LaVoy Finicum, a 54-year-old Arizona rancher and one of the group’s leaders, says the siege will continue until the federal government cedes control of the 187,000-acre refuge to Harney County.

“It needs to be very clear that these buildings will never, ever return to the federal government,” says Finicum.

Looks like treason, sounds like treason, MUST be treason. 
If not for the buildings, relics and records, I would say just make it a bomb crater.
No fuss, no muss, just death penalty.

How are you Right Wing Extremists gonna feel about this when they start shooting at Federal FBI agents?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/these-buildings-will-never-ever-return-to-the-federal-government/2016/01/16/101cb8f2-bbe4-11e5-829c-26ffb874a18d_story.html

 
The government is not allowed to own property. Which part of that don't you understand. 
The only property they can own is 10 square miles inside DC, and whatever it takes for a military base and shipping bases. And that building is not a military base. Nor is all the acreage the government has stolen over the past 80 years.

Wanting land turned over to states isn't treason.

Are you suggesting these people be outright killed, sans Constitutional considerations.?  Seems the violent hating criminal element in this drama is now uncovered.  Do you recognize him DAVIK?

It is a sad world we live in where a rancher is the badguy and Planned Parenthood is considered the good guys.

Davik,
You and your neocommunist dem party are the true treasonists of this nation

At yet THAT is what you guys would want for treasonous dogs.

Implied Powers Jim.  If NOT legal then someone, sometime would have sued to US Supreme Court.
Unless you know of a case and are not telling.

Supreme Court is FINAL authority of what is, or is not, Constitutional.
You and your right wing extremist cohort are NOT legal authorities.
Thus your OPINIONS mean nothing.

 
 
Well, at least you admit to know its part of the Constitution you are supporting the government in disobeying..

The Constitution is the original authority.  The USSC is the arbiter of conflict.  The Congress, via the Amendment process and then the States via Ratification and thus the People of the States are the FINAL Authority


In between the Constitution and the People, everything is just opinion.  The Constitution and the People it speaks for are the ONLY entities of Authority in the game.


Wake up you demented little twat.  Understand what you were given when the constitution was Ratified.

oh jim....oh poor jim...poor, poor jim

just because you repeat a right wing lie, or repeat the lie often, does not make your lie the truth.




The government is not allowed to own property.    Is a lie, and jim knows it.




The United States Constitution, through the Property Clause, specifically gives the government the power to own land.
Over time, the Supreme Court has ruled that not only does the government own the land, but it enjoys broad rights in deciding what happens on that land.
"The Property Clause gives Congress authority over federal property generally, and the Supreme Court has described Congress’ power to legislate under this Clause as ‘without limitation,’ " the researcher wrote.
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank and activist organization in Washington, D.C., says much the same thing on its online guide to the Constitution (http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause). It provides the key text from Article IV of the Constitution.
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States."
The constitutional basis of federal land ownership is not subject to any serious debate among scholars, and hasn’t been for a very long time. Just more bullchit from the radical anti-american right wing terrorists.
I'm certain jim isn't a terrorist.  He just ignorantly takes their political position.

Good point JW.

BTW - If the Government cannot own land, how did it sell all the "Western land" back in the day?
How did it give away the land in the Homestead Act?

What say you Jim?

Whatever makes Jim believe that the United States Government cannot own land.  The government damn sure can own land and all Americans know that.  So where are you from Jim?

I like Bob's lament on how sad the world is when a poor rancher (treasonous, criminal thief, terrorist) is a bad guy.

Bite I have no problem with these terrorists and thugs, not to mention traitors, were to be terminated.  In fact I would cheer if that happened.

Davik what part of Article 3, section 3 of the Constitution has been violated?


Treason (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#TREASON) against the United States, shallconsist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies,giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#TREASON) unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.  The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#TREASON), but no Attainder of Treason (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#TREASON) shall work Corruption of Blood (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#BLOOD), or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


Can you point to the violation?

You know DiddleDik, you actually have a point here.  I mean, trying to overthrow the government is technically not treason.  But treason is a reasonable word to use since revolution, or overthrowing the government if you will, is considered by most to be synonymous with treason.  In any case, they are both capital crimes against the United States of America.

Nope!

The founders defined treason in the US Constitution with the intention of preventing people like you expanding its definition to include all who dare speak out against governmental abuse!

Komerad I never said that your definition of the word treason was in error.  You are exactly right and under the law treason would not apply to what is occurring with these Patriots in Bend.  However, what those Patriots in Bend are doing is to attempt to overthrow the government of the United States of America and that is indeed a capital offence.  Otherwise I was merely pointing out that in most Americans mind attempting to overthrow the government is synonymous with treason even though you are legally correct.

 
Quote the statute that mandates the death penalty!

Since when is speaking truth to power in any way illegal?

Castle Law - ANY Federal Employee can go in and shoot those MF's because they are trespassing on Federal land and stealing federal property!

 
 
Its not legally federal land since they cannot (by law) own land.  This is why they have not gone in. 
They know how this will end if it reaches into the courts and they don't have a judge they've frightened into submission.

it is hard to believe how gullible and misinformed right wingers are ABOUT EVERYTHING!!  dumbass buttridden believes the Supreme Court has no real power to interpret the Constitution and direct the other two branches of government when it comes to passing or enforcing laws and policies, and somehow chemtrail Jim believes the government cannot own land!!!  Just freakin' amazing!!  and they still believe they should comment on anything with such limited knowledge?  Shouldn't they at least finish Junior High first?

first, those of you who can read this, now can see how wrong buttridden is:

U.S. Constitution
Article III
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

 Davik says government has the right to shoot and kill trespassers!

Really!

Castle is not federal law!

Now to debunk airhead Jim's drivel about the Constitution not giving the government the right to own land:

Napolitano: Washington lacks constitutional right to own land in Western states

Judge Andrew Napolitano waded into the rancher Cliven Bundy controversy, arguing that the constitution gives Washington no right to own a large portion of Nevada.
As we heard over and over during the Nevada standoff between federal agents and Cliven Bundy and his gun-bearing supporters, this fight wasn’t about cows or tortoises, it was about land and who controls it. For Bundy, the starting point was clear.

"I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing," Bundy said in an April 10 radio interview.

Even in libertarian circles that is an extreme view, but Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox News did lend his weight to the general argument that Washington is in the wrong. Napolitano was talking on Fox’s Hannity when the host pointed out Washington’s extensive holdings in the West.

"Look at the percentage they own in Nevada, 81 percent. Utah, 66 percent. Idaho, 61 percent," Hannity said. "Why does the government own all of this land anyway?"

"Sean, I'm going to make a statement that the government will consider outrageous," Napolitano warned. "The Constitution simply does not authorize the federal government to own any of this land. All of it is being held unconstitutionally and all of it should be returned to the private property owners from which it was taken or to the states in which it exists, period."

We wanted to hear Napolitano’s legal explanation, but he did not get back to us. However, he is not the first to make this claim and we were able to review the legal record to see whether the federal government lacks the constitutional authority as he said.

The short answer is that the Constitution, through the Property Clause, specifically gives the government the power to own land. Over time, the Supreme Court has ruled that not only does the government own the land, but it enjoys broad rights in deciding what happens on that land.

In 2007, the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm that works on behalf of Democrats and Republicans, explored the legal roots of federal land ownership. Its finding was unambiguous and clear.

"The Property Clause gives Congress authority over federal property generally, and the Supreme Court has described Congress’ power to legislate under this Clause as ‘without limitation,’ " the researcher wrote.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank and activist organization in Washington, D.C., says much the same thing on its online guide to the Constitution. It provides the key text from Article IV of the Constitution.

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States."

We asked another legal scholar at Heritage, John Malcolm, if we were misinterpreting anything. Malcolm told us we had it right.

"I’m not aware of anything in the Constitution that would preclude the federal government from owning land in these western states," Malcolm told PunditFact.

This argument has special relevance for states such as Nevada and Utah that were formed from large swaths of land owned by Washington. By this legal logic, when those states entered the Union, the federal government lost the ability to own land there.

But according to the Congressional Research Service, that interpretation is "contrary to the plain wording of the Constitution." On top of that, under the law that created Nevada in 1864, the state specifically agreed to give up any claim to "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."

For you history buffs, the United States acquired the land (see map) that became Nevada, California, Utah, plus chunks of New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona from Mexico in 1848 through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the Mexican-American War. Mexico also ditched any claim to Texas. In exchange, the United States paid Mexico $15 million. Napolitano said the land should be returned but given this chain of title, it is hard to see who would have any claim. We doubt he is thinking of Mexico.

That Congressional Research Service report along with Heritage Foundation’s guide note that since 1845, the Supreme Court has issued many decisions that strengthen the government’s hand. An 1897 case said Congress could block someone from putting up fences on private land if it blocked access to public land. In 1911, the court affirmed the use of large tracts of land as national forests, held in the public interest.

John Leshy is a professor of real property law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law. Leshy served in the Interior Department in the Carter and Clinton administrations and was part of the transition team when President Barack Obama first took office.

"Napolitano’s statement is absurd," Leshy said. "The constitutional basis of federal land ownership is not subject to any serious debate among scholars, and hasn’t been for a very long time."

Our ruling

Napolitano said the federal government has no constitutional authority to own land in many Western states. The underlying legal argument rests on a tenuous interpretation of constitutional language and the rejection of about 125 years of Supreme Court decisions. The legal scholars we reached, regardless of any political leanings they might have, agreed that the Constitution clearly grants Washington the power to own land and that arguments to the contrary are baseless.

We rate the claim Pants on Fire.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/28/andrew-napolitano/napolitano-washington-lacks-constitutional-right-o/

At the very least they are seditionists.

Sedition:

1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.

2. any action, especially in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.

3. Archaic. rebellious disorder.
 
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384)

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808 (http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=62&page=808); July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623 (http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=70&page=623); Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d103:./list/bd/d103pl.lst:322(Public_Laws)),
Sept. 13, 1994
, 108 Stat. 2148 (http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=108&page=2148).)




Twenty years in jail and a bankrupting fine should cool their heels.

Then you would punish all who occupied government buildings to protest government actions the same way?

Yes, if done by force and held by use of firearms.

(http://www.goerie.com/storyimage/GE/20160110/OPINION20/301109872/AR/0/AR-301109872.jpg)

All building occupations are forceful!

Then you would imprison the unions that forcefully occupied statehouses?

You would imprison those who occupied government buildings to protest the Vietnam war?

You would imprison those who occupied government property denying the public use of it?

If not you are a hypocrite!

Did they hold them by the threat of using firearms?  Can you read, or do you just choose not to? Pethaps you attention deficit disorder prevents you from retaining the information you read long enough to respond. Pity that.

Under the law there is little difference as far as choice of weapon is concerned!

You claiming there is a difference only proves your hypocrisy!

D2D claims there is no difference between sitting passively and threatening with firearms. Bizarre!

dvd cannot be talked to.  too stupid.  words and logic mean nothing.  he gives brainwashed pavlov's dogs a bad name. 

WMD, fire arms represent the threat force.  A mob of a few hundred is a threat of force as well.

Force is force

not according to our laws.  crimes committed with a gun are most always punished more harshly than the same crime without a gun.

A group of protesters passively participating in a sit in does not compare to a gang of armed thugs attempting to steal land from the public.

True. But the nature of the punishment does not change the nature of the act.  Force is force.

Comparison is not for the Law.  (and partisans)

so in your world a bunch of guys sitting quietly in peaceful protest is comparable to a bunch of guys with military style clothes and guns taking over a government building and threatening to use force against the authorities?

Beaten to death or shot to death... force is force.

who was beaten to death?  what are you blabbering about?

 Wvit fails to realize there is no such thing as a peaceful protest for liberals!

They are not happy unless they are treading on other people's rights!

Occupy Wall Street, for instance, harmed businesses reducing income for working people, denied freedom of movement to the public and denied access to businesses by the public!

Wvit sees nothing wrong with such aggression!

so you put all protests in the same boat d2?  peaceful or otherwise? 

Democrats don't hold peaceful protests!

They always tread on the rights of others!

Why don't you understand that?

Because it's not true.

Democrats don't hold peaceful protests!

They always tread on the rights of others!

Why don't you understand that?

what point are you trying to make d2.  or is that just another instance of you idiotic blabber.

Can you name a protest that truly was peaceful?

A successful protest has a negative impact on others and locations are selected to accomplish that goal.

Not to your satisfaction. You will lie about every one of them.

Because no such peaceful protest exists on the liberal side!

You've already convinced yourself. You will believe nothing else.

But I'll try anyway.

http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1887394,00.html

http://mentalfloss.com/article/29040/13-peaceful-protests-and-whether-they-worked

http://www.dailygood.org/story/784/30-examples-of-successful-non-violent-action-bk-community/

That's enough for now. Let us know how crow tastes.

The Flint sit in was violent because it did violence to the rights of General Motors!

Additionally, individual protests do NOT count!

I noticed you couldn't list a single protest newer then 50 years in the past and even then had to include foreign protests!

There was nothing peaceful about Kent State!

The stripper strike denied patrons access to strip clubs!

You seem to have confused union actions with political protest!

You had to go back 2000 years?

Bizarre!

That's exactly as I said. Thank you for proving me right once again.

No all you did was prove yourself wrong!

You couldn't even name one peaceful protest in the last 50 years!

Actually, DVD you were proved wrong, but I doubt you can understand that.

DVD is an idiot.

Name one peaceful protest in the last 50 years!