Your "facts" are incorrect.
It is PUBLIC land, not Federal land.
The first limits on Federal control are defined IN THE CONSTITUTION.
The Feds manage some of it (but they may not much longer, as a result of proofs provided in this incident.)
In spite of what the Federal government may claim, the Feds do not own it as sovereigns... because the Feds are NOT the sovereigns. In this country, the people are the sovereigns... the central government does not enjoy the powers of Kings. There is a dynamic that has the government over-reaching... but, they just got handed their heads on a platter... because that dynamic favored the FACTS and not the aggressors seeking to take what is not theirs to take.
That the government says something... does not make it true.
As a matter of settled LAW, it is Bundy, and NOT the Federal government, who OWNS the water and grazing rights. He OWNS them, free and clear, and does not have access to those rights "by the leave" of the Federal government. Those "rights" ARE HIS PROPERTY and he enjoys the use of them BY RIGHT. On the other hand, the Federal government is present on those PUBLIC lands only "by the leave" of the State Legislatures.
Bundy is correct that he "does not have a contract with the Federal government" that operates to subordinate his water and grazing rights to them.
Bundy is correct that the "deal" that does exist... is one that was enabled to provide him with the benefit of Federal "management assistance"... and when the "management assistance" he is receiving, is operating to deny him his rights... he is not obliged to assist the government in their purposeful theft of his property, much less pay them to steal what he OWNS.
The Federal government, by seeking to convert their provision of "management assistance" into a claim of ownership... is engaged in a practice of fraud.
|
