Where is the description box the video talks about? Am I just missing it?
Soooo, this about somebody grazing their cattle on govt land?
Soooo, this about somebody grazing their cattle on govt land?
This is about somebody exercising grazing rights his family has possessed for over 100 years on county/state ground commandeered by the feds who have absolutely no constitutional authority to do so.
If you are going to take the position that the government is right because it is the government, then you are on the right track with your question. Otherwise...
Does he own the land? If not who does? If the govt owns the land, they are entitled to restrict it's use. If this guy is grazing his cattle, then by default he's benefiting at no cost to himself. In fact, if the govt is maintaining the land, then taxpayers are essentially paying for his use of the land.
Does he own the land? If not who does? If the govt owns the land, they are entitled to restrict it's use. If this guy is grazing his cattle, then by default he's benefiting at no cost to himself. In fact, if the govt is maintaining the land, then taxpayers are essentially paying for his use of the land.
The .gov is NOT entitled to unilaterally change contractual grazing rights. Now that we have addressed that point, please tell me where the Constitution grants the federal government to possess such land, or administer it on behalf of a state or county, which is exactly what it is presently doing whether or not the state/local governments like it or not.
Mr Bundy argument is that he doesn't have to pay specifically because he doesn't have a contract. And what does the Constitution have to do with this piece of property. If the state of Nevada said it's ok for him to graze his cattle there, that would be a different issue. Has Nevada done such? This guy is acting as if he owns that particular piece of property.
He went to court over this 20 years ago and lost... but if he had won, he'd be using the law to his benefit. He's been given the chance to remove his cattle, but has refused. He's basically the cattle racncher version a welfare, wants something for nothing.
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
...I think that references military installationsIs the piece of property in question a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building? No? Then there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to have possession or control of it.
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.
Mr Bundy argument is that he doesn't have to pay specifically because he doesn't have a contract. And what does the Constitution have to do with this piece of property. If the state of Nevada said it's ok for him to graze his cattle there, that would be a different issue. Has Nevada done such? This guy is acting as if he owns that particular piece of property.
He went to court over this 20 years ago and lost... but if he had won, he'd be using the law to his benefit. He's been given the chance to remove his cattle, but has refused. He's basically the cattle racncher version a welfare, wants something for nothing.