Bunkerville NV escalating.

[cobber]

"It is not pretended that every insertion or omission in the constitution is the effect of systematic attention. This is not the character of any human work, particularly the work of a body of men."

James Madison, Federalist Papers 1791

So if it's inattention, it's still not warranted under the Constitution. As to the incredible stretching the feds have done with the Commerce Clause in an attempt to infiltrate every aspect of life in America, it has been intentional, and ultra vires. The feckless courts ("interpreters" of the Constitution) have been willing accomplices in this and get not congratulations on their capitulation.

 

[jbombelli]

So if it's inattention, it's still not warranted under the Constitution. As to the incredible stretching the feds have done with the Commerce Clause in an attempt to infiltrate every aspect of life in America, it has been intentional, and ultra vires. The feckless courts ("interpreters" of the Constitution) have been willing accomplices in this and get not congratulations on their capitulation.

They all went to the same schools and learned the same things. One of those things being "... the Constitution is a living, breathing document and needs to change to meet the times..."

Since it's so hard to change the actual language, they instead choose to reinterpret that language as they see fit.

 

[Manatee]

Neither the state of Nevada, or any other state, has the right to barter away its citizen's rights under the Constitution.

So say you. Where were you 30 years ago? This issue has always been there. Your argument is consistent, wrong and not very timely….like 100 years too late.

ps. Please take IndyDave with you as you disembark.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So say you. Where were you 30 years ago? This issue has always been there. Your argument is consistent, wrong and not very timely….like 100 years too late.

ps. Please take IndyDave with you as you disembark.

 

[Manatee]

The problem you guys present is that you reject reality. You have an idealized version of the world AS YOU WISH IT TO BE. You don't have case law. You have no precedents from history. You have your "Feelings".

Well, that song was already written, so the rest is pure poppycock. That's why I won't debate it with you. You start with a flawed premise and carry on, expecting the rest of us to dance to your organ grinding.

Study a bit more history and spend less time on websites that support the emotional hot tub you choose to reside in and study the law, for this is a country of law not of men (and that precedent goes back to Plato and Cicero).

The formation of the U.S. federal government was particularly influenced by the struggle forcontrol over what were then known as the “western” lands—the lands between the Appalachian
Mountains and the Mississippi River that were claimed by the original colonies. The original
states reluctantly ceded the lands to the developing new government; this cession, together with
granting constitutional powers to the new federal government, including the authority to regulate
federal property and to create new states, played a crucial role in transforming the weak central
government under the Articles of Confederation into a stronger, centralized federal government
under the U.S. Constitution

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf

 

[IndyDave1776]

The problem you guys present is that you reject reality. You have an idealized version of the world AS YOU WISH IT TO BE. You don't have case law. You have no precedents from history. You have your "Feelings".

Well, that song was already written, so the rest is pure poppycock. That's why I won't debate it with you. You start with a flawed premise and carry on, expecting the rest of us to dance to your organ grinding.

Study a bit more history and spend less time on websites that support the emotional hot tub you choose to reside in and study the law, for this is a country of law not of men (and that precedent goes back to Plato and Cicero).

First, if there is a disconnect from reality, it is your failure to understand the difference between what happens in practice and what is constitutionally permissible. The bulk of this problem stems from FDR packing the Supreme Court with sock puppets, a travesty from which we still are suffering by way of the inability to restore the balance which was destroyed at that point.

Second, it has nothing to do with the way we wish things to be. The Constitution is clear. If it does not grant a power to the federal government, then the federal government does not have that power, and exercising it anyway constitutes an impermissible usurpation of powers reserved to the states and the people.

Third, you say we don't have precedents? How about the fact that all but the first 13 states started as territories under federal administration and upon receiving statehood, the land contained within the borders of the new state was transferred to the administration of the state government until the last few states were admitted.

Fourth, so what about case law. The unfortunate truth is that this, like a lot of things, now operates according to things that courts 'found' in the spaces between the lines of the Constitution long after the ink was dry--you know, that living document horse****.

Fifth, you accuse us of resting on feelings? No we aren't. We are resting on the fact that the authority to do a number of things at issue is damned well not found anywhere in the Constitution, unless, again, you are resting on your authority as the expert on what the blank spaces mean.

Sixth, the only flawed premise is your flawed premise that precedent (i.e., justifying anything by virtue of it having been done) trumps the Constitution, which your arguments clearly demonstrate.

Seventh, you argue the concept that this is a nation of law and not men, but you refuse to accept the logical conclusion of that argument, that the Constitution is the fundamental law of our nation and all legislation and government actions are to be subservient to the Constitution. After this, here you are arguing that legislation and adjudication based on the whim of the participants supersedes the Constitution.

Eighth, if there is an organ grinder in this picture, you will find that monkey in the mirror.

 

[Destro]

you're advocating

Im not advocating anything. Im simply providing empreical data counter to claims made. The conversation has transcended my personal opinion and it's irrelevent. We are all entitled to our own opinion, but not our own facts.

 

[Destro]

First, if there is a disconnect from reality, it is your failure to understand the difference between what happens in practice and what is constitutionally permissible. The bulk of this problem stems from FDR packing the Supreme Court with sock puppets, a travesty from which we still are suffering by way of the inability to restore the balance which was destroyed at that point.

Second, it has nothing to do with the way we wish things to be. The Constitution is clear. If it does not grant a power to the federal government, then the federal government does not have that power, and exercising it anyway constitutes an impermissible usurpation of powers reserved to the states and the people.

Third, you say we don't have precedents? How about the fact that all but the first 13 states started as territories under federal administration and upon receiving statehood, the land contained within the borders of the new state was transferred to the administration of the state government until the last few states were admitted.

Fourth, so what about case law. The unfortunate truth is that this, like a lot of things, now operates according to things that courts 'found' in the spaces between the lines of the Constitution long after the ink was dry--you know, that living document horse****.

Fifth, you accuse us of resting on feelings? No we aren't. We are resting on the fact that the authority to do a number of things at issue is damned well not found anywhere in the Constitution, unless, again, you are resting on your authority as the expert on what the blank spaces mean.

Sixth, the only flawed premise is your flawed premise that precedent (i.e., justifying anything by virtue of it having been done) trumps the Constitution, which your arguments clearly demonstrate.

Seventh, you argue the concept that this is a nation of law and not men, but you refuse to accept the logical conclusion of that argument, that the Constitution is the fundamental law of our nation and all legislation and government actions are to be subservient to the Constitution. After this, here you are arguing that legislation and adjudication based on the whim of the participants supersedes the Constitution.

Eighth, if there is an organ grinder in this picture, you will find that monkey in the mirror.

everytime your proven wrong, you simply name drop somebody else...FDR? really?

 

[IndyDave1776]

everytime your proven wrong, you simply name drop somebody else...FDR? really?

Your ignorance of history is not my problem.

 

[Manatee]

Your ignorance of history is not my problem.

Ignorance? You might want to go back to the formation of the Constitution and look at how the states ceded lands to the federal government (from more or less the current state borders west to the Mississippi) as part of the formation of our government. You have a blind eye to history, sir. Once again, you bend it to your ideas, but that doesn't make it factual.

 

[cobber]

I'm reading a lot of que sera, sera here. So if the gubmint does it, we should accept reality and STFU?

Latest iteration, Obama tells us we're sore losers about the ACA and should bend over and get out the KY.

If governmental actions are to be accepted as faits accompli, then why does anyone here comment on the Holocaust, the Ukrainian famine, the Soviet purges, the Cultural Revolution and the Killing Fields in Cambodia? (i.e., "history")

I'm going to reject the "reality" that people should accept such actions by any government. I'm also going to grant that my beliefs about governmental excess are rooted in values (aka "feelings") as opposed to cold, hard facts. That the US government hasn't pulled such shenanigans yet is no reason to give it a free pass on exceeding the authority granted under the Constitution.

But of course that's just my opinion.

 

[Manatee]

Take a look back in the Reagan years and see how he responded to the attempts to transfer federal lands. Go ahead. I dare ya.

I won't say "most" but "much" of the western lands have one major aspect standing in the way of development: water. It is arid. The cities and farmers already use so much of the allotment that until recent law changes, almost none of the Colorado river flowed to Mexico. The last estimate I saw for California was that about 80% of the water in the state is used for farming.

Even the process of mining tends to use a great deal of water in the process. There isn't enough for everyone right now…so you want to privatize land for development … where are they going to get the water?

 

[jamil]

Im not advocating anything. Im simply providing empreical data counter to claims made. The conversation has transcended my personal opinion and it's irrelevent. We are all entitled to our own opinion, but not our own facts.

You chery pick your quotes, completly ignoring context, I provide the context which does not supprt your position, and this is your rebuttal? Your own facts indeed.

 

[Destro]

I still think the larger question is, does congress have the right to make government an owner and operator of vast lands within a state?

We did just that before the constitution, why would it be different after?

 

[Destro]

You chery pick your quotes, completly ignoring context, I provide the context which does not supprt your position, and this is your rebuttal? Your own facts indeed.

Im absolutely not cherry picking quotes. The quotes I use were written to provide a basis for the further arguments.

 

[Destro]

Your ignorance of history is not my problem.

FDR has nothing to do with any of this, if you reject the idea of Implied Powers then your rejecting the intent of the writers.

 

[ArevaloSocom]

I love the pics of the guy on the bridge with the AK prone aiming at them. Epic.....

 

[IndyDave1776]

Ignorance? You might want to go back to the formation of the Constitution and look at how the states ceded lands to the federal government (from more or less the current state borders west to the Mississippi) as part of the formation of our government. You have a blind eye to history, sir. Once again, you bend it to your ideas, but that doesn't make it factual.

Yes, those states with claims west of their effective borders ceded those claims to the federal government, which then provided for settling those territories, which were in turn organized into stated AND THEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GOT THE F**K OUT OF THEM WHEN THEY BECAME STATES. Your reading comprehension problems do not reduce the factual content of the history I have addressed.

 

[IndyDave1776]

FDR has nothing to do with any of this, if you reject the idea of Implied Powers then your rejecting the intent of the writers.

Article [X]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Explain again please. Implied powers regarding functions which are part of or details of carrying out enumerated powers are one thing. Pulling s**t out of the spaces between the lines is something entirely different.


I would also like to know how you defend the notion that the packing of the Supreme Court which in turn permitted some of the most egregious power grabs in history has nothing to do with it. I already understood that you are a statist, but also blind to the obvious?

 

[Destro]

I'm reading a lot of que sera, sera here. So if the gubmint does it, we should accept reality and STFU?

Latest iteration, Obama tells us we're sore losers about the ACA and should bend over and get out the KY.

If governmental actions are to be accepted as faits accompli, then why does anyone here comment on the Holocaust, the Ukrainian famine, the Soviet purges, the Cultural Revolution and the Killing Fields in Cambodia? (i.e., "history")

I'm going to reject the "reality" that people should accept such actions by any government. I'm also going to grant that my beliefs about governmental excess are rooted in values (aka "feelings") as opposed to cold, hard facts. That the US government hasn't pulled such shenanigans yet is no reason to give it a free pass on exceeding the authority granted under the Constitution.

But of course that's just my opinion.

Absolutely not, what the .gov does must be "necessary and proper" under clause 18. If we apply such rigid standards however we would not have an Air Force, as it is not an enumerated power (only an army and navy). Nobody doubts the authority for congress to authorize an air force however, since it's simply implied. The idea that the United States could possibly expand it's borders was implied. As such, under clause 18 it would be "necessary and proper" for congress to write law with relation to the administration and disposition of such land. Administration of the territories is incidental to the ownership of the territories, ownership of the territories is incidental to war.

I think many western states got the shaft when the joined the Union, but getting screwed by the .gov does not make it unconstitutional.

I have a hard time with Obamacare because it relies on the tainting of the worst clause of the constitution (commerce clause). Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 is not our enemy, the commerce clause is. Nowhere can I imagine congress having the power to impose a tax on citizens based on their desire not to buy a product.

If the .gov wanted to use a single payer system (something I am ADAMENTLY OPPOSED TO, DO NOT SUPPORT IN ANY WAY!!!!!!) I could see it meeting constitutional scrutiny if properly incorporated into the tax system.

I completely agree that we need to be ever vigilant of unmitigated expansion of government power, and it should be crushed when found, but in the Bundy case, im just not seeing anything other than poor PR and heavy handed tactics. He was not denied due process, and I believe BLM did had the authority to remove the cattle.