I petitioned my dad for a new Ford Mustang and the only thing he was compelled to give me was the clear understanding that if I wanted that car I was going to have to buy the damn thing myself with my own money, because he sure as hell wasn't buying it for me.

By your own definitions listed above, the "petition" is simply a request for "redress" or relief. Nothing binding or compelling about it in any way.

I think you just pulled that part out of your ass.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: CB328
Why pardon some redneck trash criminals?

No, this is not Obama's fault.

That is debatable. If Obama's judicial appointees were the ones that put the Hammonds back in jail through double jeopardy then it is very much Obama's actions that started this fiasco.

No double jeopardy, they were not retried, a higher court decided the penalties were not harsh enough.

These JO's, so called patriots were a bunch of fundamentalist mormons, who believe that the Government is Satan, and the good fight, is to defeat them at every corner. I was born and raised in a state where the killing of mormons was legal until 1976, I have no use for most of them, especially the fundamentalist ones, they are one step above Warren Jeffs in the levels of hell.

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Leonidas
Please point out any violence which occurred at the refuge. It was a completely peaceable assembly of citizens. The government agents were the ones perpetrating violence, not those citizens seeking redress of grievances as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

They were armed and entrenched themselves on a federal wildlife refuge stating they would not leave and would fire back if fired upon OR if any law enforcement tried to forcibly remove them...
Violence doesn't need to occur for multiple laws to be broken. The threat of violence was there.

Again, please point out where any violence occurred among the assembled citizens on the refuge. Being armed does not constitute violence. It constitutes practicing one's Second Amendment right. There is no law against practicing the First and Second simultaneously, which is exactly what these folks were doing. Have you never had a civics class?

So I guess if want to gather my buddies together we can send a signed petition to the President of the United States demanding that restaurant prices be lowered, and the when it goes ignored, we arm up and take over the local Applebee's? I mean, after all, we are just exercising our rights, huh? Stupid. it isn't peaceful, it isn't protest, and it isn't effing LEGAL!!

What it is, is a violation of multiple city, county, state, and Federal laws.

Sure!
If it was closed for the season and in the middle of nowhere, where you can open carry, i guess.

But that's not even remotely what you meant, right?
You were talking about an armed takeover of applebee's in the mall of america on a friday night, right?

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: CB328
Why pardon some redneck trash criminals?

No, this is not Obama's fault.

That is debatable. If Obama's judicial appointees were the ones that put the Hammonds back in jail through double jeopardy then it is very much Obama's actions that started this fiasco.

No double jeopardy, they were not retried, a higher court decided the penalties were not harsh enough.

After serving a sentence handed out by a judge.

What kind of BS is that?!

Where has that ever been done?

They don't get due process to question the additional time?

I'm sure there is a legal defence to stop that crap. Where does it stop?

I know that if you break parole, you go back and serve out your sentence, but this?

Never heard of it.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe
These JO's, so called patriots were a bunch of fundamentalist mormons, who believe that the Government is Satan, and the good fight, is to defeat them at every corner. I was born and raised in a state where the killing of mormons was legal until 1976, I have no use for most of them, especially the fundamentalist ones, they are one step above Warren Jeffs in the levels of hell.

Wow!

Wouldn't that be like state sanctioned genocide or at least sanctioned hate crime.

Any reward for scalps?

originally posted by: NotTooHappy
President Obama had no more obligation to talk to these welfare ranchers than; he is obligated to calm every 3 year old who throws a tantrum when they don't get their way.
Moochers demanding a handout is hardly a cause worth the President's time.

He, personally, has no obligation but the office is obligated by the First Amendment. What part of redress don't you understand?
He has a staff to handle the obligations of his job. In this case, since the petition concerned the actions of people appointed by the Dept. of Justice, his obligation was to direct the Dept. of Justice to supply to the petitioners a remedy or a means to a remedy. That is what "redress" means.
No, a three year old throwing a tantrum isn't the government's business. That's one of the more ridiculous strawmen I've seen in a long time---nice attempt at diversion but so totally off subject as to be laughable.

Please show me in the Constitution or anywhere in law where the right to petition for redress of grievances is limited and show what those limitations are.
Deny ignorance.

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: diggindirt
Reply to Flatfish:

You have the right to petition for a redress of grievances.

Correct.
To petition (a verb transitive, meaning to file a formal, written request)
for (a preposition, means to obtain)
redress ( verb transitive, a remedy or the means to a remedy on the part of the Government)
of (preposition, means for or about)
grievance (noun, a real or fancied complaint)

The citizen/s must take action in the form of drawing up a petition in order to compel the government to supply a remedy or the means to a remedy for their complaint/s. The use of the verb transitive "redress" is the "guarantee" you seek because it requires action by the body being addressed by the very nature of the word.
Please show me how redress can occur without a response from the government being petitioned.

Again, I am not contending that the government must comply with the requests in the petition/s but they must provide a remedy or the means to a remedy. Do you not understand that the word "redress" is a verb transitive and by its very nature demands action on the part of the recipient of the petition?

Yet again, words have meaning and the authors of the Constitution knew the meaning of those words and used them carefully. The right to petition for redress of grievances had been a part of English law since the signing of the Magna Carta, a document, (one of many) upon which the founders of the US based the tenets of the Constitution. It was from this right that the inclusion of this passage in the Declaration of Independence sprung:

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

At the time of the Declaration, the colonists were under British law, a part of which was the right to petition for redress of grievances as found in the Magna Carta. The colonists were declaring that the King had violated the very law by which he was bound to provide a remedy or a means to a remedy, using that violation as one of many which compelled them to declare themselves independent of a tyrant.

If you'd spend a little time defining the word "petition," you'll see that there is no guarantee of success.

I've given the definition of "to petition" above. It is the act of filing a formal, written request. However, the framers of the Constitution didn't stop with the right to petition, they specified that the petition was for "redress of grievances" which by the very nature of the word---verb transtitive---means that action is required by those to whom the petition is addressed.
I don't know how to make it any plainer than simply using the definitions of the words used by the authors of the document.

Please show how the meaning of redress does not include actions by the recipients of the petition/s.

Look, the petition is a "request" and there's nothing "compelling" about it.

The petition or request could very well be deemed to be unreasonable and/or without merit and not worthy of relief or redress.

Nowhere does it state that the government is compelled to provide relief, or a means to relief, just because someone or some group files a petition requesting it.

Hell when I was 16, I petitioned my dad for a new Ford Mustang and the only thing he was compelled to give me was the clear understanding that if I wanted that car I was going to have to buy the damn thing myself with my own money, because he sure as hell wasn't buying it for me.

By your own definitions listed above, the "petition" is simply a request for "redress" or relief. Nothing binding or compelling about it in any way.

I think you just pulled that part out of your ass.

Your father provided you the "means for relief" to your petition---work, save money, have a car. See, it's that simple, a remedy or a means to a remedy. Same with government. I made it clear---the government doesn't have to provide the requested remedy but may provide a means to the remedy. It could be as simple as informing the petitioner of the legal way to a remedy, say, by filing in a court of law and providing the name and location of the proper court. They don't have to give you legal advice but must tell you where and how to obtain the means to a remedy.

Have you never filed a petition with government? If you had done so, you would know these things. They must provide you with the "means to a remedy" if the person the petition is filed with cannot or will not provide the remedy.

a reply to: diggindirt

The Hammonds were convicted of a crime. If the militia didn't like the outcome, the proper course for redress is a legal appeal, not guns and ammo.

Hire lawyers. Build grass roots. Elect sympathetic candidates to local and state office. Make yourself presentable and get out in front of the media and make your case to the people.

Armed occupations are not grievances, no matter how much one might wish it were so.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: diggindirt

The Hammonds were convicted of a crime. If the militia didn't like the outcome, the proper course for redress is a legal appeal, not guns and ammo.

Hire lawyers. Build grass roots. Elect sympathetic candidates to local and state office. Make yourself presentable and get out in front of the media and make your case to the people.

Armed occupations are not grievances, no matter how much one might wish it were so.

The Hammond father and son were convicted of a crime. They were sentenced to jail time. They served that jail time. Then they went back home.

THEN... some judge decided the previous jail time was not enough, and sentenced them to more jail time. For the same conviction.

They did attempt peaceful redress of grievances. They fought the double jeopardy in court. The father and son were on their way to jail *again* when the Bundys got involved. The Hammonds themselves were not part of the militia.

a reply to: Byrd

How is "capturing and occupying a building" a "petition for redress"?

It is my understanding that the petitions had been ignored. They had been filed shortly after the re-sentencing of the Hammonds. This video shows the sheriff talking with Ammon. It is worth six minutes to listen to what is said and observe what is avoided by the sheriff. It is also worth observing the civility of all involved and the lack of threat.
www.youtube.com...

Note that he starts out by offering them escorts. There is no order to leave. (He does not believe that he can issue an order to leave because he doesn't believe he has authority on land that the federal government claims to own.)
He as much as admits that the petitions have been ignored.

Although the militia likes to pretend they speak for everyone, the truth is that there are a lot of other minorities (Native Americans, for instance, birders, conservationists, families who used the park regularly) who had a dog in this fight and whose needs and interests were not served by the militia's goals. Why should the militia's desires in this matter outweigh that of other citizens who also use the land?

Clearly if you watched the video linked above you heard him say they want replies to the petitions. You can see it was completely peaceful and civil.

As for land usage, in the first press conference they asserted that the land should be returned to its lawful owners. The ranchers who have lost land unlawfully should have their property returned to them. That would leave the land that was obtained by the federal government lawfully, that is donated or sold freely, without threat or coercion, for a specific purpose (conservation, preservation, etc.) would be turned over to the county by the federal government to be administered by the county according to the terms of the covenant by which the landowners conveyed the land to the federal government.

In other words, if Mr. & Mrs. Jones, on their own and out of a concern for the wildlife or other resources on their property, gave or sold it to the government with specific aims (conservation, preservation, etc.) the county would be obligated by state law to follow the terms of that covenant.
As you can also see in the video, the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom don't claim to speak for everyone, only for the thousands of people who have signed the petitions and have been ignored.

Bullying is as much of a problem today in governmental agencies as it is in our schools. Just as every student isn't a bully, every employee of government isn't a bully but when the bullies aren't reined in they only get worse. The Citizens for Constitutional Freedom are standing up to the bullies in the federal government. Even though this isn't the method I would have used, I believe in liberty. Liberty means that each person must pursue their freedom by exercising moral restraint. These citizens were peaceful.

They took over the building at the refuge, in my opinion, to find the evidence they spoke of in their first press conference. They knew that the building contained the evidence and that the government isn't going to provide citizens evidence of their own wrong-doing. They knew the buildings were unoccupied. They "found" the keys to the buildings, unlocked the doors and walked in. (How did they know the location of the keys?) From the first press conference they've been saying they have enough evidence to put before an Evidentiary Hearing Board. I must assume they have obtained at least a part of that evidence from the files contained in that office. I'm betting they made numerous copies of those documents and sent them to faraway places. You can bet they didn't destroy their own evidence!

Here is the video of the first presser: www.youtube.com...

The beginning of the reading of the petition is at about the 7:13 mark, listing the grievances.
After the reading of the petition LaVoy Finicum gives a very basic wrap-up of their reasons for the protest/occupation.
Ammon answers questions from the press, explaining that it is their wish to return the plundered lands to the people of the state and county. There are no threats of violence, none at all.

originally posted by: diggindirt
It is my understanding that the petitions had been ignored.

A right the Supreme Court agrees with!

a reply to: Teikiatsu
You nailed it!


I believe Thomas Jefferson would disagree with Ozzy as well.

Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.[1] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."

Thomas Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Federal Edition (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5). Vol. 5. 2/20/2016. oll.libertyfund.org...-05_433

Seems that media interventions to spread lies and misinformation are nothing new!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: diggindirt
It is my understanding that the petitions had been ignored.

A right the Supreme Court agrees with!

And you still can't explain how a transitive verb can be separate from action. I'm waiting but you are still screeching about a Supreme Court case about "government policymakers", not acknowledging the difference between a policymaker and an elected official.
That grammar stuff has you stumped doesn't it? It's fifth grade grammar, where you learn the parts of speech and how they are used. Not difficult for the average fifth grader to grasp. Transitive verb---action

originally posted by: diggindirt
And you still can't explain how a transitive verb can be separate from action.

I do not have to, the Supreme Court already did that when they made their decision :-

Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues.

But funny how you think you know better than the Supreme Court on this matter!

If you had actually read and studied the constitution you would realise the right you have is to "to petition the government for a redress of grievances", nowhere does it state the government has to address your grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances