Are you referring to the republican lead govt. shutdown that cost so much money and accomplished nothing (except allowing "Green Eggs and Ham" to be read into the record by Cruz)?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Armed Militia Take over Federal Reserve
- Thread starter sudden valley gunner
- Start date
I guess, to you, it's not the truth unless it lines up with your ideology.
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
So you are just going to offer an evasion?
Last edited:
Have Gun - Will Carry
Regular Member
It is painfully obvious to anyone who's ever read your liberal drivel that you were staring into the mirror while typing this.
If I had been staring into a mirror, I wouldn't have been able to type one word that was decipherable. My typing is just that bad.
Last edited:
One side's story: Judge Michael Hogan & Frank Papagni tampered with the jury many times throughout the proceedings, including during the selection process. Hogan & Papagni only allowed people on the jury who did not understand the customs and culture of the ranchers or how the land is used and cared for in the Diamond Valley. All of the jurors had to drive back and forth to Pendleton everyday. Some drove more than two hours each way. By day 8 they were exhausted and expressed desires to be home. On the final day, Judge Hogan kept pushing them to make a verdict. Several times during deliberation, Judge Hogan pushed them to make a decision. Judge Hogan also would not allow the jury to hear what punishment could be imposed upon an individual that has convicted as a terrorist under the 1996 act. The jury, not understanding the customs and cultures of the area, influenced by the prosecutors for 6 straight days, very exhausted, pushed for a verdict by the judge, unaware of the ramification of convicting someone as a terrorist, made a verdict and went home.
http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/11/facts-events-in-hammond-case.html
http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2015/11/facts-events-in-hammond-case.html
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Compare with William Penn's jury in about 1670.
Penn's jury listened to the government prosecute Penn for preaching Quakerism.
The jury convicted Penn of "speaking", which of course was not a crime. This infuriated the government judges who ordered the jury to deliberate further. The jury, not willing to pushed around by the judges, returned a verdict of not guilty. This made the judges even angrier. The jurors were imprisoned. One juror, (Edward?) Bushell, sought relief from a higher court. That court granted relief, saying in part, that jury cannot be penalized for its decision. Thus, the right of the jury to judge the fairness of the law was reaffirmed.
Penn's jurors were not just tired and wanting to go home. They were imprisoned without "meat, fire, and tobacco."
Tough bunch who knew their rights and stuck to their guns.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
+1
Reading the origins of the 5th amendment with story after story of guys who were mutilated by the ruling class for speaking up for our rights and played a major part in winning them for us, is amazing!
I don't think I'd have half the fortitude they did. One reason why it infuriates me to see people treat them like they are nothing and surrender them out of a false sense of "cooperating".
PS want to make clear these folks were mutilated and then continued to do what they were tortured and imprisoned for!
Last edited:
utbagpiper
Banned
A pickup blocking the motorized access to the areas immediately around the building is hardly denying public access to the vast tracts of public land that make up the reserve. Indeed, it is laughable to even compare that to what the feds have been systematically doing to "public" land here in the west the last 20 to 40 years. We've seen thousands of existing roads closed down to motorized access despite RS2247 protections of access on pre-existing roads. First the feds shut down access illegally. Then they claim the road doesn't exist as nature reclaims in a few short years the dirt road that eco-nuts claimed was imposing irreversible harm. ONLY then, with the road erased, does the area qualify as Wilderness.
Show me evidence of REALLY locking people out of the land as you claimed was happening.
Again, I do NOT agree with the armed takeover of a federal building.
But you simply are not dealing with reality nor being honest in your language.
And when has giving government first right of refusal on future land sales ever been a legitimate part of a criminal case? Whatever mistakes or even crimes were committed by the ranchers, it is pretty clear that the feds used the criminal proceedings as leverage to all but guarantee that another huge tract of land in the West will pass from private to government ownership at some point soon.
Charles
Last edited:
utbagpiper
Banned
Your logic, understanding of constitutional principles, history, Western rural culture, and ability to deal with facts is no better than your typing.
Last edited:
These clowns are engaging in exactly the opposite of what they claim to be engaging in. Many contingents of 'the people' (locals) want the land in question managed exactly the way it's being managed; it is the 'will of the people'. Yet, a small group of armed, out of state buffoons have deemed themselves the ultimate arbiters of justice on this issue, despite calls to leave from the local sheriff and residents of the nearby town.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Please cite the constitutional authority for the federal government to own/control the lands in the first place.
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
In 1911 in a pair of landmark decisions – Light v US and US v Grimaud – the Supreme Court asserted that the public lands were, in fact, public; that federal ownership of them was indisputable; and that Congress through a series of legislative acts had granted the Executive Branch, and by extension the federal land management agencies, administrative authority to manage these acres in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations.
The Constitution provides that “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.” Moreover, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Kleppe v. New Mexico, that this constitutional provision provides that “the power over the public land thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations.” The federal government may own land, it may enact regulations governing that land, and it may do with its own land as it chooses, regardless of whether that land is within the borders of a state.
Last edited:
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
You do not read very well, cite the constitutional authority, not some black robe wearing criminals opinion.
So, what is the land for?
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
So, what is the land for?
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
Last edited:
utbagpiper
Banned
Seems to me that the "will of the people" as expressed in official votes at the ballot box demonstrated that marriage was the conjugal union between a man and a woman. So said "the people" in every State where they were allowed to vote on the issue. EVERY single State that held a popular vote saw that vote come down on the side of defining marriage as a union of complementary genders.
But 5 Supreme Judges said that the 14th amendment requires otherwise. Do you agree with otherwise support the Supreme Court ruling that (their interpretation of) the US federal Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and overcomes even the "will of the people"?
If the local folks want the land managed as wildlife preserve, they are fully empowered under the federal constitution to have their State government so manage the land.
But the federal constitution doesn't permit nor even contemplate the federal government owning massive tracts of land within the several semi-sovereign States. So no matter how much "the people" may want that, until enough of those people, across enough of the nation agree so as to pass an appropriate Constitutional Amendment granting such power to the feds, the feds are not authorized to own that land.
Do you realize the way federal ownership of land oppresses all of us?
How would your State fare if 70% of its land mass was off the tax rolls and unavailable for any form of development that would provide jobs or contribute to the economy? There are counties in my State where 90% of the land is federally owned and basically sitting entirely idle. How well would your county provide any services, what would your local economy look like, if 90% of the land could be used for nothing but taking a walk?
The latest budget contained a total of $400 million in PILT payments to Western States. This is a pittance of what the current taxable value is, and the current taxable value is a fraction of what the real value would be (in both taxes and economic multiplier effect) if the land and associated resources could be appropriately developed. But for a county that is 90% federal land, getting the PILT payment is the difference between having a public school or not. So Congressmen and Senators from a dozen Western States are held hostage. Support the budget that adds $3 TRILLION in new debt, or don't get your PILT payments.
I have to wonder whether your use of the terms "a small group of armed, out of state buffoons" to refer to the US BLM, Forest Service, and other federal land owners doesn't violate some forum rule against insult.
It is a small group of armed, out of state buffoons from the federal government who have declared themselves the final arbiters of how the majority of land inside semi-sovereign Western States will be managed and used. A bunch of city slickers from the east coast who wouldn't know which end of a cow to feed and which end to shovel up after, have no idea how much an acre-foot of water really is, and don't the know the difference between the true gems of vistas and views in the West vs run-of-the-mill vastness of which we have a near endless supply, are so arrogant as to think they can better manage Western lands than can those of us who actually live here, whose families carved homes out an area that most eastern urbanites of the 19th century didn't think was even inhabitable by white men.
I do not believe the armed takeover of the federal shack is the right course of action.
But how dare some out-of-State tree hugger presume to tell me that I and my fellow citizens in the West are less capable of managing our local lands than are the citizens of the East?
Get your noses out Western Land issues yourself, before presuming to cast stones on what folks from Nevada may be doing in rural, Oregon. They are misguided in the tactics. But they understand Western land issues in a way you'll never allow yourself to contemplate.
Charles
utbagpiper
Banned
Would that you'd give half as much credence to the SCOTUS findings in Heller that the Individual right to keep and bear arms is NOT dependent on militia service or membership.
Or, put another way, I don't believe the framers would have included language about "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings" if they intended for congressional authority over land inside the Several States to be without limits on either legislative power or on the amount of land that might be acquired. While explicitly spell out that congress has power "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over" the District of Columbia, if their power over lands within the several States was also to be without limit?
Notice the sharp contrast between the powers given to congress over DC and the power given them over lands inside the States:
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
When did Congress "purchase" 70% of the land in my State? Why is it that federal, territorial lands east of Colorado have been mostly turned over to the States, while similar lands from Colorado west have been retained under the control of congress? Where is the equal footing in that? Some State enter the union with control of most lands inside their borders while others are to be perpetually treated as mere territorial districts with congress presuming to own well over half of all land in these red-headed-stepchild States?
In 1911, Separate but Equal was still the law of land as the 1896 Plessy decision was only 15 years old. The nation would wait over 40 more years for Brown v Board. During the time from 1896 to 1954, not a single constitutional amendment dealing with racial equality was passed. The SCOTUS simply had to look back in shame and say, in effect, "Despite the language and intent of the 14th amendment, we got it fundamentally wrong in 1896."
And THIS is the era to which you want to point for your supreme court understanding of sound constitutional principles?
It would be laughable if it were so pathetic and evil.
Charles
OC for ME
Regular Member
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/Pages/OreConstAdmission.aspx
I did not research much past this point. I'm sure there is a map that was used to illustrate the Oregon enabling act. As it stands former territories and all the land therein is to be disposed of at the pleasure of the federal congress...else no statehood for you.
Folks out west have been getting the shaft from the feds for 150+ years...suck is what it does.
Sure would be nice if Utah gets their land back.
http://www.sltrib.com/home/3287281-155/utah-commission-votes-to-sue-feds
Then the other western states would have a better chance to get their land back.
I did not research much past this point. I'm sure there is a map that was used to illustrate the Oregon enabling act. As it stands former territories and all the land therein is to be disposed of at the pleasure of the federal congress...else no statehood for you.
Folks out west have been getting the shaft from the feds for 150+ years...suck is what it does.
Sure would be nice if Utah gets their land back.
http://www.sltrib.com/home/3287281-155/utah-commission-votes-to-sue-feds
Then the other western states would have a better chance to get their land back.