re: 300+ Nevada ranchers and militia stage an armed insurrection against the USBLM

quote:

---

If the federal government wants to use the land for something else (endangered species offset, or whatever), is the federal government stuck with the rancher until the rancher decides to stop using the land?
quote:

---

Bundy's stance is that there is a Constitutional question as to whether the federal government has a right to jurisdiction over the land. He doesn't believe it is the fedgov's position, rather the state's or the county's. Rightly or wrongly. Obviously the courts so far haven't ruled on his side.

The other issue is who is enforcing. Bundy doesn't believe it is the fed's job to enforce the grazing laws in Nevada, but the local sheriff's. He doesn't believe the federal government has the constitutional power to do so. Thus his comments that "they don't exist" in this particular situation. His argument is purely Constitutional in nature.

The courts have not ruled in favor of his arguments, even though I personally think there is some merit to them - even if a just a little.

Aside from that, we have the strongarm tactics obviously used to force ranchers out of there livelihoods - for what most people now see as a special interest project. That is what is so repulsive. In 1993, there was a conscious effort by the fedgov to force ranchers out of the area by limiting their herds. The fact that Bundy is the only one left standing is evidence that the ranchers got a pretty raw deal - a deal that wasn't economically sustainable for them. Add in the fact that the desert tortoise was obviously just another card in the fedgov's hand to be used as a strongarm tactic.

I think it is pretty evident to most people that the ranchers were strongarmed, perhaps legally. But with the growing frustrations of overreach by the fedgov this incident has taken on a much bigger significance for a lot of people.

Cowboys vs. rich politicians and an overreaching federal government forcing them from their livelihoods. It doesn't look good, regardless of legal soundness.

The ends don't justify the means.