A Nevada cattle rancher is being called "defiant," for daring to stand up to the federal government. As his battle with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) became a nationally televised range war, supporters from around the country made the trip to the empty land 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas in support of the determined rancher. Clive Bundy argued that he was fighting for not only his ranch, and the right of his 900 heads of cattle to graze on the land his family has been in possession of since 1870, but for State Sovereignty, the constitutional idea that declares the States as autonomous and individualistic, and a concept that limits the authorities granted to the federal government, and gives no federal agency, including the BLM, the right to force fees for grazing against any rancher, especially for an environmental reason like protecting a giant tortoise the federal government itself has been killing to control the population of the reptile.
When the feds arrived, immediately one of Bundy's sons was arrested while protesting the removal of the cattle.
"I have no contract with the United States government," Bundy said. "I was paying grazing fees for management and that's what BLM was supposed to be, land managers and they were managing my ranch out of business, so I refused to pay."
The federal government had countered that Bundy "owes the American people [as if their confiscation of wealth would go to the American People] in excess of $1 million " in unpaid grazing fees and "refuses to abide by the law of land [law of the land? Do they even understand what they are saying?], despite many opportunities over the last 20 years to do so."
Remember, the leftists and big government supporters believe that the law of the land is "any" law passed by the United States government, referring back to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, the Supremacy Clause. If you read that clause carefully, what you discover is the law of the land is the Constitution, and those laws "made in pursuance" of the Constitution. Therefore, a federal law, such as federal land management that requires ranchers to pay a fee to be allowed to let their cattle graze, is an illegal federal action, and is "not" the law of the land, based on the language used in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.
Obama's minions were apparently warned that the situation with the cattle rancher in Nevada could be a dangerous one for the federal government, and be a spark akin to the Boston Massacre or Lexington Green, should they continue to face off with the rancher and the growing gathering of supporters. Therefore, under the pressure of "numbers," the BLM decided it would not enforce a court order to remove the cattle, and the federal agency pulled out of the area.
"I have no contract with the United States government," Bundy said. "I was paying grazing fees for management and that's what BLM was supposed to be, land managers and they were managing my ranch out of business, so I refused to pay."
The federal government had countered that Bundy "owes the American people [as if their confiscation of wealth would go to the American People] in excess of $1 million " in unpaid grazing fees and "refuses to abide by the law of land [law of the land? Do they even understand what they are saying?], despite many opportunities over the last 20 years to do so."
Remember, the leftists and big government supporters believe that the law of the land is "any" law passed by the United States government, referring back to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, the Supremacy Clause. If you read that clause carefully, what you discover is the law of the land is the Constitution, and those laws "made in pursuance" of the Constitution. Therefore, a federal law, such as federal land management that requires ranchers to pay a fee to be allowed to let their cattle graze, is an illegal federal action, and is "not" the law of the land, based on the language used in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.
Obama's minions were apparently warned that the situation with the cattle rancher in Nevada could be a dangerous one for the federal government, and be a spark akin to the Boston Massacre or Lexington Green, should they continue to face off with the rancher and the growing gathering of supporters. Therefore, under the pressure of "numbers," the BLM decided it would not enforce a court order to remove the cattle, and the federal agency pulled out of the area.
The result of the confrontation was an important win in our fight to restore the Constitution, but it was only a battle, not the overall war.
Spokesmen for the BLM said that their retreat was nothing more than an action based on a concern about the safety of the employees of the federal government, and the members of the public present at the location of the confrontation.
Spokesmen for the BLM said that their retreat was nothing more than an action based on a concern about the safety of the employees of the federal government, and the members of the public present at the location of the confrontation.
The roundup began April 5, following lengthy court proceedings dating back to 1993, federal officials said. Federal officers began impounding the first lot of cows last weekend, and Bundy responded by inviting supporters onto his land to protest the action.
"People are getting tired of the federal government having unlimited power," Bundy's wife, Carol Bundy said to ABC News.
Hundreds of supporters gathered in the area in support of the rancher.
There were some clashes between demonstrators and the federal government goons at one point, with video showing Bundy's supporters being tasered at the site, including Bundy's son, Ammon Bundy.
In the end, the BLM released the 100 cattle seized from Bundy. The deescalation occurred after Bundy demanded that Sheriff Douglas Gillespie disarm BLM officials and return his stolen cows, and after the sheriff failed to act upon his constitutional duty (see "sheriff's constitutional duties" in my letter to Sheriff Gore in San Diego County), hundreds of Bundy supporters, including cowboys on horseback, descended on a nearby cattle pen outside of Mesquite where the seized cows were being held. During the standoff, armed BLM feds, backed up by at least one SWAT team, threatened to shoot at Bundy supporters if they marched any closer to a line of vehicles.
Despite threats such as “one more step and you’re dead,” the protesters continued their slow march towards BLM agents as bullhorns blared.
Refusing to back down, the protesters marched straight past the armed men and towards the cattle pen.
Sheriff Gillespie eventually appeared to inform Bundy supporters that the BLM had finally caved and agreed to release the 100 cattle they had seized that were inside the pen.
After around 30 minutes, Bundy supporters saw the cattle being released about a mile away in the distance.
The victory is huge, but as I said earlier, this was merely a small battle. The war continues.
According to the Constitution, federal regulation over this land is illegal. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 reads, "The Congress shall have power. . . to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) [A direct reference to the District of Columbia - Washington DC] as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, [emphasis added to the following by yours truly] 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. . ."
Nevada Cattle Rancher Wins 'Range War' With Feds - ABC News
In that portion of the Constitution, for federal regulation to even be legal, three criteria must be met. The property must be paid for, approved by the State legislature, and must be for needful buildings. The property in question in Nevada has fallen under federal control through the efforts and actions of conservation authorities, for the purpose of protecting a giant tortoise (that needs no protection), and ultimately for the continued implementation of an unratified treaty regarding "sustainable development" (Agenda 21).
Let's repeat that last part. This is federal enforcement of a policy based in part on the mandates required by a U.N. resolution and treaty that the United States Senate "has not" ratified, therefore making it no part of the law of the land.
As for the three criteria, the federal regulations being used over the land in Nevada for environmental reasons does not involve approval by the legislative body of a State, did not involved any payment to the State for the property, and this land is not being utilized for the purpose of erecting needful buildings. Therefore, federal possession of, or regulations over, this land is unconstitutional, and illegal. Since federal involvement regarding the land is unconstitutional, then so are any grazing fees allowed to be required by the federal government.
In other words, Bundy is completely in the right, and even those few republicans saying he should have just paid the fees and fought this in court are wrong. After all, who does the courts belong to? If you go against the federal government in the "federal" courts, how do you think the judges are going to rule?
The judge's sugar-daddy who prints their paycheck will always come out on top.
The courts are the last place our fight needs to end up.
As for those that will argue that the federal government has a right over that land because it owned the land before the State became a State, and therefore the consent of the State legislature, and payment, was not necessary, misses the point when it comes to State sovereignty, and the role of the federal government in relation to the autonomy of the States.
All territorial land, as per Article IV., Section 3, falls under the full authority of the United States Congress, but once the land becomes a State, the new State enters into the contract called the "United States Constitution" with the same rights, authorities, and sovereignty afforded to the original thirteen. The land "all" reverts to State possession, and then if the federal government would like to maintain any control over some of the land, it must be approved by the new State legislature, the land must be paid for, and the land cannot be utilized for any reason other than for the erection of needful buildings.
Environmental "blue lines" by any "conservation authority", is not a constitutional authority, and was designed to be a way around constitutional limitations. The sustainable development excuse even tramples all over the concept of eminent domain, as laid out in the 5th Amendment, by allowing federal control over land that was not only never approved by the State, purchased, or for needful buildings, but for them to do so without providing just compensation.
State governments, county governments, and municipal governments, either under pressure, or due to their own gullibility in the face of the insidious U.N. plan for "saving the planet," have also begun to enact law, and activities, in line with the environmental land grab. . . all of it unconstitutional, unethical, and unlawful.
The fight has only just begun.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Nevada Cattle Rancher Wins 'Range War' With Feds - ABC News
No comments:
Post a Comment