Insta-Millard: Bundy Ranch issue history


It’s an oversimplification, but not an oversimplification that leads to inaccuracy.

I say “oversimplification” because President Reagan did not impose grazing fees for the first time, but instead set rates at the time.  U.S. grazing fees grew out of the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act, which included among other noble purposes the saving of unoccupied public lands from erosion, to prevent them from contributing to a national Dust Bowl.  The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages about 245 million acres of land in the U.S., highly concentrated in 13 western states (about 86% of Nevada is public lands of one sort or another).  Of those lands, about 155 million acres are open to grazing.  BLM is part of the U.S. Department of Interior.  Reagan’s Executive Order came when the law authorizing grazing fees had expired, and Congress was at an impasse in passing a new one, partly over a Reagan Administration proposal to raise grazing fees to market value, a multiple of fees then (and now) in effect.

Sagebrush Rebellion catches Tea Party Stupid disease, it seems to me.  If the virus hasn’t been cured since 1993, what are the odds Mr. Bundy will sit still for a cure now?

More to come?

More:

Mad City Quanta, a Nebraska on-line comic, on grazing fees issues in 2012.

Mad City Quanta, a Nebraska on-line comic, on grazing fees issues in 2012. To update it, substitute “Bundy” for “Fischer” on the tie of the steer on the left.

About these ads

58 Responses to Insta-Millard: Bundy Ranch issue history

  1. JamesK says:

    Or two unarmed black guys in hats that say “black panthers”.they are so dangerous we need to muck with election laws.

    Dozens of armed whackos threatening to shoot federal agents…not only are they not dangerous but they’re somehow “real patriots” and we should let the rancher continue to steal from US taxpayers because of it.

    Only in right wing fantasy land.

    Like

  2. JamesK says:

    Leave it to a conservative to think that the government taking people’s land for an oil pipeline is perfectly fine..but how dare the government think to charge a rancher grazing fees for his grazing his cattle on federal land. And when that rancher engages in thievery by refusing to pay the grazing fees despite his continuing to let his cattle graze on land he doesn’t own..how dare the government seize the cattle to pay the debt the rancher owes under multiple court orders against him.

    right wing extremists and their deranged love for armed violence and threats thereof.

    Like

  3. Black Flag® says:

    Contrary?

    So you now claim Jefferson didn’t buy Louisiana?

    Like

  4. Ed Darrell says:

    By completing this purchase, Jefferson had to put aside his principles because the allowance for this type of transaction was not expressly listed in the Constitution.

    It would help if you did some study of history, so that you don’t say things exactly contrary to what happened again.

    Try American Sphinx. It’s a pretty fast read on Jefferson.

    I don’t recall that Ambrose dealt with the issue in Undaunted Courage, but maybe.

    Like

  5. Black Flag® says:

    By completing this purchase, Jefferson had to put aside his principles because the allowance for this type of transaction was not expressly listed in the Constitution.

    It can be argued that his taking liberties with the Constitution in the name of need and expediency would lead to future Presidents feeling justified with a continual increase in the elasticity of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. Jefferson should rightly be remembered for the great deed of purchasing this enormous tract of land. But one wonders if he might regret the means in which he earned this fame.

    Like

  6. Black Flag® says:

    “Such a restriction would have prevented the purchase of Louisiana from Napoleon.”

    Absolutely correct. It was unconstitutional.

    “Perhaps you could reread the Constitution and cite a clause there? I don’t think such a clause exists. :”

    No, Ed, its the other way around. ENUMERATED POWERS – the Fed’s do not seize what is not said, they act only on WHAT IS SAID, all other situations NOT ENUMERATED is NOT there power.

    Like

  7. Ed Darrell says:

    The Federal government is specifically constrained to only acquire land for enumerated purposes – that is, enumerated in the Constitution – D.C. was specifically created to be a place for the Federal government to operate, and constrained to only operate there.

    Such a restriction would have prevented the purchase of Louisiana from Napoleon.

    Perhaps you could reread the Constitution and cite a clause there? I don’t think such a clause exists.

    The land in question here came into title of the U.S. government by right of conquest from Mexico, in the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo. While it might be correct as a matter of grammar to say it was “seized” from Mexico, that’s not the way the title is treated in law.

    The issue of lands held by the federal government was an issue left over from the Articles of Confederation. I know of no discussion at the Philadelphia Convention which would prevent the U.S. holding public lands as it does today; if we needed a precedent, however, I think the Louisiana Purchase would suffice.

    Like

  8. Black Flag® says:

    In Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346

    The US, though a defendant, was found that such a case – Tribal lands – was not applicable for a Federal court.

    As I said originally, it is an arguable point of jurisdiction. The laws of trespass are not federal laws, but State laws, thus a case of trespass rightfully belong in a State court, not Federal court.

    Like

  9. Black Flag® says:

    “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; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

    This is not a clause for the Federal government to seize land, Ed. It merely articulates that it makes rules on the land it holds, nothing more.

    Like

  10. Ed Darrell says:

    See, U.S. Constitution (1789, as amended):

    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

    Article IV, Section 3, inter alia

    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; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

    Also, on Jurisdiction of Courts

    Article III, Section 2

    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State,–between Citizens of different States,–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

    Like

  11. Black Flag® says:

    Absolutely it is unconstitutional.

    The Federal government is specifically constrained to only acquire land for enumerated purposes – that is, enumerated in the Constitution – D.C. was specifically created to be a place for the Federal government to operate, and constrained to only operate there.

    Any other lands it seized was to be only for what it constitutionally required to fulfill its role – such as military bases, etc. There is no constitutional right to seize land for “management” purposes.

    Seizure of land not so enumerated, thus, is unconstitutional.

    Like

  12. Black Flag® says:

    Absolutely false.

    The jurisdiction is where the complaint exists, not where you or I live.

    Like

  13. Ed Darrell says:

    It’s not unconstitutional for the government to own and hold land.

    Like

  14. Ed Darrell says:

    If we live in different states, yes, you need to go to federal court to sue me.

    Like

  15. JamesK says:

    To quote: Why does the federal government have a Bureau of Land Management? Why does the federal government still own land outside of D.C.? It owning land outside of D.C. is, in fact, unconstitutional.

    Really? Has the US Supreme Court ever ruled that way?

    No?

    Then your statement is nothing but your opinion and doesn’t mean jack ****.

    Does pulling **** out of your *** like that come naturally to you right wingers or did you attend some sort of special school for the bull**** inclined?

    Like

  16. JamesK says:

    To quote: No more than you can steal the clothes off of the squatter on your land, nor can they steal cows from the farmer.

    It was nothing but a show of tyranny – that government is above its own laws, and the People revolted.

    The rancher, BF, refused to pay a debt that a court ordered him to pay to the feds for his refusal to pay grazing fees for his grazing his cows on public land.

    Very much so the government had the right to seize the cows just as if you refused to pay your debts your creditors would have the right to seize what you own to pay the debt.

    Unless you think it’s a good idea for people to not pay debts that they owe?

    This isn’t a show of tyranny..this is a show of a bunch of right wing anti-government domestic terrorist wannabes trying to give the government and the american people the finger.

    When did the Republican party and conservatives become a bunch of anarchists?

    Like

  17. Black Flag® says:

    Why does the federal government have a Bureau of Land Management? Why does the federal government still own land outside of D.C.? It owning land outside of D.C. is, in fact, unconstitutional.

    Like

  18. Black Flag® says:

    You claim if I sue you for a million, I need to go to Federal court? Nonsense.

    The government is merely a litigant. The “who” is irrelevant.

    Like

  19. Black Flag® says:

    They backed off because what they were doing was illegal.

    No more than you can steal the clothes off of the squatter on your land, nor can they steal cows from the farmer.

    It was nothing but a show of tyranny – that government is above its own laws, and the People revolted.

    There are other people, like you, who revel in the violence of government and love it. But people like you do not believe this violence will be done upon you – but like Bundy you will suffer such violence, eventually, with no recourse to law – as you have supported such lawlessness of government upon others.

    Like

  20. Ed Darrell says:

    BLM backed off solely to avoid making Mr. Bundy the David Koresh of 2014. Wise move on their part.

    He’s terminally stupid, it appears, but no reason to be the agency he chooses as his suicide weapon, if BLM can avoid it.

    Like

  21. Ed Darrell says:

    The federal courts do not have a “master” in the federal government. They are a branch co-equal with the other branches of government, under the Constitution.

    Like

  22. Ed Darrell says:

    Diversity of citizenship, federal government as a party, monetary value above $10,000 — looks like an issue for federal jurisdiction to me.

    Like

  23. Black Flag® says:

    It is telling, Ed, the BLM backoff and returned the animals – since the seizure was illegal.

    If you rent to a person, and they do not pay, your recourse is the court of jurisdiction.

    If you succeed in your claim in that court, you have no right to seize property, nor attack the person on your property. You can lien their assets.

    You can also appeal to that court for further redress and the court will appoint the Sheriff to exercise such remedy. You have no right to take up your gun and attack the squatter.

    The Fed have no such right either and they know it. It was tyranny at play and they were caught.

    Like

  24. Ed Darrell says:

    You might want to take a look at the discussion among Tim Sandefur’s lawyer friends at this Facebook site:

    Like

  25. Black Flag® says:

    There is no surprise that a Federal court sides with its master, but it is not a Federal Court issue.

    It is a State issue, regrading property. You do not go to a federal court to make your claim about rent on your property. You go to a State court.

    Because the litigant is the Fed does not change this.

    Like

  26. Ed Darrell says:

    The Breitbart site continued:

    In July 2013, the federal court granted the DOJ’s motion for summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Government. The court reiterated its position that “the public lands of Nevada are the property of the United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States.”

    The Nevada federal district court offered a rather blunt summary of its ruling, “In sum, this most recent effort to oppose the United States’ legal process, Bundy has produced no valid law or specific facts raising a genuine issue of fact regarding federal ownership or management of the public lands of Nevada, or that his cattle have not trespassed on the New Trespass Lands.”

    In February 2014, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals again rejected Bundy’s claims.

    Like

  27. Ed Darrell says:

    Claiming that the Bundy family continued to graze livestock on their old Bunkerville Allotment without permit, the BLM sought an injunction in federal court to correct the “trespass” in 1998. The court ordered the Bundy family remove all non-permitted livestock by November 30, 1998 or face fines of $200 per head, per day. The family appealed to the 9th Circuit Court—only to be denied in May 1999.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/12/The-Saga-of-Bundy-Ranch

    Like

  28. Black Flag® says:

    It is a State issue, Ed, because – heck – it is about property within a State. It has nothing to do with anything encompassing more than one State or other Nation.

    No more than a multinational in a land dispute with you – it ain’t a federal case though the complainant exists in more then one jurisdiction.

    Like

  29. Black Flag® says:

    First, trespass laws apply to people, not animals, so good try Ed, but a no go on that one.

    Like

  30. Black Flag® says:

    It is not a matter of trespass – that has never been the claim, so it is bizarre you make it here. Not even the Feds make such a claim.

    It is a claim of fees, nothing more, Ed.

    Go get a bit more info on the subject before you make up more stories about it.

    To claim 900 head of cattle over 600,000 acres of land is “wasting” the landscape is utterly bizarre, though not at all germane to this case whatsoever no matter.

    Like

  31. Ed Darrell says:

    How is it a state issue? It’s federal land. The state has no jurisdiction over federal grazing law for federal land.

    But by the way, I’m no certain he hasn’t lost state court cases as well.

    But go ahead, tell us where the state gets jurisdiction.

    Like

  32. Black Flag® says:

    I agree, he has been in FEDERAL court many times, but it is not a federal issue – it is a STATE issue.

    Like

  33. Ed Darrell says:

    Remedies for trespass are indeed well prescribed. If I trespass on your land, the first part of the remedy is I get off. If I don’t, you now claim I have a right to stay there?

    You got a lotta guests coming this weekend, maybe.

    Like

  34. Ed Darrell says:

    It’s been federal land since 1848. Not a state issue, on federal lands.

    It’s been to the courts, more than once. Bundy lost.

    Like

  35. Black Flag® says:

    The range has been damaged since 1930s.

    Utter bullshit and you know it.

    It is not “critical” for anything. You are making up or repeating lies.

    Endangered species act has saved no species. The BLM has destroyed more “turtles” then it ever thought it could save.

    To claim that land should be saved for turtles at the loss of human benefit only shows your rampant misanthropy.

    Like

  36. Black Flag® says:

    Sorry, Ed, your legal non-education holds no merit

    It is merely a case of ‘rent seeking’. The government seized the property with no transfer of compensation, merely declarative.

    Given Bundy utilized the land well before such rent seeking, your claim has little merit, whatever FEDERAL court may say. This, rightly, is a State issue, not federal issue – the federal court actually has no jurisdiction in this case. Bundy’s legal mistake was a failure to challenge jurisdiction, which I am sure he will correct.

    The remedies are well prescribed for trespass and none of them constitute theft of property nor violence.

    Like

  37. Ed Darrell says:

    The range has been damaged since 1930s. That’s Bundy’s justification for not paying the fees, by the way. Talk to him.

    Bundy complained when it was discovered part of the tract he leased is critical habitat for the desert tortoise. It needed repair, and rest. Bundy has continued to graze this land in defiance of the Endangered Species Act AND the grazing rules.

    You can claim that land wasn’t damaged, but I’ve never been impressed with your desert botanical and ecological acumen. I’ll trust the professionals, who say the cows need to go, a decade ago.

    Like

  38. Ed Darrell says:

    Get a law dictionary, or a property law text, and look up “waste.”

    When Bundy stopped paying rent, his invitation or license to use the land lapsed. For continuing trespass, legal remedies (money) are inadequate. you have to stop the trespass.

    Bundy was ordered to do that. In one of days in court (contempt? I don’t know), the judge ordered BLM to remove the cattle.

    Bundy’s refusal, and those yahoos backing him, are obstructing the execution of valid legal orders.

    They are no more in the right than George Wallace standing in the door of a schoolhouse to bar an eighth grader entrance. About as ugly, too.

    Like

  39. Black Flag® says:

    Further, to you utterly ridiculous claim about damage.

    If these grazing fees were paid, nothing would have happened.

    Since nothing would have happened, there could be no claim to damages.

    Try to avoid your usual idiocy here, Ed.

    Like

  40. Black Flag® says:

    This is not a debt dispute. It’s a case in equity. Bundy’s cattle are in trespass and wasting the land they graze.

    First, it was the dispute.
    Second, they are not “wasting” the land. Such a notion is utterly ridiculous.

    They are not damaging anything. The plaintiff did not prove any damage. You are making up stories, as usual.

    Like

  41. Ed Darrell says:

    This is not a debt dispute. It’s a case in equity. Bundy’s cattle are in trespass and wasting the land they graze.

    Under equity law, to stop further damage, the plaintiff may resort to self-help to remove the offense and stop the damage.

    Plus injunction against further damage (already obtained).

    Like

  42. Black Flag® says:

    Assuming all legal means were correctly followed (doubtful) – the rightful act of the Federal Government is to put a lien on the property of Bundy; that is the proper recourse.

    If you have a debt dispute with your neighbor, and achieve legal agreement, your remedy is to lien his property so that the proceeds he earns from such property then can be assigned to you.

    Neither you or the government have the right to steal property to relieve your debt.

    BLM assumed God-like power to resolve the dispute by violence. They are the tyranny and they are the wrong here, not Bundy.

    Like

  43. Debra says:

    Article III section 3 of the Constitution. You mean the bits about treason? haha I know right.

    Like

  44. Ed Darrell says:

    Anyone familiar with Article III section 3 of the Constitution?

    At Bundy off-ranch grazing site, all BLM people swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the U.S. Mr. Bunday told news agencies he does not recognize the U.S. government in any way.

    Whose side is he on?

    What about this guy, in the photo?

    Liked by 1 person

  45. Ellie says:

    Ed, I had not seen the cartoon! But it’s certainly what I had in mind. Thanks for putting it here.

    Like

  46. Debra says:

    Makes a person kind of wish that people could learn to revere problem solving skills more than obstinacy and violence.

    Like

  47. Ed Darrell says:

    Like

  48. Ed Darrell says:

    Oh, Ellie!

    Did you see Pat Bagley’s cartoon in the Salt Lake Tribune?

    Bagley, Salt Lake Tribune, Cartoon on Bundy Ranch issue

    This Pat Bagley editorial cartoon appears in The Salt Lake Tribune on Sunday, April 13, 2014. Want more? Become a fan of Bagley on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/notrobertkirby.

    I heard a report Bagley was a finalist for the Pulitzer this year, which I presume means he didn’t win it. Haven’t found a full report.

    Like

  49. Ed Darrell says:

    I was active in legislative government, back in the “Sagebrush Rebellion” days. The government over-reach issue is big, to me.

    Also sensitive to nuts with guns. In our town, we had the one guy who refused to recognize the state had any authority to question his child-raising methods; then, a few days after he committed suicide in a borrowed truck up a canyon, his wife carried out her end of the pact, throwing their kids from the 14th floor of an SLC hotel.

    And that led to the state being real, real, real careful with the next case, a guy named John Singer, who responded to questioning at his compound’s mailbox by murdering a deputy sheriff, and a stand off in which he was killed.

    I worry that there is no reasoning with crazy people.

    Like

  50. Mikels Skele says:

    Just one more instance of the Idiotic Outrage Syndrome which has gripped the nation (the world?) lately.

    Like

  51. Debra says:

    heh ty
    And btw you have inspired me to write more about history. =D

    Like

  52. Debra says:

    You are right. I overstated that one. I guess seeing people consistently trying to erode the rule of law pushes some buttons for me. of course, I didn’t want to see this end in violence but I do think he ought to respect the law and that the government has a duty to protect the commons.

    Like

  53. Ellie says:

    He claims ancestral rights to the land. My irony meter exploded.

    Liked by 1 person

  54. Ed Darrell says:

    P.S. — your current blue-flower avatar is wonderful.

    Like

  55. Ed Darrell says:

    I’m loathe to say “government backs down.” There are two court orders still outstanding.

    BLM acted to avoid making Bundy a new David Koresh. Should we fault them for that? Or should we reflect how difficult it really is to deal with modern-day Timothy McVeighs who don’t understand, and don’t want to?

    Like

  56. Debra says:

    So when a white guy who has friends with guns says that he has a right to use the land in any old which way, the Federal Government backs down. I kind of think the story would have ended differently if the people who used the land for even longer had asserted the same right. Not to mention the tortoises ….

    Liked by 1 person

Play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,337 other followers

%d bloggers like this: