“He is domestic terrorist and breaking the law,” the liberals proclaim Bundy. “He is a patriot for standing up to the Federal Government,” the conservatives counter. The problem with America today is topics are rarely scrutinized outside of the paradigm of the “party line.” While both of these statements have some truth, they are both lacking in substance. This author follows no party because I realize the divide and conquer elements being played upon the people to keep them fighting against each other instead of the real enemy. The proverb ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ is alive and well in America. Guess who is friends with both parties? You guessed it, the Federal Government.
The truth about the parties is they are quite alike, but obviously very different. They wish to dictate their will upon the other, attempting to take a moral high ground on their version of “freedom” of who to marry or how to operate a business for instance. If the freedom in question does not align with the party, it is considered a usurpation upon the rejecting party. The Federal Government uses such a scheme to keep the people preoccupied with each other while they continue the status quo. There is one common denominator in all of this, the Federal Government grows in strength in conjunction with multi national corporate interests. But this article isn’t going to discuss that any further, we are going to contemplate the events in Southern Nevada and put them in context with history and law in relation to the Federal Government.
Cliven Bundy’s actions look on the surface as if he is just being defiant to a government he does not respect, which is quite obvious. But the reasons for his actions and this recent standoff go back even before Bundy’s family settled in the area of Southern Nevada. We are going to dissect some facts and hopefully an understanding of what is really going on will come full circle.
THE LIBERAL STANCE: He is breaking the law.
Yes, he is breaking “the law,” so what? Did Rosa Parks “break the law?” Did Susan B. Anthony “break the law?” Like I said, so what? As Bundy’s actions don’t align with the modern liberal narrative, the impact of what he has done is no less important. Many liberals may argue with that assertion, but the truth of that statement will be revealed soon enough. Need I remind this audience that what Hitler did was legal, but it was far from lawful. As Martin Luther King rightly said, “Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.” Likewise, what Cliven Bundy has done may not be legal, but it will be proven it was quite lawful.
The terms lawful and legal differ in that the former contemplates the substance of law, whereas the latter alludes to the form of law. A lawful act is authorized, sanctioned, or not forbidden by law. A legal act is performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner. The term color of law cannot contemplate the term lawful, but it can encompass the term legal. Hence the term “color of law” means:
“The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of LEGAL right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state is action taken under ‘color of law.” Atkins v. Lanning. D.C.Okl., 415 F. Supp. 186, 188.
Therefore, legality is not reality as lawful is superior to legal.
THE CONSERVATIVE STANCE: Bundy is a patriot.
Yes, I can agree with this statement, but it lacks substance. The conservatives, just like the liberals, enjoy using situations that side with their party line. Why does this lack substance? Because the (quasi) conservatives are part of the divide and conquer scheme. They want less government but more regulation on morality and what you are allowed to put in your own body. And for this reason, I am very critical of their rhetoric. At least the liberals are true to their ‘side’ without being deceptive about it, despite many ignorant hypocrisies they seem to covet.
Here is a brief history that play into the Bundy Standoff narrative that the majority will overlook. This history has come full circle, and the story begins with the so-called Civil War. (This author prefers to call this war as the ‘War of Federal Subjugation,’ which is technically more accurate. You will see clearly why as this series of articles continues.)
Nevada was brought into the Union during a turbulent time in our history. It was hurried into the Union states to help Lincoln gain enough electoral votes for his reelection despite being 20,000 or so inhabitants short of the REQUIRED 60,000. We must understand that the framing of the Nevada Constitution was done under very different circumstances than most of the states currently in the Union. Nevada came in under martial law, and the Civil War had a heavy influence on the wording used. Article I, Section 2 states:
Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States. ”All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existance [existence], and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.”
Now, look at the conflicting statements in this section of the NevCon. “All political power is inherent in the people” and “they have the right to alter or reform the same” but “no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith”? The latter part of this section is in direct conflict with the first organic law of the United States of America, the Declaration of Independence, while the former is in harmony. The DOI states, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” It is very clear that the federal government, under martial law, had a heavy influence on the framing of the NevCon, and, as you will see soon enough, is prima facie evidence of the tyranny that was to come once the South surrendered to the Union Army. (Note: the term “consent of the governed” will play a major part in this series of articles.)
Furthermore, in the Ordinance immediately proceeding the Preamble, the third section declares:
“That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States.”
This is very curious, as in 1858 the silver rush started, that the newly formed Nevada government (Federal Government) will openly defy Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Federal Constitution which states:
“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings…”
The Federal Government was never supposed to have any real authority/jurisdiction over the several States unless it was enumerated in the USCON or LAWFULLY amended as such. Some may argue that Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the USCON gives enumerated authority over territory within a state. This clause states:
“The Congress shall have the Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States…”
These clauses work hand-in-hand, but organically once a state is born and adopted with equal footing to the original thirteen, the territory within said state belongs to the state itself with the Federal Government a trustee, and the legislature has paramount authority over it’s territory unless it is enumerated in the USCON to the Federal Government. The Federal Government has full authority over territories of the United States, not states once admitted to the Union. Again, any authority to the Federal Government MUST be enumerated. (NOTE: The idea of federal territory/jurisdiction overlapping into a state is an important abstraction to understand, because it plays a big role in the relationship between the Federal Government and the States post Civil War.)
Below is an assessment of federally “owned” lands in the several States—>
NOTE: The states with a large part of their territory “owned” by the Federal Government in this picture were admitted just before, during or after the War of Federal Subjugation. Nevada was the only state during the war (under martial law) that was admitted into the Union from territory status. West Virginia split from Virginia because of Virginia’s Confederate allegiance.