UPDATE:
I have closed comments on this article. I believe the comments against the Bundy group showed two points:
- They are willing to submit to any law or executive order by the government.
- They did not even watch the videos.
The answer to the question posed in the title is “yes”.
Forbes magazine and the Daily Kos are publishing how the Bundy “militia” are destroying Indian artifacts. First, let’s see Mr. Finicum’s intent concerning refuge property:
Robert “LaVoy” Finicum talks about taking care of refuge property
Here is a video from The Daily Kos. Note the use of the term “rifle” in the title. If you read the comments on YouTube, it is obvious that the people did not even watch the video.
Oregon militants rifle through native artifacts
Did you see any mistreatment of Indian artifacts in the video?
Here is the article from Forbes magazine:
Bundy Militia Compared To ISIS For Pawing Through Native American Artifacts, Destroying Sites
From the outset of the now weeks-long occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon by the militia led by Ammon Bundy, archaeologists as well as members of the Burns Paiute Tribe have been concerned for ancient artifacts and sacred spaces. Their fears were realized this week as news reports discussed bulldozing of land and a video surfaced of armed militants rifling through boxes of artifacts archived at the refuge. And many on Twitter are already making a parallel between the militia and the work of ISIS in destroying world heritage sites.
If the government is able to issue propaganda through their media outlets to non-sentient people, what is our course of action? I am still waiting for any verification that the people at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge are calling themselves “militia”. Based on our founding principles and the Constitution, the “militia” is what guarantees the security of a free State.
What will you do when the government attacks these people? Got Faith? Got Sacred honor?
Which is worse:
Non-sentient people who believe lies.
Sentient people who will not stand up.
The end result is the same:
David DeGerolamo
And people wonder how could the German people have let it happen.
You obviously have never heard of the Antiquities Act and you know nothing about other federal and state laws governing archaeological resources. What these armed “militia” guys are doing is highly illegal, unethical, and disrespectful of the Paiute, the people of Oregon, and of the democratic process. They are zealous, ignorant right-wingers. They want to “negotiate” with the Paiute and give back their artifacts — That is a felony and the Paiute are angry at them. They bulldozed roads through sensitive archaeological areas which is also a felony. That stuff is on top of their armed, hostile occupation of federal land, more big time felonies. That’s public land, owned by you and me, and we normally have excellent access to it for recreation, etc. I’ve been there. These guys are only out for themselves. They’re not from Oregon where there is a history of excellent cooperation between agencies and ranchers. The residents of that area want them out. And these guys are freeloaders (read their history). NOBODY should lose their life or be injured trying to remove these worthless idiots, and that’s why the feds are taking it slow.
Gk, can you tell me where in the Constitution that the federal government have the right to own that land.
Damn it Tom! Don’t realize you are never to question the actions of government . After all only Saints are allowed to serve in government, right?
Tom Angle, Article Four, section 3, clause 2 of the United States Constitution:
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.
Gentlemen, also the Fifth Amendment. All of this is upheld by the courts. So, regardless of what you think or how you feel, this is the law of the land.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says ‘nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. This is a tacit recognition of a preexisting power to take private property for public use, rather than a grant of new power. Eminent domain appertains to every independent government. It requires no constitutional recognition; it is an attribute of sovereignty. In the early years of the nation the federal power of eminent domain lay dormant, and it was not until 1876 that its existence was recognized by the Supreme Court. In Kohl v. United States any doubts were laid to rest, as the Court affirmed that the power was as necessary to the existence of the National Government as it was to the existence of any State. The federal power of eminent domain is, of course, limited by the grants of power in the Constitution, so that property may only be taken for the effectuation of a granted power, but once this is conceded the ambit of national powers is so wide- ranging that vast numbers of objects may be effected. This prerogative of the National Government can neither be enlarged nor diminished by a State. Whenever lands in a State are needed for a public purpose, Congress may authorize that they be taken, either by proceedings in the courts of the State, with its consent, or by proceedings in the courts of the United States, with or without any consent or concurrent act of the State -- See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation14.html#sthash.r6Uk2P5Z.dpuf
That does not state what lands and the reason to own lands. Try Article I, section 8, clause 17. Read that part and tell me where a wildlife refuge or historic ale site is listed.
https://ncrenegade.com//editorial/government-employee-brags-about-stealing-land/
How do you reconcile just compensation as shown in the video? But you are now throwing straw man arguments at the issue. Any law that violates the Constitution is not lawful. You are taking one part of the Constitution that does not apply to another part of the Constitution to make your point. It is a typical trick like using the general welfare to justify any action by the government.
According to your logic and your/their definitions of law, any law passed by the government is legal. When is that logic not the definition of tyranny? Does the Supreme Court render opinions or make laws?
Gk, repsectfully and keeping in mind it was the STATES that created the Federal government with enumerated powers chiefly to accomplish tasks states we unable to do for themselves, would have signed an agreement where they would have their creation confiscate vast areas of themselves?
Or do you suppose the states are unable to confiscate property for themselves?
Are we to believe government, Federal or State, should be endowed with the power to take property for any purpose they deem fit? If so what fool would create such a government or agree to live under it?
Next, did you note of the references to the Federal courts ruling in favor of the expansion of the powers of the body of which they are a part and there by usurp the very laws under which they are created and are restrained? Isn’t this a bit like allowing the fox to define his power to enter the hen house?
Yes, any law passed by a government is the law and therefore ‘legal’ unless the courts say otherwise. There are an infinite number of things you, I, the government, and whatever entity can do, legally, that are not explicit rights in the constitution. Where does it say I can drive a car? This argument that it’s not a right that’s explicitly given in the constitution is just ignorance of case law history. The government, whether federal, state or local, has the right of imminent domain and the authority to own property, and that has been challenged numerous times, but the courts have consistently upheld those powers, whether you like it or not. I’m not a fan of how some government agencies have exercised their power of imminent domain, but it’s the way our system works. If you don’t like it, then we have systems in place to make changes. It’s slow and painful and it takes intelligence and character. The Bundy bunch are taking an ignorant, childish, temper tantrum approach, not to mention the illegality of their actions. Unless the state or the feds wimp out, the Brady Bunch will wind up behind bars, will be felons, and will lose their ability to vote. They’re big babies who don’t like something and don’t have the intelligence or strength of character to work respectfully within the system to make changes.
Average Joe, even local government can take property, with just compensation, for a public purpose. Local governments condemn property all the time for defined purposes, and believe it or not, that’s been almost always upheld. You and I live in this system and it’s the way it is. It has worked well for public services for many, many years, though. The Malheur National Wildlife was created by Teddy Roosevelt to protect wildlife. That was a taking, and I assume with just compensation. I’m sorry you find it unbelievable that that’s how our system works, but those powers are real and are upheld as constitutional.
you need to take two sleeping pills and go to bed, you are totally in a stupor and are ignorant as to what is really going on here, excuse me, but the Romans were here first before these great indians , so don’t give me a line of liberal crap. they just unearthed Roman artifacts up in northern America which predate your overly zealous love for the Indians. so go back to sleep because the Romans along with Celtics were hear first and our dumbed down agenda driven ignorant government are all aware of it. If any nation has a claim to Northern America it would be the Romans. For petes sake they even found artifacts here in North Carolina in 2000 year old burial mounds which were not Indian one bit, they were Celtic. you have been duped and duped severely.
Gk….states were granted more latitude for the simple reason of being closer to the people. One would have to examine the Constitution of each state to determine what powers were granted to it. On the other hand the Federal government ‘s powers are, by necessity, even more restricted.
Next can you show me and example of a state confiscating thousands of acres from it’s own citizens, against it’s own Constituion, and then declaring it’s act ‘legal?” I you can provide one it would be interesting to research, Keep in mind we are not talking about roads etc.
WHICH IS THE CORRECT CAPTION?
Caption 1. “Robert “LaVoy” Finicum talks about taking care of refuge property”
No, Mr. Finicum and his ilk are telling the Paiute people to come “claim their belongings.” Really?
Caption 2. Oregon militants rifle through native artifacts
Rifle Definition: 1. to search (a house, safe, etc) and steal from it; ransack
BINGO
Correct Answer: Caption 2
“Yes, any law passed by a government is the law and therefore ‘legal’ unless the courts say otherwise.”
I don’t know why you are so willing to get on your knees and submit but I will not. What kind of laws do you think a tyrannical government would pass? This Great Experiment was based on the people governing themselves under a very limited federal government.
You are starting to become a troll with specious arguments. Get a spine and write cogent arguments. Start by reading the Declaration of Independence and understand why our forefathers did not accept all “laws”.
Man, that’s a bit much, Phil. People of Asian ancestry were here thousands of years before the Vikings (my ancestors) or the Romans (if that’s at all true). The Antiquities Act covers any ancient artifacts regardless of the origin. And Average Joe, a large federal taking that has been upheld includes Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument. Massive, Imminent Domain. Survived challenges. Not sure of state cases, but I’m sure there are, for instance large state parks (Adirondack). There are federal and state laws governing compensation and relocation. It’s based on an appraisal, and compensation is usually at fair market value, plus the government agency has to pay for relocation costs. This has nothing to do with liberal/conservative opinions. These are existing laws and court rulings. Sorry you don’t like it.
David, sorry you don’t like my arguments. We’re a nation of laws, whether you like it or not. I’m here to challenge the belief that Brady and gang are somehow great upholders of the Constitution when in fact there’s nothing unconstitutional about legal government takings, for the reasons I posted earlier. And there’s nothing okay about Bundy and folks messing with native Indian artifacts. They’re committing felonies. Those artifacts are there for safekeeping, per agreement with the Paiute, on federal land, and so what if they’re in boxes and a bit unkempt. Would you prefer we spend thousands of taxpayer dollars on fully archiving the artifacts and displaying in a fancy, expensive case? Not necessary. But the Paiute expect those artifacts to be protected. Bundy and gang are acting illegally. That’s not a liberal or conservative opinion. That’s the law as written by American lawmakers elected by the people and upheld by courts with Americans appointed and confirmed by Americans who were elected by the people.
I am closing comments on this article since gk obviously has not watched the video and is willing to submit to tyranny under the guise of acting lawful.
I suppose if gk had had the IRS “lawfully” harass him for a year like I was for their own pleasure, I would be more understanding.
People have to understand that we no longer are a nation of laws. Snowden and the NSA, the IRS scandal, fast & furious and even Hillary’s server prove this. People want to believe because they are cowards. Our forefathers gave the King of England the benefit of the doubt for over a decade before realizing that our God given rights supersede man’s laws.
The simple question is this: if a tyrannical government passes laws to control and subjugate people, are the people required to follow them? Our forefathers said no. I say no. And any patriot who loves their country should say no.