I've really tried to follow the logic and basis for support of Bundy. I get the "David v. Goliath" image that some want to paint. I understand the frustration some have of the many complicated laws our elected leaders pass that seem way over the top. I understand the frustration that we feel when agencies are tasked with enforcing the laws these elected leaders pass, and not much progress is made in pleading one's case to this agency employee who is not in a position to change the law.
Even trying to accept all of that, I have read the cases. I have tried to see what has come of the whooping, yelling, and posturing on the issue. And it has caused me to have even less compassion for Bundy and less for the supposed militia folks who are taking his side
Some may still think Bundy has had a supposed violation of his Constitutional rights. For those feeling that way, maybe we have different versions of the
United States Constitution.
I think all agree with the following.
Article 1 of the Constitution grants powers to Congress.
Article 2 of the Constitution grants powers to the Executive Office (President).
Article 3 of the Constitution grants powers to the Judiciary (US Supreme Court and lower Courts)
You can read the entire Constitution here --->
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America
One does not have to read too far until realizing that the Constitution is pretty clear as to the finality of the Courts, specifically the US Supreme Court, when disputes of Constitutionality arise.
No one has to like the outcome of a case, especially if we are the Plaintiff or Defendant who might lose at the lower court level. If we are so sure we have been wronged according to the rights and liberties of the US Constitution, we are allowed to appeal the case to the US Appellate Courts, and from there, petition the US Supreme Court to take our case and issue a finding.
That is the framework of the Constitution. Anyone who feels otherwise, or operates in a manner outside of those principles of the Constitution, is a counterfeit when it comes to their use of the term "Constitutionalist;" a term/tag I hear so many of these militia types using. I hear that term so often, it almost makes me laugh when I hear it from some of these people.
Most all of us are "Constitutionalists," in that we believe in that document and we live by what it provides, knowing we may not always benefit from, or agree with, the outcomes. Yet, we live with it and follow the process provided to us, making most of us "Constitutionalists."
Most those I encounter who are so quick to proclaim they are "Constitutionalists" are usually the counterfeit type. They only think it is a good Constitution when it provides an outcome that is aligned with their biases.
Given that, I have a hard time considering Cliven Bundy a "Constitutionalist," or any sort of positive term, as it relates to his actions following an adverse court decision. Society deals with property rights issues all the time. The issues are decided by the courts and the power vested in the courts by the United States Constitution. Laws are deemed constitutional, or not, by the court, not by a bunch of rogue bad ass wanna be's.
Bundy's actions, or maybe his inaction to take his case further through the system the Constitution provides, makes it hard to see him as a symbol of property rights and liberty. Rather, his failure to exercise his Constitutional rights and now ask for the world to come and rescue him from the predicament he has created, gives me just the opposite image of him and those supporting him.
Look at the court documents of Bundy's case. Mr. Bundy lost in court in 1998. He made up his own arguments based on obscure legal theory. Not only did the Federal agency (under the Executive Branch) prevail, they were issued summary judgment by the Court (under the Judicial Branch).
For those not involved in the courts, Summary Judgment means your case was so weak, your arguments were dismissed by the judge. It is the Hunt Talk equivalent of getting sized for a 3XL asshat, but with much more dire consequences.
Bundy lost again in 2012. When his facade was tossed out by the US District Court of Southern Nevada, he had the right to appeal to the 9th District Court of Appeals. He chose not to. If he had not prevailed in the Appellate Court, he could have petitioned the US Supreme Court. But, by taking his toys and going home, he gave up the rights provided him by the Constitution. No one terminated the rights afforded him, other than himself.
On two different occasions, Bundy made a conscious decision to NOT exercise his Constitutional right of appeal. Instead, he defied the ruling of the court, something a "Constitutionalist" would not do. A true "Constitutionalist" would have either abided by the decision, or appealed to the next level. And if lost at the Appellate Court level, one could petition to the US Supreme Court.
Bundy took none of the actions we are all allowed under law; appeal. Rather, he continued "squatting" on property he did not own. He refused to follow an order of the courts, for over 20 years. Hard to say he was not granted patience and tolerance beyond what you or I would have been provided.
And when he again lost in court in 2012, he again refused to follow the process that we have for differences we find in application of the law. Rather than take his case to the next level, he continued to ignore the rights millions have died to protect and provide; those rights granted by the US Constitution; his right to appeal and have his case heard at higher levels of courts.
Some are saying the judge who issued the decision in the Bundy case, Lloyd George, is an activist judge. He happens to be a conservative from Utah, a former Air Force pilot, who was appointed by President Reagan. Link here ---->
http://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/bio/lloyddgeorge.aspx
Having zero use for the Sean Hannity-types; nor the Rachel Maddow or Bill Maher folks of the world, I would rather research on my own. Spoon feeding from paid entertainers who have figured out a way to get rich by feeding off the inherent trust of Americans, is a good way to get spoon fed a mouthful of horsechit.
From my research, Cliven Bundy is not a "Constitutionalist." He might be a nice guy, but from his actions and his refusal to exercise his Constitutional rights, rather deciding to pitch a big fit and try to create a private property right where none exists, I have a hard time feeling sorry for him.
And for all the militia folks who think they have saved the country; you are doing as much to endanger the future of the country as anyone. Using a threat of force by exercising the 2nd Amendment right on behalf of some guy who chooses to not exercise the rights afforded him in the Constitution, arbitrarily deciding what courts cases apply or don't apply, does more damage than good.
We have a system of laws and elections. We would be better off getting the laws changed that are supposedly so unfair. If the courts don't side with the outcome some want, then work to elect people who can change those laws the courts are ruling on.
So many want to talk about the tyranny of the majority. Well, in this case, exempting Bundy by taking advantage of the Government's desire to avoid a violent confrontation, allows the minority to go outside the bounds of what the Constitution provides for. In effect, we are seeing the tyranny of the minority.
If we dislike the Endangered Species Act, the Taylor Grazing Act, the XYZ Act, we have a system for addressing those changes. We have a Republic that allows the people to elect those in Congress to draft and enact new laws that are needed or old laws needing changed. See Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the United States Constitution. I understand the frustration when we think our side is not being represented in the process of electing people. But, that does not exempt us from what is provided under the Constitutional process.
Rather than holding Bundy accountable to use the rights afforded us under the Constitution, these militia folks, as well-intended as they maybe, ignore the rights granted and the process provided to all citizens, making a mockery of the term "Constitutionalist." Hard to consider them supporters of the Constitution, when they are advocating ignoring the rights provided to us and absolving the responsibility to exercise those rights when you feel aggrieved.
The Constitution of the United States is one of the greatest ideas to ever come from the minds of man. It has provided over 200 years of freedom and liberty, to common people, the results of which people of that time could have never imagined.
And now, we have some blowhard AM radio jocks, some self-appointed saviors in the blog-sphere, and other profiteers who are more than willing to compromise all that the Constitution provides, by promoting the idea that we ignore the Constitution and any result that doesn't suit our liking. These first class counterfeits are doing so to promote their standing in the eyes of their audience, all at the expense of steady erosion of respect for the Constitution. That these folks on either side of the political spectrum have these followings is a pretty compelling case for educational reform in this country.
Seems if one cannot live within the rights and process provided by the United States Constitution; and one fails to take advantage of the rights provided in the Constitution, rather asserting their own manufactured set of rights and legal theories, that person probably is a counterfeit Constitutionalist. Unfortunately, among the most vocal folks leading the fringe platforms on many of these "Constitutional" issues of property rights, gun control, and other chic topics, you could find plenty people qualified to be charter members of the "Counterfeit Club."
