Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
--pins--
LOL.
Whatever.............not enough coffee this morning..............So give me a spelling error ticket or STFU.
That is not just a spelling error and it has nothing to do with coffee. For your entire life, you have thought the word is "pin". You have heard "bullpin" instead of "bullpen". You have heard it said incorrectly......and therefore have said it incorrectly.....since you were a kid.
I find that to be funny. Sad, but funny. All of us are guilty of something similar. Usually, however, it involves a word with more than three letters.
Lighten up....laugh at yourself a little.
Whatever.............not enough coffee this morning..............So give me a spelling error ticket or STFU.
That is not just a spelling error and it has nothing to do with coffee. For your entire life, you have thought the word is "pin". You have heard "bullpin" instead of "bullpen". You have heard it said incorrectly......and therefore have said it incorrectly.....since you were a kid.
I find that to be funny. Sad, but funny. All of us are guilty of something similar. Usually, however, it involves a word with more than three letters.
Lighten up....laugh at yourself a little.
I'll take it under advisement. But we will continue to oppose each other our views are pretty much completely opposite on everything.
It is what it is, as your side continues to defend the Federal to have power over everything.
I believe that this is against the intent of the Constitution and is a poison to our country.
The issue is simple. In every state, for various reasons, the Federal government owns lands. The Federal government has a constitutional right to designate and set aside lands for various uses. If states have specific issues with specific lands, that is what negotiations are for, and barring that, the courts. A single individual has no jurisdiction to decide what parcels of Federal OR State lands belongs to himself. If Bundy claims the land belongs to his family, let's see the deed(s). Otherwise, he hasn't a leg to stand on. In the mean time, it is clear that his owes the Federal government a lot of money. Folks, we are a country of laws. We either abide by the law or we descend into anarchy. I prefer the former, but you decide!
The issue is simple. In every state, for various reasons, the Federal government owns lands. The Federal government has a constitutional right to designate and set aside lands for various uses. If states have specific issues with specific lands, that is what negotiations are for, and barring that, the courts. A single individual has no jurisdiction to decide what parcels of Federal OR State lands belongs to himself. If Bundy claims the land belongs to his family, let's see the deed(s). Otherwise, he hasn't a leg to stand on. In the mean time, it is clear that his owes the Federal government a lot of money. Folks, we are a country of laws. We either abide by the law or we descend into anarchy. I prefer the former, but you decide!
The issue is not that simple.
eagle said:The Department of the Interior abuses the laws to seize land under various acts and basically tells the states to go to hell if they don't agree.
eagle said:Texas is now going to fight this in the courts over the BLM's attempt to seize 90,000 acres.
eagle said:Obama used a 1906 law to justify 160,000 acres in California to be designated as a monument as others have in the past. Should one person have this much power?
eagle said:Should the BLM be able to use old laws to take more land?
These comments are not the issue. Whether or not Bundy is really Racist is not the issue. It is about State's Rights versus Federal Rights, and why the Federal Gov't owns so much of Nevada and most of the Western States.
We understand the origins of the States, and how they were purchased or taken from Mexico. However, these battles to take the land or purchases to buy the land were paid by We The People. The Federal Gov't isn't a entity of itself. It is only a representative group of We The People. The Liberals talk as if the Federal Gov't is a person, and not a representative arm of the We The People, which is one of their major malfunctions.
We the People in the State of Nevada means the people residing there and not the Federal Gov't who owns over 81.1% of the land via CBO 2010 report. So the people there, and their State Legislature there can't use land in their own State without permission from the Feds. How is this representative of a Republic?
It's not, and that issue still remains..................
The left who loves the nanny state will use RACISM from the comments of Bundy to divert the issue away from a movement for States to take the land in their State away from the Feds. As if the Feds seize more land in Nevada they might as well desolve the dang State as there will be NOTHING LEFT OF IT for the State to own or regulate anyway.
Nope.
It's about his statements. Are you able to focus on the subject of the OP, or not?
I have already.............I called it a diversion tactic of the left. You call Bundy a Racist and any who agree with the land issue a Racist. It's what Statist do and you are a Statist.
Racism in this case doesn't matter one way or the other. The battle is ongoing over the Feds taking state lands, and Bundy (LIKE IT OR NOT) now has 9 more States joining the fight.
The Feds will no longer be facing a single cattle rancher in court. They will be facing State AG's with resources capable of taking on the Feds in court.
The issue is simple. In every state, for various reasons, the Federal government owns lands. The Federal government has a constitutional right to designate and set aside lands for various uses. If states have specific issues with specific lands, that is what negotiations are for, and barring that, the courts. A single individual has no jurisdiction to decide what parcels of Federal OR State lands belongs to himself. If Bundy claims the land belongs to his family, let's see the deed(s). Otherwise, he hasn't a leg to stand on. In the mean time, it is clear that his owes the Federal government a lot of money. Folks, we are a country of laws. We either abide by the law or we descend into anarchy. I prefer the former, but you decide!
The issue is not that simple.
Yes it is.
And if YOU or ANYONE else has a complaint to file, I suggest you do so or else, hire an attorney.
Irrelevant to the OP, which is specifically about Bundy's case.
eagle said:Obama used a 1906 law to justify 160,000 acres in California to be designated as a monument as others have in the past. Should one person have this much power?
What does this have to do with Bundy's case? right. Nothing. Did you think that bringing Obama into this would somehow make his criminal actions justifiable?
eagle said:Should the BLM be able to use old laws to take more land?
Should gun owners be allowed to cite an over 200 year old constitutional amendment in order to keep their guns? Now you see how silly your question is, right?
I believe that this is against the intent of the Constitution...
I believe that this is against the intent of the Constitution...
And you would be incorrect in your belief.
It was the original intent of the Framers that the Federal government and its laws be supreme, hence the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The American people are citizens of one Nation first and foremost, and residents of their respective states subordinate to that; and the relationship between the people and their National government may not be interfered with by the states, where Federal property is the property of all the people of the United States, not that of a state or an individual.
I believe that this is against the intent of the Constitution...
And you would be incorrect in your belief.
It was the original intent of the Framers that the Federal government and its laws be supreme, hence the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The American people are citizens of one Nation first and foremost, and residents of their respective states subordinate to that; and the relationship between the people and their National government may not be interfered with by the states, where Federal property is the property of all the people of the United States, not that of a state or an individual.
Perhaps you should go back and read the federalist papers. Their intent and concern for limiting the Gov't are CRYSTAL CLEAR........................Which is exactly why they wrote the Federalist papers.
Its amusing watching the likes of Hannity and Paul running away from Bundy as fast as they can; the stupidity of most on the partisan right is remarkable.
Politicians denounce Bundy?s racist remarks ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
I believe that this is against the intent of the Constitution...
And you would be incorrect in your belief.
It was the original intent of the Framers that the Federal government and its laws be supreme, hence the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The American people are citizens of one Nation first and foremost, and residents of their respective states subordinate to that; and the relationship between the people and their National government may not be interfered with by the states, where Federal property is the property of all the people of the United States, not that of a state or an individual.
Perhaps you should go back and read the federalist papers. Their intent and concern for limiting the Gov't are CRYSTAL CLEAR........................Which is exactly why they wrote the Federalist papers.
And you would be incorrect in your belief.
It was the original intent of the Framers that the Federal government and its laws be supreme, hence the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The American people are citizens of one Nation first and foremost, and residents of their respective states subordinate to that; and the relationship between the people and their National government may not be interfered with by the states, where Federal property is the property of all the people of the United States, not that of a state or an individual.
Perhaps you should go back and read the federalist papers. Their intent and concern for limiting the Gov't are CRYSTAL CLEAR........................Which is exactly why they wrote the Federalist papers.
The Federalist papers are not the law of the land. The Constitution is. Next.
These comments are not the issue. Whether or not Bundy is really Racist is not the issue. It is about State's Rights versus Federal Rights, and why the Federal Gov't owns so much of Nevada and most of the Western States.
We understand the origins of the States, and how they were purchased or taken from Mexico. However, these battles to take the land or purchases to buy the land were paid by We The People. The Federal Gov't isn't a entity of itself. It is only a representative group of We The People. The Liberals talk as if the Federal Gov't is a person, and not a representative arm of the We The People, which is one of their major malfunctions.
.
Perhaps you should go back and read the federalist papers. Their intent and concern for limiting the Gov't are CRYSTAL CLEAR........................Which is exactly why they wrote the Federalist papers.
The Federalist papers are not the law of the land. The Constitution is. Next.
The Federalist papers were written to explain the meaning of the Constitution as written..............
Which is the Constitution...............Next...........
it was the CNN anchorman who called him a welfare queen. Why isn't that statement racist? Bundy only repeated what he said "well I may be at welfare queen". That's not racist. In fact it's racist to think it's racist because you're assuming that welfare queens are all black women.
The Federalist papers are not the law of the land. The Constitution is. Next.
The Federalist papers were written to explain the meaning of the Constitution as written..............
Which is the Constitution...............Next...........
Since the Federalist papers contain many sides to many debates, it's impossible to declare them definitive as to what the Constitution ultimately means.
The Federalist was written to support the ratification of the Constitution, specifically in New York. Whether they succeeded in this mission is questionable. Separate ratification proceedings took place in each state, and the essays were not reliably reprinted outside of New York; furthermore, by the time the series was well underway, a number of important states had already ratified it, for instance Pennsylvania on December 12. New York held out until July 26; certainly The Federalist was more important there than anywhere else, but Furtwangler argues that it "could hardly rival other major forces in the ratification contests"specifically, these forces included the personal influence of well-known Federalists, for instance Hamilton and Jay, and Anti-Federalists, including Governor George Clinton.[22] Further, by the time New York came to a vote, ten states had already ratified the Constitution and it had thus already passed only nine states had to ratify it for the new government to be established among them; the ratification by Virginia, the tenth state, placed pressure on New York to ratify. In light of that, Furtwangler observes, "New York's refusal would make that state an odd outsider."[23]
Only 19 Federalists were elected to New York's ratification convention, compared to the Anti-Federalists' 46 delegates. While New York did indeed ratify the Constitution on July 26, the lack of public support for pro-Constitution Federalists has led historian John Kaminski to suggest that the impact of the The Federalist on New York citizens was "negligible".[24]
As for Virginia, which only ratified the Constitution at its convention on June 25, Hamilton writes in a letter to Madison that the collected edition of The Federalist had been sent to Virginia; Furtwangler presumes that it was to act as a "debater's handbook for the convention there," though he claims that this indirect influence would be a "dubious distinction."[25] Probably of greater importance to the Virginia debate, in any case, were George Washington's support for the proposed Constitution and the presence of Madison and Edmund Randolph, the governor, at the convention arguing for ratification.
Another purpose that The Federalist was supposed to serve was as a debater's handbook during the ratification controversy, and indeed advocates for the Constitution in the conventions in New York and Virginia used the essays for precisely that purpose.
