Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Law vs. the higher justice

Kevin Williamson over at NRO makes a couple of important observations concerning rancher Cliven Bundy and his faceoff with the Bureau of Land Management. In a nutshell, (1) Bundy was violating the law, and (2) good on him!
I myself am of the view that there is a great deal of real estate between complete submission and civil war, and that acts such as Mr. Bundy’s are not only bearable in a free republic but positively salubrious.

6 comments:

bruce said...

If the Fed is breaking its original agreement with the ranchers then they are legally in the right. The Fed can't just unilaterally impose a new 'agreement' which only one side has agreed to!

bruce said...

Because I've read that access to Federal land for grazing by the ranchers was part of the original agreement. Then the Feds must be made to honour that agreement.

Might is not right: this is the rule of Law.

Mojo said...

"...as long as the grass grows and the sky is blue..."

Sure they can.

bruce said...

"First they came for the Indians..."?

rinardman said...

The Fed can't just unilaterally impose a new 'agreement' which only one side has agreed to!

Bruce...meet Harry Reid and his boss, Barack Obama.

RebeccaH said...

Push back twice as hard.