Should the Feds enforce the law?

A recent news item about a rapidly escalating showdown between federal agents and cattle ranchers reminded me of a recent post which raised some philosophical questions.

I don’t think oppressive or tyrannical laws should be enforced.

But from there it gets complicated.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

8 responses to “Should the Feds enforce the law?”

  1. Neil Avatar
    Neil

    At the moment, I don’t understand what law it is that’s being enforced here. Taking a guess though, it appears that this rancher has been grazing his cattle on BLM land, and the government declined at some point to renew his lease.

    Personally, I think there’s WAY too much of the western U.S. that is owned by the federal government, but unless it turns out that the EPA broke his lease arbitrarily under the Endangered Species Act, the Feds have the right of it here.

    Let’s do the right thing, and agitate for divestiture of most of the BLM land.

  2. Captain Ned Avatar
    Captain Ned

    Other info tells us that Harry Reid is channeling his best Hedley LaMarr and wants Rock Ridge (oops, the Bundy ranch land) for a solar project championed by his former senior advisor.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/04/bombshell-senator-harry-reid-is-behind-nevada-bundy-ranch-land-grab/

  3. Captain Ned Avatar
    Captain Ned

    And appears to be working up a Number 6 to get it.

  4. Bob Thompson Avatar
    Bob Thompson

    I think Ned got it about right, there is some serious corruption here, includes Dingy Harry Reid, his son, and his former staffer, now in charge at BLM. Of course, it is no big task to find Bundy breaking the law, just as it would not be a big task to find any of us breaking the law, this is a feature of our legal (and REGULATORY) structure. What is more telling, is how many Federal agencies have armed law enforcement (so-called) personnel and the range of activities they can touch. And someone like Bundy, engaged in an actual physical defense of his property rights is facing enormous odds. If we cannot get some congressional action to address real crimes against the people (Lois Lerner and the IRS) and stop regulatory abuses like the BLM. this will eventually reach all.

  5. Captain Ned Avatar
    Captain Ned

    @ Bob Thompson:

    Wonder if the state-law concept of adverse possession (i.e. if I encroach for x number of years and you don’t complain means you’ve given me an easement) applies to Federal lands?

    Thankfully it appears that the Clark County Sheriff has knocked enough sense into Federal heads to avoid another Ruby Ridge.

  6. Frank Avatar
    Frank

    Adverse possession does not apply to federally owned land. If you get in a boundary dispute with the Forest Service, their survey wins, possession be damned.

  7. Bob Thompson Avatar
    Bob Thompson

    Eric’s post title was a question. I’m not at all certain what the meaning is within the question. I do have a problem with how the Federal Executive Branch is approaching whatever domestic law enforcement authority they have. First off, much of the enforcement relates to violations of regulations promulgated by the Executive Branch, the authority being supposedly derived from Congressional delegation. (Congress fail!). This raises questions, namely can the Congress delegate its Constitutional powers to the Executive Branch. This is a Separation of Powers issue and has been a particular concern of Senator Ted Cruz. So then, somehow all these regulatory agencies get to have their on ‘police force’, armed and ready to enforce the agencies interpretation of their own regulations. This looks much like a judicial function to me. And this is not just a couple of agencies capable of doing this. What do you think, Eric?

  8. Bob Thompson Avatar
    Bob Thompson

    Eric, here’s a broader question.

    Should the Federal Executive Branch make the law, interpret the law, and enforce the law?