Classy. Via Campus Reform: The Socialist Student Union at Winthrop University covered the DiGiorgio Campus Center’s lawn in wire hangers to mock a pro-life event that was sponsored by conservative students. The College Republicans had covered the same spot on the lawn with flags in January to represent abortions in the United States in honor […]
In a sane world this would disqualify him from office, but we live in a world where the President of the United States launched his political career in Bill Ayers’ living room. Via Free Beacon: A New Mexico Democrat running for governor is covered in dirty money. Democrat hopeful Alan Webber has received funding from […]
Read the rest here:
Weather Underground Terrorist Fundraising For New Mexico Dem Gov Candidate…
Via WaPo: Just hours after Ukraine’s government declared an Easter truce, a gunfight erupted early Sunday, leaving three people dead at a checkpoint manned by a pro-Russia militia outside this restive city in eastern Ukraine. It was the worst violence since diplomats from the United States, the European Union, Russia and Ukraine signed an agreement […]
I’m busy at work and know nothing about this situation, so let me turn over the mike to John Hinderaker : First, it must be admitted that legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The Bureau of Land Management has been charging him grazing fees since the early 1990s, which he has refused to pay. Further, BLM has issued orders limiting the area on which Bundy’s cows can graze and the number that can graze, and Bundy has ignored those directives. As a result, BLM has sued Bundy twice in federal court, and won both cases. In the second, more recent action, Bundy’s defense is that the federal government doesn’t own the land in question and therefore has no authority to regulate grazing. That simply isn’t right; the land, like most of Nevada, is federally owned. Bundy is representing himself, of necessity: no lawyer could make that argument. That being the case, why does Bundy deserve our sympathy? To begin with, his family has been ranching on the acres at issue since the late 19th century. They and other settlers were induced to come to Nevada in part by the federal government’s promise that they would be able to graze their cattle on adjacent government-owned land. For many years they did so, with no limitations or fees. The Bundy family was ranching in southern Nevada long before the BLM came into existence. Over the last two or three decades, the Bureau has squeezed the ranchers in southern Nevada by limiting the acres on which their cattle can graze, reducing the number of cattle that can be on federal land, and charging grazing fees for the ever-diminishing privilege. The effect of these restrictions has been to drive the ranchers out of business. Formerly, there were dozens of ranches in the area where Bundy operates. Now, his ranch is the only one. When Bundy refused to pay grazing fees beginning in around 1993, he said something to the effect of, they are supposed to be charging me a fee for managing the land and all they are doing is trying to manage me out of business. Why should I pay them for that? Bundy appears to be arguing that he need not pay grazing fees because the state never gave the land to the federal government, or something like that. (Hinderaker says that an astonishing 80% of Nevada is federally owned.) Allahpundit’s post on this quotes the Nevada constitution on this point, and it seems to say otherwise: Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; Indeed, the Nevada constitution seems fairly clear and obsequious regarding the point of federal supremacy: Sec: 2. Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States. All political power is inherent in the people[.] Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair[,] subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existance [existence], and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority. I think Section 3 provides that the citizens of Nevada will pick up the feds’ dry cleaning whenever needed. The Nevada constitution was ratified during the War Between the States , if that provides any context for the bowing and scraping evident in the passage above. Anyway, consider this an open thread on this situation. Maybe commenters who have read about it can shed some light.
Read the original:
Cliven Bundy: Open Thread