Feds and Militias stand off over cattle seizures.

[BlindBoo]

Media propaganda used to be the only source of information available to the public. When the ATF entrapped Veteran Randy Weaver and killed his wife and son the locals supported him but there was no National outrage or Fox news and no fair and balanced reporting about the "Ruby Ridge siege". When the feds used poison gas and tanks against the Branch Dividian compound the media supported the carnage and so did the public even though nobody really knew what happened. Things are different today and the word gets out quickly especially during a repressive administration and the bloated federal bureaucracy backed down.

When the ATF stormed Mt. Carmel they had a lawful warrant too. They were outgunned and had to retreat after 4 federal agents were killed in a firefight trying to serve that warrant. Perhaps the BLM took note how that siege at Waco started and have fallen back to regroup and rethink their strategy.

 

[Gadawg73]

If any good is to come of this, it will be the state legislators meeting to discuss the take land grab of the federal government and what can be done to return land ownership to the states.

LOL, talk about ignorant and eat up with the dumb ass.
Nevada CEDED the land to the Federal government long, long before Bundy's ancestors owned the ranch he has.
The Constitution of the State of Nevada specifically states that the land belongs to the Federal government.
Amazing the stupid claims and statements given here with no basis in fact.

 

[Gadawg73]

Because there’s no such thing as a ‘sovereign state:’


certainly there is

Thus, it appears clearly that once any property within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States is no longer utilized by that government for governmental purposes, and the title or any interest therein is conveyed to private interests, the jurisdiction of the federal government ceases and jurisdiction once again reverts to the State.

The above principles regarding the distinction between State and federal jurisdiction continue through today; see Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. 245, 83 S.Ct. 426 (1963), and United States v. State Tax Commission of Mississippi, 412 U.S. 363, 93 S.Ct. 2183 (1973). And what was definitely decided in the beginning days of this Republic regarding the extent, scope, and reach of each of these two distinct jurisdictions remains unchanged and forms the foundation and basis for the smooth workings of state governmental systems in conjunction with the federal government. Without such jurisdictional principles which form a clear boundary between the jurisdiction of the States and the United States, our federal governmental system would have surely met its demise long before now.

In summary, jurisdiction of the States is essentially the same as that possessed by the States which were leagued together under the Articles of Confederation. The confederated States possessed absolute, complete and full jurisdiction over property and persons located within their borders. It is hypocritical to assume or argue that these States, which had absolved and banished the centralized power and jurisdiction of the English Parliament and Crown over them by the Declaration of Independence, would shortly thereafter cede comparable power and jurisdiction to the Confederation Congress. They did not and they closely and jealously guarded their own rights, powers and jurisdiction. When the Articles were replaced by the Constitution, the intent and purpose of the States was to retain their same powers and jurisdiction, with a small concession of jurisdiction to the United States for lands found essential for the operation of that government. However, even this provision did not operate to instantly change any aspect of state jurisdiction, it only permitted its future operation wherein any State, by its own volition, should choose to cede jurisdiction to the United States.

By the adoption of the Constitution, the States jointly surrendered some 17 specific and well defined powers to the federal Congress, which related strictly to external affairs of the States. Any single power, or even several powers combined, do not operate in a fashion as to invade or divest a State of its jurisdiction. As against a single State, the remainder of the States under the Constitution have no right to jurisdiction within the single State absent its consent.

The only provision in the Constitution which permits jurisdiction to be vested in the United States is found in Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17, which provides the mechanism for a voluntary cession of jurisdiction from any State to the United States. When the Constitution was adopted, the United States had jurisdiction over no lands within the States, possessing jurisdiction only in the lands encompassed in the Northwest Territories. Shortly thereafter, Maryland and Virginia ceded jurisdiction to the United States for Washington, D.C. As time progressed thereafter, the States at various times ceded jurisdiction to federal enclaves within the States. Today, the territorial jurisdiction of the United States is found only in such ceded areas, which encompass Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the States, and such territories and possessions which may be now owned by the United States.

The above conclusion is not the mere opinion of the author of this brief, but it is likewise that of the federal government itself. In June 1957, the government of the United States published a work entitled Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within The States: Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, Part II, which report is the definitive study on this issue. Therein, the Committee stated:

Federal Jurisdiction

Good stuff, and if we didn't have these things in place still, and these things still honored today in order to keep the nation free from tyranny, and to keep it free from becoming a Soviet or other such types of nations for which we have known of in the past, then we must follow what was done years ago in which created and managed properly such a nation as we have here today. For various reasons though, we have seen lately that we have a government being run by people whom want to forget what was done in the past, and therefore move on towards ways in which they see it to be run by them now instead.

probably the biggest hazard to states rights was the adoption of the seventeenth amendment

which should be repealed

So repeal it and they still have the Nevada Constitution which clearly states they ceded the land to the Federal government.
And now we have the Governor of Nevada stating the same thing and saying Bundy has NO constitutional stand in Nevada with his claims.
And he is a conservative Republican.

 

[beagle9]

Media propaganda used to be the only source of information available to the public. When the ATF entrapped Veteran Randy Weaver and killed his wife and son the locals supported him but there was no National outrage or Fox news and no fair and balanced reporting about the "Ruby Ridge siege". When the feds used poison gas and tanks against the Branch Dividian compound the media supported the carnage and so did the public even though nobody really knew what happened. Things are different today and the word gets out quickly especially during a repressive administration and the bloated federal bureaucracy backed down.

When the ATF stormed Mt. Carmel they had a lawful warrant too. They were outgunned and had to retreat after 4 federal agents were killed in a firefight trying to serve that warrant. Perhaps the BLM took note how that siege at Waco started and have fallen back to regroup and rethink their strategy.

Storming anything is wrong, and the agents blood is on the agencies hands. All they have to do is wait any of these people out & keep their eyes and ears open. Once a break comes then surgically remove the person from their support system, and this is done by arresting them when get the chance to ctach them vulnerable to that weakness. Showing force is for intimidating purposes only, but it is a dangerous game to be played when it is done in that way. If one agent or innocent loses his or her life in that senario, it is one or two to many.

One thing is forsure, and that is that people have to eat, and they have to drink water, so wait it out. Or bring the fight to you (on your turf) if there is going to be one, in which is another way to weaken the supply cord that keeps it all going. Anyone ever tell the government that good things always come to those who wait ?

 

[beagle9]

If any good is to come of this, it will be the state legislators meeting to discuss the take land grab of the federal government and what can be done to return land ownership to the states.

LOL, talk about ignorant and eat up with the dumb ass.
Nevada CEDED the land to the Federal government long, long before Bundy's ancestors owned the ranch he has.
The Constitution of the State of Nevada specifically states that the land belongs to the Federal government.
Amazing the stupid claims and statements given here with no basis in fact.

Why would Nevada cede the land to the federal government long, long ago like you say ? What did the feds want with the land, where as Nevada had to or wanted to cede the land to them like you say ? Hmm I wonder what was horse traded in the deal, I mean otherwise if any horse trading was at play ?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why should the Federal government own most of the land in a sovereign state?

Because there’s no such thing as a ‘sovereign state:’

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.

US Constitution, Article VI

Because there’s no such thing as a ‘sovereign state:’


certainly there is

Certainly there is not.

There is no such thing as a ‘sovereign state’ as perceived and advocated by the partisan right with regard to the relationship between the states and the Federal government.

The Supremacy Clause is clear and beyond dispute: states and other local jurisdictions are subject to Federal laws, the Federal courts, the Federal Constitution, and the case law of the Federal Constitution.

The states have no authority whatsoever to ignore, reject, preempt, modify, or ‘nullify’ Federal laws or the decisions of the Federal courts.

This has been settled and accepted fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence since McCulloch, reaffirmed by the Supreme Court consistently in such rulings as Cooper v. Aaron (1958) and US Term Limits v. Thronton (1995).

The supremacy of the Federal government was the original intent of the Framers, where the Constitution codifies National citizenship for all Americans, and a relationship between the National government and the people with which the states may not interfere.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Because there’s no such thing as a ‘sovereign state:’

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.

US Constitution, Article VI

Because there’s no such thing as a ‘sovereign state:’


certainly there is

Certainly there is not.

There is no such thing as a ‘sovereign state’ as perceived and advocated by the partisan right with regard to the relationship between the states and the Federal government.

The Supremacy Clause is clear and beyond dispute: states and other local jurisdictions are subject to Federal laws, the Federal courts, the Federal Constitution, and the case law of the Federal Constitution.

The states have no authority whatsoever to ignore, reject, preempt, modify, or ‘nullify’ Federal laws or the decisions of the Federal courts.

This has been settled and accepted fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence since McCulloch, reaffirmed by the Supreme Court consistently in such rulings as Cooper v. Aaron (1958) and US Term Limits v. Thronton (1995).

The supremacy of the Federal government was the original intent of the Framers, where the Constitution codifies National citizenship for all Americans, and a relationship between the National government and the people with which the states may not interfere.

Is that a fact fake barrister? Are you SURE you want to stand by that BS? The stupid people of Denver Colorado would probably disagree with you as they have chosen to ignore Federal law - OR, as I propose, this "president" is refusing to enforce Federal Law.

Which is it? Is the state of Colorado NOT breaking Federal Law and, if so, why isn't this Bullshit "president" DEMANDING that Steadman Holder enforce the law?

Then shouldn't this phony baloney "president" face impeachment for refusing to uphold his oath?

You're full of shit and we all know it.

 

[KNB]

Citizens of Colorado voted to legalize Cannabis. Mouth-breathing yokels in Nevada didn't vote to let Cliven Bundy ignore court orders for twenty years.

That's the difference.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Because there’s no such thing as a ‘sovereign state:’


certainly there is

Certainly there is not.

There is no such thing as a ‘sovereign state’ as perceived and advocated by the partisan right with regard to the relationship between the states and the Federal government.

The Supremacy Clause is clear and beyond dispute: states and other local jurisdictions are subject to Federal laws, the Federal courts, the Federal Constitution, and the case law of the Federal Constitution.

The states have no authority whatsoever to ignore, reject, preempt, modify, or ‘nullify’ Federal laws or the decisions of the Federal courts.

This has been settled and accepted fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence since McCulloch, reaffirmed by the Supreme Court consistently in such rulings as Cooper v. Aaron (1958) and US Term Limits v. Thronton (1995).

The supremacy of the Federal government was the original intent of the Framers, where the Constitution codifies National citizenship for all Americans, and a relationship between the National government and the people with which the states may not interfere.

Is that a fact fake barrister? Are you SURE you want to stand by that BS? The stupid people of Denver Colorado would probably disagree with you as they have chosen to ignore Federal law - OR, as I propose, this "president" is refusing to enforce Federal Law.

Which is it? Is the state of Colorado NOT breaking Federal Law and, if so, why isn't this Bullshit "president" DEMANDING that Steadman Holder enforce the law?

Then shouldn't this phony baloney "president" face impeachment for refusing to uphold his oath?

You're full of shit and we all know it.

Another question would be, do Sanctuary cities comply with federal law? Aren't they "ignoring federal law"?

 

[CaféAuLait]

Citizens of Colorado voted to legalize Cannabis. Mouth-breathing yokels in Nevada didn't vote to let Cliven Bundy ignore court orders for twenty years.

That's the difference.

His post was in response to this quote he had emphasized above:

The states have no authority whatsoever to ignore, reject, preempt, modify, or ‘nullify’ Federal laws or the decisions of the Federal courts.

It does not matter if the citizens voted for it, it goes against federal law. Yes or no, or is pot legal under federal law?

 

[KNB]

Citizens of Colorado voted to legalize Cannabis. Mouth-breathing yokels in Nevada didn't vote to let Cliven Bundy ignore court orders for twenty years.

That's the difference.

His post was in response to this quote he had emphasized above:

The states have no authority whatsoever to ignore, reject, preempt, modify, or ‘nullify’ Federal laws or the decisions of the Federal courts.

It does not matter if the citizens voted for it, it goes against federal law. Yes or no, or is pot legal under federal law?

I know what the post was in response to, and it was entirely wrong. The legalization of marijuana is probably the most important issue facing humanity today (yes, I know that you can't believe that because you refuse to read what I've read) and what is going on with Cliven Bundy is not.

In the fight to legalize Cannabis again, We the People have had to speak truth and logic to power for decades, even citing the US Federal government's own reports about the industrial uses and medical benefits of Cannabis, but to no avail. Through a legal process that is still ongoing, We the People have to force a Supreme Court decision on this matter because the unjust Federal laws disproportionately effect a much greater portion of the general public than whatever Cliven Bundy is bitching about. We hold peace rallies, not armed protests.

Marijuana was outlawed for racist, unjustifiable reasons, and then legalized to preserve our freedom and democracy, and then outlawed again for exactly the opposite reasons that it was outlawed before saving our democracy. There is nothing about Cannabis prohibition that makes sense, especially after the 1972 Shafer Commission report.

Haven't you ever considered why the big government wants to keep any mention of Hemp For Victory out of our history textbooks? Cliven Bundy fought the law and lost because he is wrong. Cannabis proponents fight the law and we're winning because we're correct. I don't expect you to understand, but you need to. You wouldn't be typing on this forum today if "Marihuana" had stayed illegal in 1942. Cliven Bundy will never have that kind of effect on American history.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Citizens of Colorado voted to legalize Cannabis. Mouth-breathing yokels in Nevada didn't vote to let Cliven Bundy ignore court orders for twenty years.

That's the difference.

Wrong answer stupid Nazi. State law DOES NOT trump Federal law. THAT'S the difference, stupid. If you can't follow the conversation, stay the hell out of it.

Doesn't matter a hoot in hell WHAT the "Citizens" of Colorado voted for. Barry is refusing to enforce Federal law. If Bundy is guilty, dumbass, so are these "Citizens" of Colorado.

Now go away piss ant.

 

[KNB]

You have serious mental issues, boy. I never said that State law trumps Federal law. I said that Cannabis proponents have used a long and arduous legal process and used facts, reason, and common sense to change unjust Federal laws instead of drawing guns on Federal agents to defend a rich man's profits. That's the difference. Colorado didn't bear arms against the Feds to get their way. They voted like civilized human beings.

The white-trash "militia" in Nevada are just a bunch of stupid rednecks who don't know what the situation is about. All they know is that they hate Obama.

Also, why do you even try to call me a Nazi? I'm trying to legalize marijuana again, like America did to stop the Nazis. How fucking stupid can you get? Let's find out.......

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Feds and Militias stand off over cattle seizures.

Earlier this year it as the Robertson nonsense, now this contrived non-issue.

And when the partisan right finishes exploiting the phony ‘cattle battle,’ it will latch onto yet another non-issue to be exploited for some perceived political gain.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Citizens of Colorado voted to legalize Cannabis. Mouth-breathing yokels in Nevada didn't vote to let Cliven Bundy ignore court orders for twenty years.

That's the difference.

His post was in response to this quote he had emphasized above:

The states have no authority whatsoever to ignore, reject, preempt, modify, or ‘nullify’ Federal laws or the decisions of the Federal courts.

It does not matter if the citizens voted for it, it goes against federal law. Yes or no, or is pot legal under federal law?

I know what the post was in response to, and it was entirely wrong. The legalization of marijuana is probably the most important issue facing humanity today (yes, I know that you can't believe that because you refuse to read what I've read) and what is going on with Cliven Bundy is not.

In the fight to legalize Cannabis again, We the People have had to speak truth and logic to power for decades, even citing the US Federal government's own reports about the industrial uses and medical benefits of Cannabis, but to no avail. Through a legal process that is still ongoing, We the People have to force a Supreme Court decision on this matter because the unjust Federal laws disproportionately effect a much greater portion of the general public than whatever Cliven Bundy is bitching about. We hold peace rallies, not armed protests.

Marijuana was outlawed for racist, unjustifiable reasons, and then legalized to preserve our freedom and democracy, and then outlawed again for exactly the opposite reasons that it was outlawed before saving our democracy. There is nothing about Cannabis prohibition that makes sense, especially after the 1972 Shafer Commission report.

Haven't you ever considered why the big government wants to keep any mention of Hemp For Victory out of our history textbooks? Cliven Bundy fought the law and lost because he is wrong. Cannabis proponents fight the law and we're winning because we're correct. I don't expect you to understand, but you need to. You wouldn't be typing on this forum today if "Marihuana" had stayed illegal in 1942. Cliven Bundy will never have that kind of effect on American history.

Not only are you a Nazi, but you are a fucking idiot, as well.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Feds and Militias stand off over cattle seizures.

Earlier this year it as the Robertson nonsense, now this contrived non-issue.

And when the partisan right finishes exploiting the phony ‘cattle battle,’ it will latch onto yet another non-issue to be exploited for some perceived political gain.

Well Paralegal, what's it going to be?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Citizens of Colorado voted to legalize Cannabis. Mouth-breathing yokels in Nevada didn't vote to let Cliven Bundy ignore court orders for twenty years.

That's the difference.

His post was in response to this quote he had emphasized above:

The states have no authority whatsoever to ignore, reject, preempt, modify, or ‘nullify’ Federal laws or the decisions of the Federal courts.

It does not matter if the citizens voted for it, it goes against federal law. Yes or no, or is pot legal under federal law?

This is the tactic that these "progressive Nazis" are using now. IGNORE the law. When a conservative supposedly "Breaks" a law - these "legalese puss ants" go after them. When it's one of the Brownshirts (Colorado, for example) - we are told that "it doesn't matter" and they further enslave Americans with "the law".

This crap is coming to a head in the not too distant future and it's not going to be pretty.

 

[KNB]

Citizens of Colorado voted to legalize Cannabis. Mouth-breathing yokels in Nevada didn't vote to let Cliven Bundy ignore court orders for twenty years.

That's the difference.

His post was in response to this quote he had emphasized above:

The states have no authority whatsoever to ignore, reject, preempt, modify, or ‘nullify’ Federal laws or the decisions of the Federal courts.

It does not matter if the citizens voted for it, it goes against federal law. Yes or no, or is pot legal under federal law?

This is the tactic that these "progressive Nazis" are using now. IGNORE the law. When a conservative supposedly "Breaks" a law - these "legalese puss ants" go after them. When it's one of the Brownshirts (Colorado, for example) - we are told that "it doesn't matter" and they further enslave Americans with "the law".

This crap is coming to a head in the not too distant future and it's not going to be pretty.

What is a progressive Nazi? "This is the tactic that these "progressive Nazis" are using now. IGNORE the law." How do you even know how to tie your shoes, let alone type on an internet forum? What is this discussion about? Cliven Bundy ignoring the law. So is Cliven Bundy a "progressive Nazi"?

we are told that "it doesn't matter" and they further enslave Americans with "the law".

Americans were enslaved by marijuana prohibition laws, almost literally. Americans are arrested, put in chains, thrown in cages, taken from their families, can't leave, work for little or no pay, and have most of society's opportunities denied to them. Why? To stop people from growing the same plant that stopped the Nazis.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Citizens of Colorado voted to legalize Cannabis. Mouth-breathing yokels in Nevada didn't vote to let Cliven Bundy ignore court orders for twenty years.

That's the difference.

His post was in response to this quote he had emphasized above:

The states have no authority whatsoever to ignore, reject, preempt, modify, or ‘nullify’ Federal laws or the decisions of the Federal courts.

It does not matter if the citizens voted for it, it goes against federal law. Yes or no, or is pot legal under federal law?

I know what the post was in response to, and it was entirely wrong. The legalization of marijuana is probably the most important issue facing humanity today (yes, I know that you can't believe that because you refuse to read what I've read) and what is going on with Cliven Bundy is not.

In the fight to legalize Cannabis again, We the People have had to speak truth and logic to power for decades, even citing the US Federal government's own reports about the industrial uses and medical benefits of Cannabis, but to no avail. Through a legal process that is still ongoing, We the People have to force a Supreme Court decision on this matter because the unjust Federal laws disproportionately effect a much greater portion of the general public than whatever Cliven Bundy is bitching about. We hold peace rallies, not armed protests.

Marijuana was outlawed for racist, unjustifiable reasons, and then legalized to preserve our freedom and democracy, and then outlawed again for exactly the opposite reasons that it was outlawed before saving our democracy. There is nothing about Cannabis prohibition that makes sense, especially after the 1972 Shafer Commission report.

Haven't you ever considered why the big government wants to keep any mention of Hemp For Victory out of our history textbooks? Cliven Bundy fought the law and lost because he is wrong. Cannabis proponents fight the law and we're winning because we're correct. I don't expect you to understand, but you need to. You wouldn't be typing on this forum today if "Marihuana" had stayed illegal in 1942. Cliven Bundy will never have that kind of effect on American history.

(emphasis added)

I've seen that argument before, "it was racist", because Mexicans smoked it, but its bull. Did you know that Mexico outlawed marihuana BEFORE the year you claimed America did in 1927?. Mexico outlawed pot in 1925! Now, tell me how the law was racist again?

MEXICO BANS MARIHUANA.; To Stamp Out Drug Plant Which Crazes Its Addicts

MEXICO BANS MARIHUANA. - To Stamp Out Drug Plant Which Crazes Its Addicts. - Article - NYTimes.com

Legal history of cannabis in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Marijuana to get high was NEVER legalized in 1942, only the production of HEMP for manufacturing was.

 

[jon_berzerk]

His post was in response to this quote he had emphasized above:



It does not matter if the citizens voted for it, it goes against federal law. Yes or no, or is pot legal under federal law?

I know what the post was in response to, and it was entirely wrong. The legalization of marijuana is probably the most important issue facing humanity today (yes, I know that you can't believe that because you refuse to read what I've read) and what is going on with Cliven Bundy is not.

In the fight to legalize Cannabis again, We the People have had to speak truth and logic to power for decades, even citing the US Federal government's own reports about the industrial uses and medical benefits of Cannabis, but to no avail. Through a legal process that is still ongoing, We the People have to force a Supreme Court decision on this matter because the unjust Federal laws disproportionately effect a much greater portion of the general public than whatever Cliven Bundy is bitching about. We hold peace rallies, not armed protests.

Marijuana was outlawed for racist, unjustifiable reasons, and then legalized to preserve our freedom and democracy, and then outlawed again for exactly the opposite reasons that it was outlawed before saving our democracy. There is nothing about Cannabis prohibition that makes sense, especially after the 1972 Shafer Commission report.

Haven't you ever considered why the big government wants to keep any mention of Hemp For Victory out of our history textbooks? Cliven Bundy fought the law and lost because he is wrong. Cannabis proponents fight the law and we're winning because we're correct. I don't expect you to understand, but you need to. You wouldn't be typing on this forum today if "Marihuana" had stayed illegal in 1942. Cliven Bundy will never have that kind of effect on American history.

(emphasis added)

I've seen that argument before, "it was racist", because Mexicans smoked it, but its bull. Did you know that Mexico outlawed BEFORE the year you claimed America did in 1927?. Mexico outlawed pot in 1925! Now, tell me how the law was racist again?

MEXICO BANS MARIHUANA.; To Stamp Out Drug Plant Which Crazes Its Addicts

MEXICO BANS MARIHUANA. - To Stamp Out Drug Plant Which Crazes Its Addicts. - Article - NYTimes.com

Legal history of cannabis in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Marijuana to get high was NEVER legalized in 1942, only the production of HEMP for manufacturing was.

the left like to blur the lines between hemp and Maryjane