I used to say that the revolutionary war was an example of a just war and I won't disrespect those who put their life on the line. That being said I guess that Canada is the example of what we would be if there was no war. Canada seems like a pretty nice place to me. Please don't misread this and label me a traitor.
Canada is highly influenced and developed by bordering a superpower. If England was allowed to suck all the profit out of the US, Canada might be very different today.
The Hammond's were convicted of a back burn to save their ranch from a fire the blm might have started. Had nothing to do with leased land other than the back burn consumed a 100 acres. Cliven Bundy was about blm grazing.
I think that there was more to it than that. They were charged with killing a herd of deer and then starting the fire to cover the corpses. It wasn't even a poaching to feed themselves. We can argue all day long about how the BLM manages the land and we should. No government is above criticism. Or at least shouldn't be.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 02-06-2016).]
I think that there was more to it than that. They were charged with killing a herd of deer and then starting the fire to cover the corpses. It wasn't even a poaching to feed themselves. We can argue all day long about how the BLM manages the land and we should. No government is above criticism. Or at least shouldn't be.
I recall that accusation by the prosecution, along with child abuse, and many, many other attempts to act against the Hammond's, but I don't think they were convicted on anything but arson on federal property. The Government did revisit the case (double jeopardy) because the prosecutor wanted to use a law that was intended for acts of terrorism against federal property.
I recall that accusation by the prosecution, along with child abuse, and many, many other attempts to act against the Hammond's, but I don't think they were convicted on anything but arson on federal property. The Government did revisit the case (double jeopardy) because the prosecutor wanted to use a law that was intended for acts of terrorism against federal property.
I believe facts trump accusations. No matter what side of this issue we fall on, we ALL have the responsibility to weigh the accusations against facts. We all have opinions, but those opinions should be based on what we know to be true, related to this thread topic. To base an outcome or judgment on this issue while discrediting or ignoring facts is irresponsible and has the potential to incite, spread or cause misinformation, discontent, bias and or violence. That is true for both sides involved, Law Enforcement AND the protesters.
I recall that accusation by the prosecution, along with child abuse, and many, many other attempts to act against the Hammond's, but I don't think they were convicted on anything but arson on federal property. The Government did revisit the case (double jeopardy) because the prosecutor wanted to use a law that was intended for acts of terrorism against federal property.
Well with a little google search it seems that they were never even charged let alone convicted on the deer slaughter. That came up in trial testimony from a hunting guide, a hunter, and the hunters father. At this point I'm thinking that they really did slaughter the deer herd and that the fire was a coverup. Maybe the hunting guide, the hunter, and the hunters father were lying though.
Well with a little google search it seems that they were never even charged let alone convicted on the deer slaughter. That came up in trial testimony from a hunting guide, a hunter, and the hunters father. At this point I'm thinking that they really did slaughter the deer herd and that the fire was a coverup. Maybe the hunting guide, the hunter, and the hunters father were lying though.
It's possible, I think the Bundys are S@#t stirrers, and the Hammonds were probably not the greatest of people. The issue at hand was the Government using a anti terrorism law to apply double jeopardy to people that already served their time. I don't believe their are any hero's, but if one looks back at the true motivation for the revolutionary war, it was a bunch of loud mouth business men who were being hurt by taxes, getting the masses to die for their profits. Not that I disagree with no taxation, without representation. Though we have that now, just not from a foreign power. I guess my point is, the Government did act outside the intention of the law, and tyrannically with the Hammonds and then let their agency, the BLM get away with worse. I want to see justice.
Justice for what? Seems like you have not even got enough facts or evidence to maintain any charges. You have changed your mind or altered your point of view on at least one issue in this thread? Maybe just hold off on the accusations till more facts come in?
Justice for what? Seems like you have not even got enough facts or evidence to maintain any charges. You have changed your mind or altered your point of view on at least one issue in this thread? Maybe just hold off on the accusations till more facts come in?
I have maintained that retrying ranchers on a anti terrorism law, just because they could is wrong.
I have maintained that retrying ranchers on a anti terrorism law, just because they could is wrong.
Have they already been tried on an anti-terrorism charge? Have they been tried on that same anti-terrorism charge more than once? Are you sure that they are being charged for the same anti-terrorism charge just because the Government can do it?
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 02-06-2016).]
Have they already been tried on an anti-terrorism charge? Have they been tried on that same anti-terrorism charge more than once? Are you sure that they are being charged for the same anti-terrorism charge just because the Government can do it?
The first judge did not try them on the anti-terrorism BS. Since they were not terrorist. The prosecutor was unhappy, because more time could technically be imposed. So he found a judge that would twist the intention of the law. Lucky for him, it worked, and justice was aborted. This is why I cringe, every time they say, the law will not be twisted to the worst case possible, common sense will prevail. It did not, the intention was not served and the law followed the worst case technicality. It was a complete abortion of justice, and yes I want justice served. I want the Hammonds released, I want the BLM tried in court, and I want a in depth investigation to the FBI and OSP operations against the Bundys, and I do not want it done by the Government. I want criminal charges found against guilty parties including the Bundys, if applicable.
The first judge did not try them on the anti-terrorism BS. Since they were not terrorist. The prosecutor was unhappy, because more time could technically be imposed. So he found a judge that would twist the intention of the law. Lucky for him, it worked, and justice was aborted. This is why I cringe, every time they say, the law will not be twisted to the worst case possible, common sense will prevail. It did not, the intention was not served and the law followed the worst case technicality. It was a complete abortion of justice, and yes I want justice served. I want the Hammonds released, I want the BLM tried in court, and I want a in depth investigation to the FBI and OSP operations against the Bundys, and I do not want it done by the Government. I want criminal charges found against guilty parties including the Bundys, if applicable.
I cringe as well at such an injustice, but technically did this injustice happen? They were not tried more than once. Unless I misunderstood you?
In the USA people are tried over and over many times, UNTIL an acual court of law. At that point double jeopardy comes into play. Did they get tried in a court of law on anti-terrorism charges and found innocent, THEN charged again?
I cringe as well at such an injustice, but technically did this injustice happen? They were not tried more than once. Unless I misunderstood you?
In the USA people are tried over and over many times, UNTIL an acual court of law. At that point double jeopardy comes into play. Did they get tried in a court of law on anti-terrorism charges and found innocent, THEN charged again?
They were tried on Arson charges, the judge would not use the Anti-terror law, because it was not terror and the prosecutor was not happy. So the prosecutor found a judge that would use that law, and had them sent back to prison. They were tried, convicted, sentenced, served their time, and then retried. That is double jeopardy, and it is illegal.
They were tried on Arson charges, the judge would not use the Anti-terror law, because it was not terror and the prosecutor was not happy. So the prosecutor found a judge that would use that law, and had them sent back to prison. They were tried, convicted, sentenced, served their time, and then retried. That is double jeopardy, and it is illegal.
So how is that wrong? How is it against the law? How is it different than the political strategies used to reverse obama care? Technically it is not violating double jeopardy, is it?
So how is that wrong? How is it against the law? How is it different than the political strategies used to reverse obama care? Technically it is not violating double jeopardy, is it?
I would say the intention of the law was not served in either case, and that is was a judge is supposed to do. Make sure the intention of the law is followed.
quote
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall … be subject for the same offence [sic] to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." This provision, known as the Double Jeopardy Clause, prohibits state and federal governments from prosecuting individuals for the same crime on more than one occasion, or imposing more than one punishment for a single offense. Each of the 50 states offers similar protection through its own constitution, statutes, and Common Law. http://legal-dictionary.the....com/double+jeopardy
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 02-07-2016).]
But you did not answer my questions: Were they tried in a court of law, found to be not guilty, then tried again?
I did answer it, I quoted the relevant section. It states that a person can not have more than one punishment for a single offense. So it was double jeopardy. They received two prison sentences for the same offense.
They were tried on Arson charges, the judge would not use the Anti-terror law, because it was not terror and the prosecutor was not happy. So the prosecutor found a judge that would use that law, and had them sent back to prison. They were tried, convicted, sentenced, served their time, and then retried. That is double jeopardy, and it is illegal.
OK, they were found guilty of arson in a court of law, I got that. My question then, is are you sure that terrorism charges ARE NOT one in the same or an enhancement, or a completely separate charge? As much as you have a problem with it, I do to IF double jeopardy is violated. BUT my questions are trying to see if in fact double jeopardy was violated. My questions are not meant to justify the charges. IF a new crime were discovered after the fact, could they be charged for a new and separate crime? I would not only disagree with the violation of double jeopardy, but I would be infuriated at the lawyer who is representing the family, for such gross incompetence as to let the double jeopardy charges stick. Seems like an easy case to fight if in fact it is a clear cut violation of double jeopardy? I ask because I have not followed this "case". I only got in this thread to voice my opinion on the "trafic stop".
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 02-07-2016).]
Bundy owes us $1M. He chose to not pay. Cut and dry. You want to blame the government. When a tennet does not pay the rent, you kick them out. Just another moocher. Takes what doesn't belong to him nor will pay for what he uses.
So the government has never taken something from a private citizen in the name of eminent domain and refused to pay the owner what it was really worth???
The government is constantly seizing property from citizens using eminent domain laws and then screws them royally by paying them pennies on the dollar of what the property is worth. I've got news for you, it HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. And, as a private citizen, you have little chance of getting a victory in court because the government can afford to litigate the matter indefinitely.
quote
Originally posted by jaskispyder:
BLM won't take my land. Nice try, you see, I know what land is mine, unlike Bundy.
I'm sure some of these ranchers thought the same thing at some point. But I guess since it hasn't happened to you, it just isn't happening at all...
But I digress... The real problem here is we have government agencies that have been infiltrated by extremists from the Sierra Club and others that have gone in and arbitrarily changed policies with little or no oversight from congress. I think it is time for massive government employee layoffs to get rid of these people and shut down a vast majority of these kinds of agencies we don't need (who aren't acting in the public interest) that are way overstepping their authority under the Constitution. And whatever agencies that are left operating to take over those responsibilities but need to be held accountable to the people at the local and state levels.
OK, they were found guilty of arson in a court of law, I got that. My question then, is are you sure that terrorism charges ARE NOT one in the same or an enhancement, or a completely separate charge? As much as you have a problem with it, I do to IF double jeopardy is violated. BUT my questions are trying to see if in fact double jeopardy was violated. My questions are not meant to justify the charges. IF a new crime were discovered after the fact, could they be charged for a new and separate crime? I would not only disagree with the violation of double jeopardy, but I would be infuriated at the lawyer who is representing the family, for such gross incompetence as to let the double jeopardy charges stick. Seems like an easy case to fight if in fact it is a clear cut violation of double jeopardy? I ask because I have not followed this "case". I only got in this thread to voice my opinion on the "trafic stop".
The only justification the Government is using, is the first judge did not use minimum sentencing guidelines under the anti-terrorism law. The first judge did not feel the law applied, as it wasn't terrorism. So they were resentenced under the terror law, in a abortion of justice. Same offense, just went with the terror version of arson, instead of general arson. I do believe their Constitutional rights were violated. I do believe it to be double jeopardy, the government maintains it is not.
A legal source that basically states this was double jeopardy...
quote
Double jeopardy also bars punishment in certain prototypical scenarios—for example, when a judge tries to resentence someone who has already served the punishment for the crime in question.
By Les Zaitz | The Oregonian/OregonLive Email the author | Follow on Twitter on February 06, 2016 at 6:20 AM, updated February 06, 2016 at 4:14 PM 1.1k shares Showdown in Burns
BURNS – The line of police SUVs and tactical rigs tucked back in the woods on a side road alarmed Robert "LaVoy" Finicum as he drove by on the highway to John Day.
"It's a set up," he declared to those in the pickup with him.
In less than a half-hour, Finicum would lie dead in the snow and others in the truck would be in handcuffs, held for hours on the blockaded road north of Burns.
Shawna Cox, 59, a mother of 13 from Utah, was one of those in the truck with Finicum.
In an interview Friday with The Oregonian/OregonLive, Cox provided new details about the events of that Tuesday in January. Her account in many respects matches public statements from two others at the scene and FBI statements.
But the full story of what happened is weeks off. Police investigating the fatal shooting are withholding all reports, recordings and witness statements until they're done. Four of those traveling with Cox or in a second vehicle remain in jail, unavailable for interviews.
Cox is facing a federal conspiracy charge for her role in the takeover of the wildlife refuge headquarters about 30 miles southeast of Burns. But a federal judge ordered her released to return home to Utah and granted permission for her to attend Finicum's funeral.
In a 90-minute interview, Cox filled in what she experienced and pointed out when she hadn't directly witnessed or heard events. This account is based on her statements except as otherwise noted.
***
Cox acted as quartermaster for the occupiers at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, helping coordinate the steady stream of supplies needed to feed those who had come to Oregon to challenge the federal government.
A small group left a peaceful protest in Burns on Jan. 2 and that evening took over the unattended refuge compound. The group was led by Ammon Bundy, a son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy. He was joined by older brother Ryan, a Montana militiaman named Ryan Payne and about 15 others. Finicum, 54, a rancher from Arizona, often acted as spokesman for the group.
The armed protesters turned life upside down in remote Harney County and grabbed headlines from coast to coast with their demands. They wanted the refuge and other federal property turned over to private owners or local government. They wanted freedom for ranchers Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son, Steven, both convicted on federal arson charges.
The Bundy message found an attentive audience among some people frustrated with the U.S. Forest Service to the north in Grant County. Payne, Finicum and others had traveled to John Day in mid-January to meet with those local residents. That included Sheriff Glenn Palmer, who met the militants twice.
That welcoming attitude put Finicum, Cox and others on the road to John Day on the afternoon of Jan. 26. A Grant County woodsman invited the Bundys to speak at a public meeting that he organized at the senior center. Palmer was scheduled to speak, too.
Cox hadn't meant to go. She was planning to return to her family in Utah. A missing videographer changed that.
Cox said a convoy planned to head to John Day, with drivers leaving the refuge 15 minutes apart.
"We weren't supposed to be together" for security reasons, she said.
Among the first to head out was a van carrying Odalis Sharp of Auburn, Kansas, and seven of her children. They were going to sing gospels at the meeting. Another daughter, Victoria Sharp, 18, had arrived at the refuge the day before. She was still showering when it was time for the family to leave, so she was catching a ride with Finicum.
As Finicum prepared to head out, the man tasked with filming the Sharp family as they sang couldn't be found. Cox agreed on the spot to fill in, loading video gear and speakers into the covered bed of Finicum's already-packed truck.
Finicum slid into the driver's seat with Ryan Payne beside him. Ryan Bundy took the seat right behind Finicum, with Sharp in the middle and Cox beside her. They pulled out of the occupied refuge about 3:30 p.m. – roughly an hour before the shooting.
They were followed by the last rig in the convoy – a Jeep driven by Mark McConnell with Brian "Booda" Cavalier, a self-described Bundy family bodyguard, in the front passenger seat and Ammon Bundy in the rear seat.
Cox and the others settled in for the 100-mile trip. She packed along trail mix, jerky and dried mangos. The men talked while Cox worked her cellphone, texting, responding to messages and making calls.
A short distance behind was the Jeep.
She dialed a friend in John Day, intending to invite her to come hear the Sharp family perform. She got an answering machine and was just leaving a message when she spotted police vehicles lined up on a Forest Service road off U.S. 395.
That's the moment, she said, when Finicum realized there was trouble. She said law enforcement vehicles with their emergency lights activated pulled onto the highway and fell in behind the Jeep. According to the FBI video, two police rigs then came up behind Finicum's truck.
"LaVoy is nervous at this point," Cox said. "He does not want to stop. He's isn't stopping. He said, 'We're going to see the sheriff.'"
She said the group was expecting to see Palmer in John Day. "The sheriff of Grant County has always been in support of us," Cox said. Finicum felt Palmer could protect the occupiers if they could just get to him, she said.
Palmer declined to answer written questions about the matter.
Finicum's determination to push on, though, triggered an argument with Payne.
Payne had participated in the 2014 standoff with federal agents in Nevada over Cliven Bundy's disputed grazing privileges. Cox said Payne grew increasingly agitated, urging Finicum to stop. The truck rolled to a stop straddling the centerline, and armed police stepped out of the two trailing tactical rigs.
Payne rolled down his window and thrust his hands out.
"That very second, I see a red laser light, right by the mirror," Cox said. "I heard the ping – they shot at him. He jumped back. I thought it hit his bracelet."
Victoria Sharp panicked at the noise.
"They're shooting at us!" she screamed.
The FBI video isn't clear about whether any round, lethal or nonlethal, was fired. Law enforcement sources said initial reports from the scene didn't account for any shot at that point. Oregon State Police and the FBI were involved in the operation.
Payne told the group the police "mean business" and stepped out of the pickup, shouting at officers that there were women inside. He was soon in police custody, while Finicum yelled at police that he wanted to go see the sheriff, referring to Palmer.
"LaVoy put one hand out the window. He had one hand on the steering wheel," Cox said. "He can see them in the rearview mirror. I know he can see the laser. He said, 'Go ahead and shoot me.'" He repeated that they had a meeting with the sheriff.
Finicum told the women to get out if they wanted to, but Sharp was terrified of being shot. Cox said her motherly instinct took over and she chose to stay to protect Sharp.
Cox and Ryan Bundy tried calling for help on their cellphones. Cox dialed a Josephine County leader of the Oath Keepers, but they had lost cell service.
Then, Finicum instructed all of them to "get down" and he "drops it into gear and takes off," Cox said.
Cox and Ryan Bundy started recording, Cox on her camera and Bundy on his cellphone.
"We knew our best weapons were our cameras," Cox said.
Bundy wedged down in front of his seat and Cox scrunched down with Sharp splayed along the seat.
"LaVoy, how far do you think we'll get before they shoot out our tires?" Cox asked. He didn't respond. She asked him how far to John Day.
"When he told me about 50 miles, my heart sunk," Cox said. "There's no way we could outrun them on that snowy, icy road."
Cox kept recording as Finicum took the truck to what she estimated was 60 mph. In little more than one minute after accelerating, Finicum encountered three police vehicles blocking the highway.
"Hold on," he said. Everyone was belted in.
He steered the truck to the left, off the highway.
"We sink into the snow and we're stuck. We come to a dead stop. They started shooting immediately and LaVoy jumped out," Cox said.
Cox held up her camera to keep recording, but lost sight of Finicum.
"He's running away from the vehicle, screaming, 'Shoot me, shoot me, shoot me,'" Cox said.
The FBI video showed Finicum shot and killed after he was several steps away from the truck. The FBI said he twice reached into his jacket where he had a loaded handgun.
Meantime, Cox said, chaos prevailed inside the truck. She said the passengers endured a fussilade.
"We still have lasers all over inside our vehicle," Cox said. "We're being shot at. I'm worried. I see one on Ryan's hat. I'm trying to shove his head down."
Ryan Bundy had been facing backward, his head at eye level with the left rear passenger window. He apparently could see Finicum.
"They shot him," Bundy reported.
Cox described round after round of pepper spray canisters coming through the windshield and through the open front passenger window. She said the small metal canisters resembled votive candles.
"They filled up the place with smoke," Cox said. "It was burning our faces. It was burning our nose and mouth. I grabbed my coat. It was a down jacket. I breathed through the collar part. Victoria, who had her head down, took part of my coat. Ryan put his arm up over his mouth and nose."
Cox, who said she's familiar with guns, said at least five rounds of some type hit the passenger window in her door but didn't break it. One round left a black mark.
The FBI said that only nonlethal rounds, including the pepper spray canisters and sponge rounds, were fired into the truck. Police also deployed small explosives known as "flash bangs."
Sharp was screaming "They're trying to kill us" and then at the top of her lungs yelled at police to stop. Cox said she joined in, and the firing did stop.
Cox said police then ordered "the man" to get out – not hailing Bundy by name. As he stepped into the snow, he dropped his cellphone, an act caught on the video.
Sharp was next. "She sees LaVoy. 'He's dead. They killed him,'" Cox quoted her as saying.
Cox was the last out, dumping her cellphone, camera and notes onto the floor to crawl slightly uphill on the rear seat to get out.
"I looked forward and see all these men dressed in combat gear with long rifles," Cox said. "It was like a war zone."
As she stepped toward the back of the truck, "I see that a wheel is still spinning in the snow. The truck is still running." The video shows occasional wisps of smoke, but it's unclear if this is from the spinning tires.
And then she saw Finicum. She was struck by one detail given that he had fallen backward in the snow: "He still had his hat on and his glasses."
She looked for his wounds. "I saw no blood. I saw no injuries. I could see his face," she said.
Meantime, police demanded to know whether anyone remained in the truck.
"Nobody," she told them.
Cox was handcuffed and placed on the road next to Sharp, coatless and shivering. Cox leaned into her, trying to share some warmth. Police soon let the two perch on the edge of a van's open doorway. Cox said law enforcement by now had moved to Finicum's body.
"You killed him," she told them. "You murdered him."
She said she shifted her focus to trying to calm Sharp. She engaged Sharp in prayer.
"Then she (Sharp) yells out, 'I forgive you.' And I said, 'We hope God forgives you,'" Cox said.
She continued trying to settle Sharp. "You will remember this for the rest of your life. You must testify and tell the truth of what you saw today," Cox told her.
The two began singing, including the nation's anthem, "The Star-Spangled Banner."
Cox asked police if she was under arrest and was told she was being detained. She hunted for badge names to identify who was holding her.
"There were no name tags on these people," she said.
The two were led to a police van and driven down the road toward Burns. Police loaded in Ammon Bundy, Payne, Cavalier and McConnell.
"LaVoy's dead," Sharp told the others, according to Cox.
Ammon Bundy teared up, Cox said. Payne began hitting his head against the van window, yelling at police, "You killed an innocent man. You've become murderers.'"
Sharp wondered what had become of her family. She would learn later that her mother and siblings did make it to John Day, where they would tearfully perform before a hall shocked by word that something terrible had happened.
Cox said after what seemed like hours, police stopped and loaded each of them into a separate SUV for the long drive to Portland. Sharp and McConnell were not among them. They were released in Burns, free to go.
I believe Cox's testimony, she gave details that indicate at least some of the rounds fired on the vehicle were non lethal. Does raise some questions, was Finicum hit by rubber bullets from the left, and was grabbing at the pain? Did the agent on the right mistake his actions to be reaching? Did a man who carried cowboy guns, have a beretta M9 in his pocket? Was that a plant once they found he was reacting to pain, and didn't want public outrage? Still wonder how Ryan Bundy was shot with a lethal round. Why didn't they let them see the Sheriff and have the Sheriff arrest them?
The real problem here is we have government agencies that have been infiltrated by extremists from the Sierra Club and others that have gone in and arbitrarily changed policies with little or no oversight from congress.
Maybe we could afford to better screen candidates if Ranchers like Bundy actually paid what they owe.
Why didn't they let them see the Sheriff and have the Sheriff arrest them?
Try that the next time you are pulled over by a cop. Just tell them that you will be driving to another officer. Lets see what happens. Why should we give these guys ANY special treatment? They are breaking the law (multiple laws). Time to bring them in so they can have their day in court.
But Finicum went further by insisting that the grass on the Tuckup allotment was his property. That view is also embraced by some other area ranchers, including Johnson, who are considering following Finicum's lead in refusing to pay their fees.
That stand is wrong, according to BLM, a handful of Supreme Court rulings and most legal scholars.
"I sent a letter to the BLM saying, 'Thank you so much for your help in managing my ranch,'" Finicum said in his YouTube video, referring to an Aug. 10 letter. "'I shall no longer need your help. I shall manage it myself.'"
In early August, after spotting Finicum's cows on the range before they were permitted to be there, BLM contacted him by phone and sent a notice of trespass Aug. 24 asking him to remove them. On Oct. 22, BLM sent him a "notice of proposed decision" saying he was in "willful trespass."
He racked up $12,000 in trespass fees, and at last count there were 48 cattle on the allotment, BLM said. His previous year's grazing tab was $1,126, which he paid.
To Finicum, the administrative steps were irrelevant.
He claimed that he acquired his grazing rights under "common" or "natural" law that operates independent of the U.S. Constitution.
Essentially, whoever first used a resource like grass, trees or minerals gets to own it as long as it's being beneficially used. That's similar to how Western states grant rights to water under a doctrine known as "prior appropriation."
"We all know this naturally because, for example, we know about lines," Finicum said in the video. "When you're the first one in line, everyone can see that."
Finicum said he inherited century-old rights when he bought his ranch.
"The point is, [BLM claims] this is theirs," he said. "And I claim that the forage right, the grass, is mine."
.......... But contrary to Finicum's claims, there's no credibility to the argument that ranchers can own public resources like grass, legal scholars said.
"None, zilch, nada," said John Leshy, who served as Interior's top lawyer during the Clinton administration. "The Congress, the courts and the executive branch have all rejected such claims going back over a century and continuing right to the present."
David Hayes, who was Interior's deputy secretary under the Clinton and Obama administrations, said there's no legal question over whether the United States can own lands and decide how they are used for private profit.
In addition, "there is no legal 'prior appropriation' concept applied to land ownership in the West," he said. "American Indian tribes will readily -- and sadly -- confirm that."
The federal government first gained title to lands in the West through treaties with foreign powers, including the Louisiana Purchase, the Oregon Compromise and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo -- before the creation of Western states.
On at least half a dozen occasions dating back to the 1890s, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government's authority to regulate public lands, as well as wildlife and activities on them, is "without limits," said Robert Keiter, a professor at the University of Utah's S.J. Quinney College of Law who has written extensively on the issue.
Try that the next time you are pulled over by a cop. Just tell them that you will be driving to another officer. Lets see what happens. Why should we give these guys ANY special treatment? They are breaking the law (multiple laws). Time to bring them in so they can have their day in court.
So you are also against Black Lives Matter, being allowed to destroy neighborhoods, while the police were told to let them vent? The Government and courts broke multiple laws, (Arson, property damage, double jeopardy, obstruction of justice), and the same should apply to them
So you are also against Black Lives Matter, being allowed to destroy neighborhoods, while the police were told to let them vent? The Government and courts broke multiple laws, (Arson, property damage, double jeopardy, obstruction of justice), and the same should apply to them
Deflection (BLM)... unrelated topic. Let's stay on point, shall we?
Did you read the article I posted. Within that... LaVoy thought he was above the law. He believed he owned the grass .... history and legal precedence shows he was wrong.
As for courts, yes, they are not perfect, but you work within them instead of putting people's lives at risk. He DID NOT exhaust the use of legal means to solve his problem (and sometimes, within the legal system, one is just wrong.... like LaVoy).
Deflection (BLM)... unrelated topic. Let's stay on point, shall we?
Did you read the article I posted. Within that... LaVoy thought he was above the law. He believed he owned the grass .... history and legal precedence shows he was wrong.
As for courts, yes, they are not perfect, but you work within them instead of putting people's lives at risk. He DID NOT exhaust the use of legal means to solve his problem (and sometimes, within the legal system, one is just wrong.... like LaVoy).
No, your article was deflection. BLM riots shows how the Government deals with one group of people, who were "wrong". LaVoy's beliefs in natural law, does not in any way effect what happened at that traffic stop, or how the Government handled it. The Constitution does not allow the US Government to indefinitely hold on to land, aside for the clause that allows for military, bases, ports etc. BLM is not allowed to burn land right next to ranches, putting lives in danger, and they are certainly not allowed to harass people into giving up their ranch, so they can expand Federal lands. The Court can not impose double jeopardy. As for the Hammonds I would say they exhausted every legal means, and they *did* ask for help, they recanted that desire after being threatened with harsher sentences. That is called duress.
Sorry, your not just going to be able to spin this into the typical right wing nut, and the Government is without fault non sense. The "occupiers" were in the wrong. The Government was in the wrong. Finicum may have had a death wish, but it is very possible he didn't go for a gun. The Hammonds Constitutional rights were violated, by a tyrannical Government... See the Declaration of Independence, as to what one is to do when the Government becomes that way.
The Constitution does not allow the US Government to indefinitely hold on to land, aside for the clause that allows for military, bases, ports etc.
You didn't read the article...
Thanks for playing...
More about how LaVoy and you are incorrect about federal land holding:
Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution: Art 4, Sec 3, Clause 2 "The 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...." The clause has been used by the Supreme Court to justify the legality of the retention of federal lands - repeatedly: Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U.S. 92, 99 (1872), Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 336 (1936), Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 405 (1917), Light v. United States 220 U.S. 523 (1911).
More about how LaVoy and you are incorrect about federal land holding:
Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution: Art 4, Sec 3, Clause 2 "The 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...." The clause has been used by the Supreme Court to justify the legality of the retention of federal lands - repeatedly: Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U.S. 92, 99 (1872), Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 336 (1936), Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 405 (1917), Light v. United States 220 U.S. 523 (1911).
Your article and the Supreme Court are simply wrong, as in the limitations on the 2nd Amendment, which states shall not be infringed. -----------------------------------------------
Let’s forget Ammon Bundy and the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation for a minute. It’s a sideshow overshadowing the real issue and allowing the liberal corporate media to portray constitutionalists as gun-toting fanatics.
The real issue boils down to private property and the federal government. Liberals and other defenders of the power of the state over the individual assume the government owns the majority of land in the West and it graciously allows ranchers to use it provided they pay reasonable fees. If challenged on this premise, liberals usually cite the Property Clause in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution.
Proponents of state power over the individual argue the Property Clause permits a centralized federal government to hold state lands for a variety of reasons–presently and popularly for liberals to preserve wildlife and the environment–but this interpretation (known as the “police-power theory”) runs counter to the original purpose of the clause.
Thomas W. Merrill, a law professor at Columbia Law Schools, cites a court ruling to explain the original concept of the Property Clause:
A leading nineteenth-century exposition of the constitutional authority of the federal government over federal lands, Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1885), is generally consistent with [the original understanding of the Property Clause]. There, Justice Stephen J. Field wrote that the authority of the federal government over territories is “necessarily paramount.” But once a territory is organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal footing with other states, the state government assumes general sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government has the rights only of an “individual proprietor.” The federal government can exercise rights of general sovereignty over property only if there has been a formal cession of sovereignty by the state under the Enclave Clause. Justice Field qualified this vision of separated sovereignty, however, by noting that if the federal government acquires land outside the Enclave Clause, any federal forts, buildings, or other installations erected on such land “will be free from any such interference and jurisdiction of the State as would destroy or impair their effective use for the purposes designed.”
The Enclave clause limits federal government ownership of land to “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings,” including post offices and post roads.
A better understanding of the issue can be had by reading Robert G. Natelson’s Federal Land Retention and the Constitution’s Property Clause: The Original Understanding (University of Colorado Law Review, 2005). “The Enclave Clause was sold to the ratifying public on the basis that enclaves would be relatively small. Holding massive tracts of undeveloped land (such as in Yosemite National Park, nearly 750,000 acres) as enclaves is not what the Founders had in mind,” writes Natelson.
Under this original and subsequently diluted understanding of the Property and Enclave Clause—most recently with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976—the Bureau of Land Management has no right to hold land and should have long ago disposed of it. (Moreover, it can be argued, the BLM itself is an unconstitutional and therefore illegal entity.)
Unfortunately, due to the impulsive behavior of Ammond Bundy and his crew in Oregon, the corporate media has aggressively pushed the government’s stance on the Property Clause and its unconstitutional domination over millions of acres of land around the United States.
It is indeed unfortunate the Constitution—misread and turned into a cudgel for state power with the help of the corporate media—has been overshadowed by the irresponsible actions of a gang of self-defined patriots who are doing absolutely nothing constructive for the cause of individual rights and private property.
Instead, they have allowed the media to portray constitutionalists and other advocates of liberty as little more than armed fanatics bent on starting a war with the federal government. http://www.infowars.com/ore...nd-the-constitution/
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 02-08-2016).]
I see you are deflecting with the 2nd Amendment now. Come on... stay on topic.
Its not deflection, its precedent. You still don't know the difference. Now go back and read the article I posted, especially the court case. It pretty clearly states the Federal Government can not own hundred of thousands of acres.
Gonna call SCOTUS "a bunch of liberals"? because they haven't agree with you (historically, not just the current judges).
Sorry, you can spin this, as history (precedence) and all three branches of the government do not agree with you and YOUR interpretation.
The Constitution, you know that contract or the "Paper" as the President likes to call it. You know the highest law of the land? If the Government wants to ignore it for their own ends, it doesn't make them right. Nor does it make you right, because you want a big Government that destroys people who disagree with you and gives free things to your protected groups.
The Supreme court could rule from now to the end of time, that those who don't vote democrat, should be put to death. It wouldn't make it Constitutional. Why is that so hard to understand?
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 02-08-2016).]
Its simple. The LAW says you cannot be tried twice for a crime, and you cant be sentenced twice for the same conviction. They couldnt even do it for O.J. in his murder case. They had to bite their tounge when they lost and he was freed. The prosecuter cant just keep retrying a case till he gets the finding he wants. The times you DO see another trial is when their is a hung jury, or information comes to light after the fact which can overturn a conviction. Thats it. Other times its completely illegal, but then the government does lots of illegal things they CAN get away with. This apparently is one. The BLM is illegally 'running' these free range lands in the first place.
The Constitution, you know that contract or the "Paper" as the President likes to call it. You know the highest law of the land? If the Government wants to ignore it for their own ends, it doesn't make them right. Nor does it make you right, because you want a big Government that destroys people who disagree with you and gives free things to your protected groups.
Right..... I want a big government and free things. Apparently, that is the argument you use when backed against the wall. LaVoy wanted free things. Bundy wanted free things. If that grass and land is free, then I will move there, next to LaVoy's property and build giant factory and start strip mining. Hey, the land doesn't belong to anyone, so I have the same rights to use it as LaVoy and Bundy. Why not let the logging companies take all the trees on federal land in the northwest? Same for oil and mineral rights. National parks are up for grabs! We have federal land by me. I should be able to just go take what I want and I could pull a LaVoy and think that I own it.
I love how you think I am a liberal when I am on the side of the law. You are the one ignoring law and blaming someone else... that, my friend, is a liberal tactic.
quote
Originally posted by dennis_6: The Supreme court could rule from now to the end of time, that those who don't vote democrat, should be put to death. It wouldn't make it Constitutional. Why is that so hard to understand?
That is just "out there"... of course it wouldn't stand. BUT hey, nothing like deflection.... 3rd time I have to ask you to stay on topic....
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 02-08-2016).]
That is just "out there"... of course it wouldn't stand. BUT hey, nothing like deflection.... 3rd time I have to ask you to stay on topic....
You still don't understand deflection or Constitutional law.
Let me make it real simple. * Deflection would be using something completely off topic, say like saying well Liberals only want to smoke weed. Not, using supporting statements, or drawing allusions to light the bulb on your head. * The Constitution spells it out in black and white what land the Government can own, and for what purpose. Of Course the Government wants more control, and often manufactures "loop holes" to by pass the law, and then upholds its loophole. That does not make it legal or you on the side of the law. * I never defended FInicum's view of owning lands surrounding his ranch, they belong to the state, not the feds, not him. See Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1885)*. However, that has nothing to do with the double jeopardy topic, and *is* deflection.
* But once a territory is organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal footing with other states, the state government assumes general sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government has the rights only of an “individual proprietor.” But once a territory is organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal footing with other states, the state government assumes general sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government has the rights only of an “individual proprietor.” But once a territory is organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal footing with other states, the state government assumes general sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government has the rights only of an “individual proprietor.” But once a territory is organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal footing with other states, the state government assumes general sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government has the rights only of an “individual proprietor.” But once a territory is organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal footing with other states, the state government assumes general sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government has the rights only of an “individual proprietor.”
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 02-08-2016).]
Now you say there are "loop holes"... sorry... you are just out there. BTW, copy/pasting the same line over and over doesn't make it true.
Here are some things not in the US Constitution, if we are going off-topic. I don't see you posting comments about these issues and "loop holes" by which they exist:
________________________________________
The Air Force
The Constitution was ratified in 1787, long, long before the advent of the airplane. It provides, specifically, for a navy and an army in Article 1, Section 8. Though they were aware of lighter-than-air flying craft, the Framers could not have reasonably provided for an Air Force. It should be noted at the outset that the Constitution does not provide, specifically, for the other uniformed services, the Marines and Coast Guard. The Marines, however, as an arm of the Navy, could be excepted; and the Constitution does provide for "naval forces," and the Coast Guard could thus be excepted. How, then, do we except the Air Force? The first way is via common sense — the Framers certainly did not intend to preclude the use of new technology in the U.S. military, and because of the varied roles of the Air Force, it makes sense for it to be a separate branch. The second (and less desirable) way is historical — the Air Force originated as the Army Air Corps, an arm of the Army, similar to the Navy/Marine relationship. Basically, unless your interpretation of the Constitution freezes it in 1789, the Air Force is a perfectly constitutional branch of the U.S. military.
Congressional Districts
Congressional Districts divide almost every state in the United States into two or more chunks; each district should be roughly equal in population throughout the state and indeed, the entire country. Each district elects one Representative to the House of Representatives. The number of districts in each state is determined by the decennial census, as mandated by the Constitution. But districts are not mentioned in the Constitution. The United States Code acknowledges districting, but leaves the "how's" to the states (gerrymandering, however, is unconstitutional [as seen in Davis v Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986), though, the intent of gerrymandering is difficult to prove]). Thanks to Marko Liias for the idea.
The Electoral College
The concept of the presidential elector is certainly in the Constitution, but never is the group of people collectively referred to as "The Electoral College." Article 1, Section 2 speaks of "Electors," as do several of the Amendments, but never the college itself. The term comes from common usage in the early 1800's, in the same way that the "College of Cardinals" elects a pope, and is based on the Latin word collegium, which simply refers to a body of people acting as a unit. The term "College of Electors" is used in U.S. law, at 3 USC 4. For more on the Electoral College, see the topic page.
Executive Orders
Executive Orders have two main functions: to modify how an executive branch department or agency does its job (rule change) or to modify existing law, if such authority has been granted to the President by Congress. Executive orders are not mentioned by the Constitution, but they have been around a long, long time. George Washington issued several Presidential Proclamations, which are similar to EO's (Proclamations are still issued today). EO's and Proclamations are not law, but they have the effect of statutes. A typical modern Proclamation might declare a day to be in someone's honor. Historically, they have had broader effect, such as the Emancipation Proclamation. A typical EO might instruct the government to do no business with a country we are at war with. Executive orders are subject to judicial review, and can be declared unconstitutional. Today, EO's and Proclamations are sequentially numbered. The average president issues 58 EO's a year. As of March 13, 1936, all EO's must be published in the Federal Register. The first to have been so published was #7316, by President Roosevelt. Thanks to Richard Barr for the idea.
Executive Privilege
Executive privilege is a right to withhold information from the legislative and judicial branches by the President or by one of the executive departments. There is question of whether the right exists at all, a question that has lingered since the very first President, George Washington, asserted executive privilege in his very first term. Most times, executive privilege is asserted for purported national security reasons. Washington, however, asserted the privilege when the House requested details of the Jay Treaty — his rationale was that the House has no role in treaty-making and hence no right to request the documents. In modern times, Bill Clinton refused to simply comply with an order to appear before a grand jury, and instead negotiated terms under which he would appear. Richard Nixon's is the most infamous use of executive privilege, and while the Supreme Court, in U.S. v Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), recognized that there exists a need for some secrecy in the executive branch, but that the secrecy cannot be absolute. The Court ordered Nixon to turn over tapes and documents that a special prosecutor had subpoenaed. More recently, the minutes and records of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force were requested and denied based on executive privilege. This case made its way to the Supreme Court, where the Court deflected the case and sent it back to a lower court for further adjudication. Thanks to Pat Roche for the idea.
Freedom of Expression
It is often said that one of the rights protected by the 1st Amendment is the freedom of expression. This site, in fact, uses that term in its quick description of the amendment: "Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression." But "expression" is not used in the amendment at all. This term has come to be used as a shorthand, a term of art, for three of the freedoms that are explicitly protected: speech, petition, and assembly. While the use of "freedom of expression" is ubiquitous in this area of 1st Amendment study, it is important to note exactly what "freedom of expression" refers to — let this be such a note. Thanks to baf for the idea.
(Absolute) Freedom of Speech and Press
The Constitution does protect the freedom of speech of every citizen, and even of non-citizens — but only from restriction by the Congress (and, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, by state legislatures, too). There are plenty of other places where you could speak but where speech can and is suppressed. For example, freedom of speech can be and often is restricted in a work place, for example: employers can restrict your right to speak in the work place about politics, about religion, about legal issues, even about Desperate Housewives. The same restrictions that apply to the government do not apply to private persons, employers, or establishments. For another example, the government could not prohibit the sale of any newspaper lest it breech the freedom of the press. No newsstand, however, must carry every paper against its owners' wishes. Thanks to Dave Pullin for the idea.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
According to a 2002 Columbia Law School study, nearly two-thirds of persons polled thought that this phrase came from the Constitution or might have been crafted by the Framers. This phrase, however, originates from Karl Marx, and was written in 1875's Critique of the Gotha Program. It is considered by many to be a brief summation of the principles of communism. Thanks to Heinrich Patenfleisch for the idea.
God
It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts. This lack of any these words does not mean that the Framers were not spiritual people, any more than the use of the word Lord means that they were. What this lack of these words is expositive of is not a love for or disdain for religion, but the feeling that the new government should not involve itself in matters of religion. In fact, the original Constitution bars any religious test to hold any federal office in the United States. For more information, see the Religion Topic Page. Thanks to James MacDonald for the idea.
Impeachment Means Removal From Office
The word "impeachment" and the phrase "removal from office" are not synonymous. For a President, judge, or other federal official to be removed from office against their will (because resignation is always an option), they must be impeached. Impeachment consists of three phases — the passage of the impeachment by the House, a trial by the Senate, and the imposition of a penalty if the Senate convicts. For members of the executive branch, removal from office is automatic upon conviction. The Senate may also decide to prevent the person from holding any other public office (see Article 2, Section 4). For any other impeachable officer (including judges), there are basically two punishments, which provide four options: the Senate can do nothing; they can remove the person from their office; they can prevent the person from ever holding any office in the federal government again, or both (see Article 1, Section 3).
Innocent Until Proven Guilty
First, it should be pointed out that if you did it, you're guilty, no matter what. So you're not innocent unless you're truly innocent. However, our system presumes innocence, which means that legally speaking, even the obviously guilty are treated as though they are innocent, until they are proven otherwise.
The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice. However, in so many words, it is not codified in the text of the Constitution. This basic right comes to us, like many things, from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law. The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury.
It's a Free Country
A commonly heard mantra is, "Read your Constitution — it's a free country, you know!" Well, read your Constitution — it never says it is a free country. The implication of the aphorism is that in the United States, you can do whatever you want to do, and the Constitution is there to ensure that. It is certainly true that the Constitution protects many civil rights. The 1st Amendment ensures freedom of religious choice and freedom of speech, but those things are not without limit. You cannot create a religion that allows you to kill someone without civil punishment; you cannot use libelous or slanderous words without recourse. There are other things that restrict freedom — from the ability to suspend habeas corpus to the issuance of patents. Certainly the United States is a very free country, but it is not totally free — which is actually a good thing, unless you actually like anarchy. It is interesting to note that in his confirmation hearings in 2005, John Roberts said several times, "It's a free country." It will be interesting to see how this enters into his judicial philosophy on the Court. Thanks to John Powers and Brad Cottel for the idea.
Judicial Review
We often hear about the Supreme Court striking down a law or a provision in a law, or, more often, reaffirming some law or provision. Take a look in the Constitution — judicial review, as this is known, is nowhere to be found. It seems like a perfectly normal action — after all, what kind of check does the Judicial Branch have on the other two branches if laws and orders cannot be declared unconstitutional. But judicial review is not specifically mentioned. So how did judicial review come to be? In the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall declared a federal law, the Judiciary Act of 1789, to be unconstitutional, and thus null and void. This was the first time a Supreme Court ruling overturned a law. Thanks to Spooky for the idea.
Jury of Peers
People often say "I have a right to have my case heard by a jury of my peers!" when there is no such right in the Constitution. The Constitution does take up the issue of juries, however. It is the nature of the jury which is not in the Constitution. In Article 3, Section 2, the Constitution requires that all criminal trials be heard by a jury. It also specifies that the trial will be heard in the state the crime was committed. The 6th Amendment narrows the definition of the jury by requiring it to be "impartial." Finally, the 7th Amendment requires that certain federal civil trials guarantee a jury trial if the amount exceeds twenty dollars.
Note that no where is a jury "of peers" guaranteed. This is important for some historical and contemporary reasons. Historically, the notion of a peer is one of social standing — in particular, in a monarchy such as the one the United States grew up from, commoners would never stand in judgement of lords and barons. Along these same lines, since suffrage and jury service have always been closely tied (and in the beginnings of the United States it was typical for only white, male, property-owners to be allowed the vote), any combination of gender, race, and economic status would be judged by only one kind of jury, hardly by "peers."
Today, the American ideal dictates that we are all peers of one another, that regardless of gender, race, religion, social status, or any other division (except age), we are all equal. In this ideal, since we are all peers, a guarantee of a jury of ones peers would be redundant. While some argue with this ideal, it is the most democratic way to approach the subject. Juries need only be impartial, and not made up of one's peers, else the jury system would be unworkable. Thanks to James Bishop for the idea and to Clive Wilson for ideas for further explanation.
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"
This phrase is commonly attributed to the Constitution, but it comes from the Declaration of Independence. The 5th Amendment does offer protections to our "life, liberty, or property," noting we cannot be deprived of any of them without due process of law.
Marriage
In 2004, a lot of controversy began to swirl around the topic of marriage as homosexual marriage entered the news once again. In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ordered that the state must make accommodations for gay unions, bringing the issue into the public eye. Vermont created civil unions as a result. In 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Court went a step further, and ruled that the state must accommodate not just an institution equal to marriage, as civil union was designed to be, but that gay marriage itself must be offered in the state. Subsequently, mayors in New York and California began to offer gay marriage in their towns and cities, citing civil rights concerns. Those opposed to gay marriage began to urge that an amendment to the Constitution be created to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only. Opponents of the amendment pointed to the failed Prohibition Amendment as a reason why such social issues should stay out of the Constitution. In the absence of any such amendment, however, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point. More information is available on the Marriage Topic Page.
Martial Law
The terms "martial law" or "law martial" are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but a key aspect of martial law, the suspension of habeas corpus certainly is — Congress cannot suspend habeas corpus except when public safety is in jeopardy in times of rebellion or invasion. This clause, found at Article 1, Section 9, is often taken as shorthand for martial law, but in reality, martial law can exist while habeas corpus is in place — the two are commonly linked, but not mutually exclusive. More details can be found on the Martial Law Topic Page.
No Taxation Without Representation
The battle cry "No taxation without representation!" was a great political slogan coined to counter the Sugar Act of 1764. In order to help recoup the debt it incurred during the French and Indian War (or the Seven Years' War), the British Parliament passed the act, which taxed all manner of foodstuffs imported into the colonies. The Americans, in the midst of economic depression following the war, were not particularly enamored of a new tax. Some have written that the Americans were simply whining tax evaders. The slogan was good for rallying the troops with an easy issue for every one to discern: that since they were not represented in Parliament, the tax should not be levied. However, the ultimate goal of most of the agitators was not representation in Parliament, but independence.
The concept of "no taxation without representation" may be present in general in the United States. But those who are unrepresented (such as convicts and immigrants who cannot vote) are still subject to taxation. Notably, the citizens of Washington, DC, do not have any voting representation in Congress (though it does send a non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives). Since 2000, DC license plates have included the phrase "Taxation Without Representation" in an effort to raise awareness of the issue, especially among tourists visiting the city. By virtue of the 23rd Amendment, however, DC does have at least three electoral votes. Thanks to Ntech for the idea.
Number of Justices in the Supreme Court
Article 3, Section 1 specifies that there will be a Supreme Court, Article 1, Section 3 mentions the Chief Justice, and Article 2, Section 2 mentions the "Judges of the Supreme Court", but aside from these small mentions, the make-up of the Supreme Court is not defined in the Constitution. There will be a Supreme Court, there will be a Chief Justice, and there will be other Justices — but how many? Originally, there were six members, and the number has fluctuated up to as many as ten. In 1869, the number was set in the law at nine, and it has remained at nine ever since. The number of justices is now set in the U.S. Code at 28 USC 1. Thanks to Dulce Siochi for the idea.
"Of the People, By the People, For the People"
This phrase is commonly attributed to the Constitution, but it comes from the Gettysburg Address. Thanks to James Bishop for the idea.
Paper Money
The Constitution does not directly mention paper money, a staple of today's economy. It does give the Congress the power to "coin money," however. The Constitution does prohibit states from issuing "bills of credit," but no such prohibition is in place for the federal government. What does this mean? Is paper money unconstitutional, but coins are okay?
See FAQ Question #154 for a discussion of this topic. Thanks to Jon Williams for the idea.
Political Parties
Political parties are such a basic part of our political system today, that many people might assume the Constitution must at least mention parties in one way or another... but there is absolutely no mention of political parties anywhere in the Constitution. In fact, in the times of the Articles of Confederation, there weren't even any parties; factions, perhaps; regional blocs, yes; but no parties. Not until the Jackson and Van Buren administrations did organized parties really take hold in the American political system. Thanks to Lois for the idea.
Primary Elections
The Primary Election season can be exciting and heady as candidates for the presidency, and other national and state offices, vie for their party's endorsement and spot on the ballot. Many people today assume that because the process is second nature that it must be spelled out in the Constitution. No where in the Constitution, however, will you find any mention of how elections should be conducted. Since the Constitution is silent on the issue, we have been free to develop any system we wished, and the result is the system of primary elections we now use. Though the point of the party elections is to select a single member of the party for the "real" election, the courts have still exerted influence, reasoning that through primaries, disenfranchisement can be effected. Party elections, then, must be open to anyone asserting party affiliation — parties cannot, for example, bar any person of color solely on the basis of race. Since they are party elections, however, the Supreme Court has ruled that primary elections can bar voters not registered with that party. Thanks to Jeff Winter for the idea.
Qualifications for Judges
Article 1, Section 2 specifies the qualifications to be a Representative, Article 1, Section 3 specifies those for Senators, and Article 2, Section 1 those for President. The 12th Amendment adds the Vice President. But no where does the Constitution specify how federal judges are to be qualified. There is no minimum age and no residency requirement. The primary reason for this is that the Framers were well aware of how judges became judges — they were appointed because they excelled at the law. To do that, you must have had at least a minimum of knowledge in the law (though in the 18th and 19th centuries, lawyers were often self-taught). Thanks to Marko Liias for the idea.
The Right To Privacy
The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit.
The Right To Travel
As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Thanks to Marko Liias for the idea. Thanks to W.H. van Atteveldt for the note about Congressional travel.
The Right To Vote
The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.
Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to. Thanks to Roy Neale for the idea and to Brian Shaprio for some clarifications.
The Separation Of Church and State
The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the 1st Amendment erected a "wall of separation" between the church and the state (James Madison said it "drew a line," but it is Jefferson's term that sticks with us today). The phrase is commonly thought to mean that the government should not establish, support, or otherwise involve itself in any religion. The Religion Topic Page addresses this issue in much greater detail. Thanks to Pat Roche for the idea.
The Separation Of Powers Clause
Though it may be implied or even directly stated in some news reports, blog postings, or web sites, there is no clause of the Constitution that is called the "Separation of Powers Clause." This is because there is no one clause that says "separation of powers" or "checks and balances" or any other phrase that is used synonymously. The concept of the Separation of Powers is written into the first three articles of the Constitution, as detailed elsewhere. Thanks to Eric Zuesse for the idea.
Slavery
Originally, the Framers were very careful about avoiding the words "slave" and "slavery" in the text of the Constitution. Instead, they used phrases like "importation of Persons" at Article 1, Section 9 for the slave trade, "other persons" at Article 1, Section 2, and "person held to service or labor" at Article 4, Section 2 for slaves. Not until the 13th Amendment was slavery mentioned specifically in the Constitution. There the term was used to ensure that there was to be no ambiguity as what exactly the words were eliminating. In the 14th Amendment, the euphemism "other persons" (and the three-fifths value given a slave) was eliminated. The Slavery Topic Page has a lot more detail. Thanks to ches04 for the idea.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"
This phrase is commonly attributed to the Constitution, but it comes from the Declaration of Independence.
Immigration
The Constitution never uses the word immigration, so how is it that the rules for immigrants, and quotas for countries, are set by the federal government and not by the state governments? After all, as the 10th Amendment states, are the powers not delegated to the United States held by the states, or the people?
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration.
There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power. Thanks to Jason Potkanski for the idea, and Stephen Lush for some clarification.
Originally posted by dennis_6: You still don't understand deflection or Constitutional law.
Let me make it real simple. * Deflection would be using something completely off topic, say like saying well Liberals only want to smoke weed. Not, using supporting statements, or drawing allusions to light the bulb on your head. * The Constitution spells it out in black and white what land the Government can own, and for what purpose. Of Course the Government wants more control, and often manufactures "loop holes" to by pass the law, and then upholds its loophole. That does not make it legal or you on the side of the law. * I never defended FInicum's view of owning lands surrounding his ranch, they belong to the state, not the feds, not him. See Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1885)*. However, that has nothing to do with the double jeopardy topic, and *is* deflection.
* But once a territory is organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal footing with other states, the state government assumes general sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government has the rights only of an “individual proprietor.” But once a territory is organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal footing with other states, the state government assumes general sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government has the rights only of an “individual proprietor.” But once a territory is organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal footing with other states, the state government assumes general sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government has the rights only of an “individual proprietor.” But once a territory is organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal footing with other states, the state government assumes general sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government has the rights only of an “individual proprietor.” But once a territory is organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal footing with other states, the state government assumes general sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government has the rights only of an “individual proprietor.”
Now you say there are "loop holes"... sorry... you are just out there. BTW, copy/pasting the same line over and over doesn't make it true.
Here are some things not in the US Constitution, if we are going off-topic. I don't see you posting comments about these issues and "loop holes" by which they exist:
Some of those should not exist. Some of those are natural rights, you should look up at what the founding fathers considered natural rights. Also, the Constitution does not grant rights, it limits the Government, say like owning 1/3 of the US. Its a contract, we have far more rights than listed in the Constitution, the ones that were listed, were criticized at the time for being obvious, but they felt the need, just in case someone in the future tried to revoke a vital right. Like gun control.
I copied and posted a judges verdict, by your own admission it must be true, because you are not a judge.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 02-08-2016).]
A direct violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution
Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com April 11, 2014 James Madison: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." The establishment media is now paying attention to Cliven Bundy and his struggle with the Bureau of Land Management. Most of this coverage assumes Bundy is engaged in illegal cattle grazing on federal land.
“The U.S. government is rounding up Bundy’s cattle that it says have been grazing illegally on public lands in Clark County for more than 20 years, according to the land-management bureau and the National Park Service,” CNN reports today.
The BLM insists “Mr. Bundy has… failed to comply with multiple court orders to remove his cattle from the federal lands and to end the illegal trespass.”
It is the BLM, not Cliven Bundy, who is in violation of the law and the Constitution, specifically Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution.
The clause, known as the Enclave Clause, authorizes Congress to purchase, own and control land in a state under specific and limited conditions, namely “for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings,” and not, as the feds now insist, to protect an endangered tortoise.
The Founders were opposed to providing a centralized federal government with unlimited authority to purchase and, as is routinely the case today, seize state and private land.
During the federal convention debates in September, 1787, Elbridge Gerry, who later went on to serve as vice president under James Madison, contended federal purchase of land “might be made use of to enslave any particular State by buying up its territory, and that the strongholds proposed would be a means of awing the State into an undue obedience.”
In order to make certain the federal government did not abuse the Enclave Clause, the words “Consent of the Legislature of the State” were added.
Madison, Jefferson and the Founders were primarily interested in limited government and the diffusion of federal authority over the states for the protection of individual liberty. In 1992, the Supreme Court issued an opinion on the framers’ reasoning behind the state consent requirement (New York v. U.S):
“The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.” (Emphasis added.)
Madison knew unlimited federal power inevitably results in unbridled tyranny. “I venture to declare it as my opinion that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America,” he wrote.
Despite the desire of the founders and the originating principles of the nation, conceived as a constitutional republic, the federal government has repeatedly and habitually exacted dictatorial authority in Nevada and throughout much of the West.
“The United States government owns and has broad authority to regulate federal lands in Nevada,” the BLM arrogantly insists. “In response to challenges of federal ownership of the lands in Nevada, the 9th circuit held that the federal government owned all federal lands in Nevada, and that those lands did not pass to the state upon statehood.”
This is in direct conflict with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution.
Cliven Bundy’s struggle with the BLM in Nevada is exactly the situation Madison and the founders tried to prevent. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to own land, beyond what is stipulated in the Enclave Clause, and its seizure of land, under the obviously fallacious pretense of protecting a tortoise, is a serious violation of the Constitution.
Madison made if perfectly clear in Federalist Paper 45:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined… The [federal powers] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce… the powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
“It’s really about our constitutional rights and statehood,” Bundy has said. “And whether this area known as the state of Nevada is owned by the United States government or is owned by the sovereign state of Nevada.”
Mr. Bundy, despite a propaganda campaign to the contrary launched by the federal government and its subservient media, is absolutely correct – the war shaping up between the Nevada rancher and the federal government is about states’ rights and, ultimately, the rights of sovereign individuals. http://www.infowars.com/blm...itutional-heres-why/
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 02-08-2016).]
.... history and legal precedence shows he was wrong. 
