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.
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!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
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!
ReplyDeleteBecause 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.
ReplyDeleteMight is not right: this is the rule of Law.
"...as long as the grass grows and the sky is blue..."
ReplyDeleteSure they can.
"First they came for the Indians..."?
ReplyDeleteThe Fed can't just unilaterally impose a new 'agreement' which only one side has agreed to!
ReplyDeleteBruce...meet Harry Reid and his boss, Barack Obama.
Push back twice as hard.
ReplyDelete