This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bundy standoff article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Bundy standoff, or related legal issues. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Bundy standoff, or related legal issues at the Reference desk. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 3 May 2014. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This is indeed an elaborate article. Why? THe standoff was a minor footnote in history yet it has more words to its page than: John Adams or the NIV version of the Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.109.25 ( talk) 20:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Good point. Much of the article is also biased against the Bundys; some of that material could be usefully deleted. Starchild ( talk) 04:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The article's summary of the Court cases involved seems good, but the cases involved have enough notoriety to merit their own articles and the infobox and links about these cases should be moved to articles specifically about those cases (with links from here indicating were a reader can get more info). Court cases as they lay down precedent for the future are easily recognized as notable by wikipedia standards and with its own article more detail, such as quotes from friend of the court briefs, quotes from rulings, and dissents can be made without fear of unbalancing and shifting the focus, as might be a concern in this article about the standoff.== Wowaconia ( talk) 14:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree that these cases are, from a jurisprudence standpoint, notable enough to merit their own separate pages. There were no appeals (Bundy was denied in both cases), no amicus filings, and no precedent set beyond the fact that trespassing on federal land remains illegal. To whit, the government never asserted any powers derived from the law that they hadn't already before, and Bundy never actually raised any legal arguments that required substantive review and consideration - his filings are a hodgepodge of issues that have been long-since considered settled law and inane theories such as that plants and animals must themselves be engaged in international commerce for the government to qualify for protection under the ESA (incidentally, the ESA really wasn't at issue here). Permanent injunctions against trespassers on federal lands is nothing new, nor is the injunction allowing the government to impound cattle grazing on federal land. Had this guy not engaged in an armed standoff with the BLM and the NPS it's unlikely that anyone would have paid them much attention. Dlk0606 ( talk) 16:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
*Oppose deletion of Legal Infobox and Opose deletion of legal material This article is primarily about a 20 year legal dispute. The fact that it is named Standoff is still being discussed and debated within this talk page, and we may not have a viable consensus on this title change for at least another month or so. Standoffs are very temporary. Encyclopedic articles are more enduring or historic. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This wikipedia article requires as much legal reference and regulatory background as possible, because the court case, the law regulations, and the enforcement of them are the focus of the entire dispute. All the protests and confrontations that happen over a limited time hinge upon legal or enforcement events. Both sides of the dispute focus upon the law. Covering all this makes it unbiased and informative. There is no limitation on the size of such a wikipedia article, and bandwidth of characters on a page is not so precious to require deletion of well-sourced material. Baleywik ( talk) 17:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I did not call for deletion of the infobox and its links, I called for it to be moved or split.
The article is titled Bundy standoff and the segment on "other cases" and the infobox throw of the balance of this article. This article is unbalanced, and the addition of "similar cases" doesn't even involve Cliven Bundy at all. What new name for this article could possibly capture all these aspects (some that don't involve Bundy at all)? The standoff is an event that would merit its own page by wiki standards anyhow, due to press coverage and notable government figures weighing in over the specific event with the armed characters on each side (similar to how the Battle of Shiloh gets its own article and isn't just folded into the American Civil War article).
Nor did I call for a deletion or even moving the summaries, but the info box is obviously about legal cases and not about the standoff. The "similar cases" do not even have Bundy in them as an important figure. The article is overburdened, unbalanced, and the infobox and the "similar cases" should be split off with appropriate links from this page to those.-- Wowaconia ( talk) 18:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
After examining the links on the introductory sentences of the segment on similar cases it is clear that the link between them and Bundy is solely original research. While it may appear to us wiki editors that there is an obvious link, just because we have access to a computer does not make us notable experts. If this info, with the O.R. linking it to Bundy removed, was put in articles about the cases themselve than those articles could be included in a "See Also" segment in this article, and in "See Also" segments on each of the new articles about the specific cases.-- Wowaconia ( talk) 18:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems consensus is for the information to remain rather than being split, there have been additions (made to counter O.R. worries) that more directly link these cases to the standoff. As the page is currently protected I have asked for the removal of the tags indicating there is an open discussion on whether they should be split.-- Wowaconia ( talk) 20:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
No consensus for a split at this time. Most objections are based on recentism. Try again in a few weeks.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Proposal: Split the entire article into: 1) Bundy standoff, and 2) Bundy-BLM dispute. The wp:splitting guidelines on splitting an article are: 1) it's long, 2) the content seems to cover multiple, related topics. This article seems to fit both of those. It's difficult for readers to comfortably navigate the article, this talk page is unwieldy, and there are two distinct content areas: 1) the 20-year dispute/legal battle, and 2) the April 2014 protests/standoff. The former is about the fees, filings and court orders; the latter is about guard dogs, stun-guns and the 1st Amendment. (Note: This proposal grew out of a previous discussion) Sparkie82 ( t• c) 03:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
If we split it, where should the content go? Put an "x" where you feel the content should go:
Sparkie82 ( t• c) 07:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The proposal has been up for just a few hours. Let's get more comments and discussion from a wider set of WP readers/editors. I'm sure those who have quickly opposed the proposal are acting in good faith and are willing to change their minds upon further discussion. Sparkie82 ( t• c) 17:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
|
The second paragraph at present reads
"The ongoing dispute began in 1993, when in protest against changes to grazing rules, Bundy declined to renew his permit for cattle grazing on BLM-administered lands near Bunkerville, Nevada.[2]"
It is true that the dispute arose over "changes to grazing rules" but I think it will be important for posterity that those changes were the introduction of the very grazing fees at the heart of the dispute. Its such a key element in the whole plot that to describe the introduction of grazing fees as simply some change in the rules presents a very blurred view of what actually happenned. Im not much of a wikipedian to know the various rules regarding quoting external sources considered respectable by whoever decides their respectable and all that but I hope someone who knows all that stuff can change this as it does skew the whole story considerably to just describe this key aspect as "change in the rules" in one respect while stating bundy "refused to pay fees" on the other. The half truth here distorts the directness of the connection. Its a bit like saying boston tea partiers destroyed the kings property without even mentioning who harvested the tea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.250.93 ( talk) 09:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
This content was reverted as "original research", though I did no such thing and relied solely on the media sources. [1] The original plus some extra bits for those interested:
On June 8, Jerad and Amanda Miller simultaneously killed two Las Vegas police officers and a civilian before taking their own lives during a shootout with police. [1] During the attack they shouted "this is a revolution", and they covered the bodies of the officer in a Gadsden flag and left a copy of a manifesto bearing a swastika. [2] [3] Their original plan may have been to take over a courthouse and execute public officials. [4] Identified by Al-Jazeera as a rancher in its April 22 coverage of the Bundy protest, the Millers had moved from Indiana to the Las Vegas area in January. [2] [5] They were quoted on Reno television KRNV: "I feel sorry for any federal agents that want to come here and try to push around or anything like that. I really don’t want violence toward them but if their gonna come and bring violence to us, well, if that’s the language they want to speak, we’ll learn it." [5] Miller commented on the issues involved in greater length in social media, and interviewed other protesters at the Bundy ranch. [6] [7]
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell reacted to the shootings, saying "It's very important to bring lawbreakers to justice. There's no question that my colleagues back here, the governors of Western states, do not want people riding roughshod over the landscape ... [Bundy] put our people in grave danger by calling in armed civilians from around the country, and that’s not okay." Carol Bundy said "I have not seen or heard anything from the militia and others who have came to our ranch that would, in any way, make me think they had an intent to kill or harm anyone." [8] Bundy's son said that the couple had been asked to leave the ranch after a few days because they were "very radical" and did not align themselves with the protest's main issues. [2]
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Wnt ( talk) 20:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree that Jerad Miller should redirect here. It deserves its own page. Cwobeel ( talk) 02:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/Federal_Land_Showdown_147565925.html
Is this useful? (I decline to be involved in this article myself, but I feel that this might be a useful source.) DS ( talk) 16:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Bundy's comments about blacks have nothing to do with the standoff, let alone worthy of mention in the summary, of which a significant portion is devoted. This article is titled: Bundy Standoff. It should remain true to its title. I'm disappointed the summary isn't allowed to be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:5880:0:68BC:309D:1BC3:7FAA ( talk) 04:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
It was later revealed that the New York Times had selectively edited his speech, taking it out of context and focusing on Mr. Bundy's use of the word "Negro". I feel this should be noted, preferably after the last line in the opening which does appear to be of hostile intent to sour the reader's opinion of the subject before even reading the article.
216.145.88.33 ( talk) 02:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Why should it be included in the body if it has nothing to do with the standoff? Starchild ( talk) 04:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
This page has four [citation needed] notes, and yet in the intro there are eight citations for one paragraph. Maybe we could move some of them down below where we need more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:F00:19E:8199:27AA:529E:2C51 ( talk) 22:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Why no mention of the mass grave of dead cattle, (allegedly healthy cattle killed by BLM) that was found and dug up. There are multiple videos of it and dozens, if not hundreds of articles on it as well; one example found here. This is oddly absent from the article... - theWOLFchild 04:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
It's three paragraphs of family history that is neither important to the article or even on a wider historical scale. The article is already far too long as it is, so I believe this is a good candidate for deletion. 2602:304:CEEE:B700:485A:30F1:721C:45EB ( talk) 04:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Cliven Bundy currently redirects to this article, which serves partly as a biographical article for Bundy. That's typical for people known only for one event, especially when that event is a matter of controversy. However, there is news now that Bundy's sons may be involved in another violent land dispute, although Cliven Bundy himself may not be. Should the material on Mr. Bundy's life outside the land dispute be split out to a full Cliven Bundy article? I'm in favor of a split, for the record, but I'd like to see what others think.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.98.115 ( talk) 05:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The mall shooting two weeks later, perpetrated by two of the people involved with the stand-off. Why isn't this mentioned in the article? Am I missing something? -- RThompson82 ( talk) 09:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Certainly isn't how it is referred to any news report I've read. Let's get something more encyclopedic? 98.67.188.224 ( talk) 14:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Several sections of this article say things like "still" and "In April" without giving a date when it was written. April when? April 2015? Needs to be edited. (And I suggest avoiding using unclear language like this when adding dates here in future edits, and elsewhere on wikipedia.) I don't know enough about the details of this case to feel confident about editing, hopefully someone who knows more can clean things up.
4.15.125.75 ( talk) 05:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
There is information missing on why Bundy refused to renew his grazing permit. The article is currently getting tens of thousands of reads per day, I'm not interested in getting involved in a bunch of drama with a bold edit. I just thought I'd leave this here for review/consensus/historical -- this can certainly wait until the news cycle goes elsewhere. 009o9 ( talk) 06:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Proposed changes to Permits section
|
---|
Under Bureau of Land Management permits first issued in 1954, Bundy grazed his cattle legally and paid his grazing fees on the Bunkerville Allotment until 1993. In that year, the BLM reduced his permit to 150 head of cattle for the coming decade on the 158,666 acre allotment, in protest, Bundy did not renew his permit.
[1] Bundy's refusal paved the way for Clark County to purchase all of the Gold Butte allotment grazing permits for $375,000, which where then retired,
[2] as authorized by the Clark County Habitat Conversation Plan, of which the BLM became a signatory of in 1991.
[3] In an April 9, 2014, town-hall meeting with fellow residents, Bundy stated: "I know without doubt that our Constitution didn't provide for anything like the federal government owning this land, and so when I pay my grazing fees -- if I owe any grazing fees -- I will sure pay it to the right landlord, and that will be to Clark County, Nevada."
[4]
[5]
The BLM made several attempts to have Bundy renew the permit, the rancher declared that he no longer recognized the BLM's authority to regulate his grazing and he asserted that he had "vested rights" to graze cattle on the land. [6] He also claims that the remedy to the government is to provide a fence, as per Nevada State Law. [7] [8] [9] Federal courts have consistently ruled against Bundy, finding that he is a trespasser with no right to graze on federal land and authorized the BLM to remove his cattle and levy damages for unauthorized use. [6] [10] Bundy has since accumulated more than $1 million of unpaid grazing fees and court-ordered fines. [11] [12] The Portland Oregonian newspaper reported in May 2014 that the amount that Bundy owed stood in "stark contrast" to the situation in Oregon, where just 45 of the state's roughly 1,100 grazing permit holders collectively owed $18,759 in past-due payments to the BLM. [13] Excluding Bundy's unpaid fees, the total of all late grazing fees owed nationwide to the BLM was only $237,000, the newspaper said. [14]
|
Extended content
|
---|
Closing this up, got kind of off topic, the law rather than this article
009o9 (
talk) 06:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
|
Regarding our article about the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge please consider commenting at that article's talk page on the question "Should we say anything more about Public Lands Privatization and demand feds cede ownership?" NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Why are sources needed in the lead? The information is basically repeated in the rest of the article. Besides, a lead is a summary. 100.12.206.17 ( talk) 01:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't have time to add all six charges to the standoff article, but FYI here is the criminal complaint. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
We know that Finicum made reference to the standoff after it was over, but was he there or otherwise supporting the standoff at the time? Does anyone know of RSs to verify this? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Bundy standoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted a bold edit by Bongey ( talk · contribs) which removed from the lede a graf discussing Cliven Bundy's racist comments and the impact they had on his public support. I think it's worthy of being discussed in the lede precisely because they did cause many one-time supporters to distance themselves from Bundy. However, if there's a general consensus that the material doesn't belong there, I will of course yield to that determination, so let's discuss the subject here and see what other editors think. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 08:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Is there any reason whatsoever to discuss Congressman Steve Stockman's letter? Congressmen write letters on all manner of topics, and there is no reason to believe that this one is particularly significant. No reliable sources even covered the letter. And a letter is less significant if written by only one member (as opposed to letters signed by a number of members, which often do get noteworthy coverage). Neutrality talk 19:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bundy standoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I have reverted this edit because it amounts to unsourced POV and speculation. There are no reliable sources which have reported any claim that any BLM employee acted wrongfully, much less criminally, during the standoff, and therefore it is entirely inappropriate to create the suggestion or intimation that such was the case. It amounts to a false equivalency which cannot be permitted here. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 01:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The article as written is badly biased in favor of the Feds by making the Bundys sound like simple scofflaws who do not have any legal justification for their actions. The fact of multiple state legislatures effectively agreeing with their position should be included in the lede of the article. I tried to add this material, but someone keeps deleting it. Starchild ( talk) 04:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
@ StarchildSF: Skimming thru the dialogue, I noticed your statement above that "This should never be taken as proof that..." This succinctly flags the core problem here. Wikipedia editors are not concerned with "proof". To be concerned with proof means sifting through stuff and arguments and writeups and making a by god decision what the truth is. As Doug already mentioned, we are forbidden from engaging in WP:Original research of this sort. Instead, we neutrally report what reliable sources of say. Often we use inline attribution and try to watch out for stating facts in WP:Wikivoice. Anything else is using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX. In a nutshell then, see our essay Verifiability, not truth. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. I've been attempting to clean up the article for foul language, but I'm getting flak from certain individuals who seem to not understand the Constitution. Article I, Section VIII, Clause XVII states the following:
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;
I'm not sure how this exactly applies to what is happening in Nevada. This section applies only to the seat of the government. It actually clearly states that it cannot be used for the purposes of "Exclusively Legistlating" in other federally owned lands, only the 10x10 square. My edits were removed, and I'm going to add them back in, but I want to hear from people on how the Constitution provides this freedom. The article mentions the supreme court, but lists no verdict. If there was a verdict, it would be supreme law of the land in the absence of Constitutionally provided powers. This crisis is getting more relevant in the current information trends, so it is important to be clear on this issue.
But yeah, don't revert my edits if you're not going to back up your claims. I backed up mine, show some respect. I'm getting tempted to become vulgar. And another thing, stop being rude when referencing Cliven Bundy, this website demands NPOV and I will see to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:6520:2AB:4164:E378:5AB7:E1D1 ( talk) 00:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.. This clause gives Congress plenary authority over lands owned by the United States (property) - to sell them or to make rules about how they can be used. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 02:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Would it be better to place the following reference to the release of Ammon Bundy in this article, or the Malheur refuge takeover article, or both? I don't want to rock the boat, I just think it should be added: http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2017/11/ammon_bundy_free_on_house_arre.html
I have reverted the undiscussed and poorly-justified removal of longstanding, reliably-sourced material from this article. There is extensive discussion in reliable sources of links between the events, and the perpetrators were briefly *resident* at the Bundy compound. The claim that the events are entirely unrelated is simply refuted by the cited reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Done unless someone doesn't like how I did it. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Both myself and
Leitmotiv have reverted edits to the lede of this article made by
Clepsydrae. I have reverted those edits because they are objectionable - they present a false dilemma and misrepresent the state of Constitutional law. The
Property Clause of the United States Constitution has repeatedly and invariably been interpreted by courts to mean that the Congress of the United States has plenary authority over property owned by the federal government, including land. That power is not diminished or modified by the
Enclave Clause - they are separate authorities. The Enclave Clause merely permits the Congress, with consent of affected state legislatures, to exercise
exclusive jurisdiction over certain enumerated areas of federal property. Public lands are not under exclusive jurisdiction - they are under
concurrent jurisdiction, which means that such areas are considered part of the state, and to the extent not pre-empted by federal law, are part of state civil and criminal jurisdiction. The federal government merely owns the land, as any other landowner, and Congress has Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States
.
The edit's deceptive presentation of the wording "Nevertheless, while", combined with selective quoting of the Enclave Clause to omit its full statement and context - Congress shall have power * * * To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.
acts to create the implication of a contradiction which does not exist in settled Constitutional law. For that reason, it is not beneficial to this article.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk) 17:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority and the History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention. Here is a paper from the Hastings Law Journal written by John Leshy, distinguished professor of real property law at Hastings College of Law. There's plenty to be had. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 17:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
But while Congress can acquire exclusive or partial jurisdiction over lands within a State by the State's consent or cession, the presence or absence of such jurisdiction has nothing to do with Congress' powers under the Property Clause. Absent consent or cession a State undoubtedly retains jurisdiction over federal lands within its territory, but Congress equally surely retains the power to enact legislation respecting those lands pursuant to the Property Clause. And when Congress so acts, the federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause.
include and describe [fringe] ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. Clepsydrae, I am sure you hold in good faith the viewpoint that American public lands are unconstitutional. But that viewpoint is a fringe minority and holds zero legal standing at this time. Established scholarship, law, and the beliefs of the wider world demonstrate that American public lands are constitutional. Wikipedia is required by policy to reflect that status. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 20:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
might have made an error in judgementis irrelevant, as is your personal opinion of such. Our personal opinions don't belong in Wikipedia. That would be textbook original research. By foundational policy, we write articles based upon what is published in reliable sources, and reliable sources unanimously state that the Supreme Court has repeatedly and without exception ruled the concept of federally-owned and -managed public lands to be consistent and compliant with the Constitution. If and when that established fact changes, then and only then can Wikipedia make a change. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 23:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I have read a fair amount of this Wiki-article but not all of it. Mostly, from the 1st 10 pages or so.
Yet, I found nothing regarding what specifically changed in the BLM contract with Bundy regarding the difference in the DOLLAR amount BLM was asking for, any difference in payment schedule from the previous 20 years of his payments, etc. This, it seems to me, is highly relevant for basic perspective. For example, was the BLM only asking for a 5% increase per acre or 50%? Was there a schedule of increases proposed over the next few years? Was there any explanation offered for why the land adjacent to HIS property was chosen and / or why other areas were not available or even considered? Was the new contract more of an ultimatum than a reasonable negotiation between lifelong business agents?
Secondly, was one of the sources of irritation and resentment with BLM management that OTHER Departments of the Fed Government were interfering? Thus, this amalgam of bureaucracies enforcing arbitrary, abrupt, and significant changes in a contract long held a source of irritation?
Third, what about the need for, veracity, reality, and significance to the overall local view of ranching and living in this desolate land of making a desert tortoise's life more enhanced vs the cost to manage this land dispute? The BLM, Forest service, et al, and various enforcement agencies and courts have spent, likely, millions of dollars these last 20 years handling this debacle. Their actions against one rancher had a highly leveraged effect to the extent that it galvanized radical supporters from around the United States to show up on this remote area-- resulting in human deaths. The question begging for answer is: Would the BLM, if knowing in advance their actions to assistance the Forest Service and Environmental groups would cause human deaths, have agreed to force this policy on Bundy, et al? The gain certainly was not worth it at all as the tortoise is no better off now than before but human deaths have resulted in this action.
Granted, all the facts regarding the case and prosecution are likely documented here but the initial background I describe seems lacking. It seems this information should be added; and that, I feel, is a reasonable suggestion. It is important to be fair in the statement of the initial situation from all points of view. Otherwise, it appears that Bundy, et al suddenly and with little rational reasoning chose to stop the legal and peaceful process he had been doing for 20 years. Beschreib77 ( talk) 21:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Beschreib77 ( talk) 14:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
The stated goals within the infobox seem to contradict one another and are written with poor grammar. I can't tell who or what entity is rounding up the cattle and what the purposes and motivations are. It sounds like the BLM wants the cattle rounded up and prevented from grazing, but the second goal gives the impression the ATF is attempting to do the opposite and uphold the grazing rights of Bundy. Someone please edit for clarification. 66.91.36.8 ( talk) 00:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Having been through a large part of this article (not all of it), this is a great example of a neutral point-of-view on a controversial topic. Not just in what is covered, but also with fair amounts of emphasis. It should be shown to people who are editing information on other divisive incidents to demonstrate how to inform readers without taking a stance or trying to influence their opinion. I'm trying to see how to nominate it. EGarrett01 ( talk) 17:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bundy standoff article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Bundy standoff, or related legal issues. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Bundy standoff, or related legal issues at the Reference desk. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 3 May 2014. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This is indeed an elaborate article. Why? THe standoff was a minor footnote in history yet it has more words to its page than: John Adams or the NIV version of the Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.109.25 ( talk) 20:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Good point. Much of the article is also biased against the Bundys; some of that material could be usefully deleted. Starchild ( talk) 04:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The article's summary of the Court cases involved seems good, but the cases involved have enough notoriety to merit their own articles and the infobox and links about these cases should be moved to articles specifically about those cases (with links from here indicating were a reader can get more info). Court cases as they lay down precedent for the future are easily recognized as notable by wikipedia standards and with its own article more detail, such as quotes from friend of the court briefs, quotes from rulings, and dissents can be made without fear of unbalancing and shifting the focus, as might be a concern in this article about the standoff.== Wowaconia ( talk) 14:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree that these cases are, from a jurisprudence standpoint, notable enough to merit their own separate pages. There were no appeals (Bundy was denied in both cases), no amicus filings, and no precedent set beyond the fact that trespassing on federal land remains illegal. To whit, the government never asserted any powers derived from the law that they hadn't already before, and Bundy never actually raised any legal arguments that required substantive review and consideration - his filings are a hodgepodge of issues that have been long-since considered settled law and inane theories such as that plants and animals must themselves be engaged in international commerce for the government to qualify for protection under the ESA (incidentally, the ESA really wasn't at issue here). Permanent injunctions against trespassers on federal lands is nothing new, nor is the injunction allowing the government to impound cattle grazing on federal land. Had this guy not engaged in an armed standoff with the BLM and the NPS it's unlikely that anyone would have paid them much attention. Dlk0606 ( talk) 16:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
*Oppose deletion of Legal Infobox and Opose deletion of legal material This article is primarily about a 20 year legal dispute. The fact that it is named Standoff is still being discussed and debated within this talk page, and we may not have a viable consensus on this title change for at least another month or so. Standoffs are very temporary. Encyclopedic articles are more enduring or historic. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This wikipedia article requires as much legal reference and regulatory background as possible, because the court case, the law regulations, and the enforcement of them are the focus of the entire dispute. All the protests and confrontations that happen over a limited time hinge upon legal or enforcement events. Both sides of the dispute focus upon the law. Covering all this makes it unbiased and informative. There is no limitation on the size of such a wikipedia article, and bandwidth of characters on a page is not so precious to require deletion of well-sourced material. Baleywik ( talk) 17:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I did not call for deletion of the infobox and its links, I called for it to be moved or split.
The article is titled Bundy standoff and the segment on "other cases" and the infobox throw of the balance of this article. This article is unbalanced, and the addition of "similar cases" doesn't even involve Cliven Bundy at all. What new name for this article could possibly capture all these aspects (some that don't involve Bundy at all)? The standoff is an event that would merit its own page by wiki standards anyhow, due to press coverage and notable government figures weighing in over the specific event with the armed characters on each side (similar to how the Battle of Shiloh gets its own article and isn't just folded into the American Civil War article).
Nor did I call for a deletion or even moving the summaries, but the info box is obviously about legal cases and not about the standoff. The "similar cases" do not even have Bundy in them as an important figure. The article is overburdened, unbalanced, and the infobox and the "similar cases" should be split off with appropriate links from this page to those.-- Wowaconia ( talk) 18:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
After examining the links on the introductory sentences of the segment on similar cases it is clear that the link between them and Bundy is solely original research. While it may appear to us wiki editors that there is an obvious link, just because we have access to a computer does not make us notable experts. If this info, with the O.R. linking it to Bundy removed, was put in articles about the cases themselve than those articles could be included in a "See Also" segment in this article, and in "See Also" segments on each of the new articles about the specific cases.-- Wowaconia ( talk) 18:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems consensus is for the information to remain rather than being split, there have been additions (made to counter O.R. worries) that more directly link these cases to the standoff. As the page is currently protected I have asked for the removal of the tags indicating there is an open discussion on whether they should be split.-- Wowaconia ( talk) 20:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
No consensus for a split at this time. Most objections are based on recentism. Try again in a few weeks.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Proposal: Split the entire article into: 1) Bundy standoff, and 2) Bundy-BLM dispute. The wp:splitting guidelines on splitting an article are: 1) it's long, 2) the content seems to cover multiple, related topics. This article seems to fit both of those. It's difficult for readers to comfortably navigate the article, this talk page is unwieldy, and there are two distinct content areas: 1) the 20-year dispute/legal battle, and 2) the April 2014 protests/standoff. The former is about the fees, filings and court orders; the latter is about guard dogs, stun-guns and the 1st Amendment. (Note: This proposal grew out of a previous discussion) Sparkie82 ( t• c) 03:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
If we split it, where should the content go? Put an "x" where you feel the content should go:
Sparkie82 ( t• c) 07:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The proposal has been up for just a few hours. Let's get more comments and discussion from a wider set of WP readers/editors. I'm sure those who have quickly opposed the proposal are acting in good faith and are willing to change their minds upon further discussion. Sparkie82 ( t• c) 17:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
|
The second paragraph at present reads
"The ongoing dispute began in 1993, when in protest against changes to grazing rules, Bundy declined to renew his permit for cattle grazing on BLM-administered lands near Bunkerville, Nevada.[2]"
It is true that the dispute arose over "changes to grazing rules" but I think it will be important for posterity that those changes were the introduction of the very grazing fees at the heart of the dispute. Its such a key element in the whole plot that to describe the introduction of grazing fees as simply some change in the rules presents a very blurred view of what actually happenned. Im not much of a wikipedian to know the various rules regarding quoting external sources considered respectable by whoever decides their respectable and all that but I hope someone who knows all that stuff can change this as it does skew the whole story considerably to just describe this key aspect as "change in the rules" in one respect while stating bundy "refused to pay fees" on the other. The half truth here distorts the directness of the connection. Its a bit like saying boston tea partiers destroyed the kings property without even mentioning who harvested the tea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.250.93 ( talk) 09:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
This content was reverted as "original research", though I did no such thing and relied solely on the media sources. [1] The original plus some extra bits for those interested:
On June 8, Jerad and Amanda Miller simultaneously killed two Las Vegas police officers and a civilian before taking their own lives during a shootout with police. [1] During the attack they shouted "this is a revolution", and they covered the bodies of the officer in a Gadsden flag and left a copy of a manifesto bearing a swastika. [2] [3] Their original plan may have been to take over a courthouse and execute public officials. [4] Identified by Al-Jazeera as a rancher in its April 22 coverage of the Bundy protest, the Millers had moved from Indiana to the Las Vegas area in January. [2] [5] They were quoted on Reno television KRNV: "I feel sorry for any federal agents that want to come here and try to push around or anything like that. I really don’t want violence toward them but if their gonna come and bring violence to us, well, if that’s the language they want to speak, we’ll learn it." [5] Miller commented on the issues involved in greater length in social media, and interviewed other protesters at the Bundy ranch. [6] [7]
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell reacted to the shootings, saying "It's very important to bring lawbreakers to justice. There's no question that my colleagues back here, the governors of Western states, do not want people riding roughshod over the landscape ... [Bundy] put our people in grave danger by calling in armed civilians from around the country, and that’s not okay." Carol Bundy said "I have not seen or heard anything from the militia and others who have came to our ranch that would, in any way, make me think they had an intent to kill or harm anyone." [8] Bundy's son said that the couple had been asked to leave the ranch after a few days because they were "very radical" and did not align themselves with the protest's main issues. [2]
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Wnt ( talk) 20:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree that Jerad Miller should redirect here. It deserves its own page. Cwobeel ( talk) 02:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/Federal_Land_Showdown_147565925.html
Is this useful? (I decline to be involved in this article myself, but I feel that this might be a useful source.) DS ( talk) 16:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Bundy's comments about blacks have nothing to do with the standoff, let alone worthy of mention in the summary, of which a significant portion is devoted. This article is titled: Bundy Standoff. It should remain true to its title. I'm disappointed the summary isn't allowed to be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:5880:0:68BC:309D:1BC3:7FAA ( talk) 04:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
It was later revealed that the New York Times had selectively edited his speech, taking it out of context and focusing on Mr. Bundy's use of the word "Negro". I feel this should be noted, preferably after the last line in the opening which does appear to be of hostile intent to sour the reader's opinion of the subject before even reading the article.
216.145.88.33 ( talk) 02:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Why should it be included in the body if it has nothing to do with the standoff? Starchild ( talk) 04:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
This page has four [citation needed] notes, and yet in the intro there are eight citations for one paragraph. Maybe we could move some of them down below where we need more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:F00:19E:8199:27AA:529E:2C51 ( talk) 22:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Why no mention of the mass grave of dead cattle, (allegedly healthy cattle killed by BLM) that was found and dug up. There are multiple videos of it and dozens, if not hundreds of articles on it as well; one example found here. This is oddly absent from the article... - theWOLFchild 04:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
It's three paragraphs of family history that is neither important to the article or even on a wider historical scale. The article is already far too long as it is, so I believe this is a good candidate for deletion. 2602:304:CEEE:B700:485A:30F1:721C:45EB ( talk) 04:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Cliven Bundy currently redirects to this article, which serves partly as a biographical article for Bundy. That's typical for people known only for one event, especially when that event is a matter of controversy. However, there is news now that Bundy's sons may be involved in another violent land dispute, although Cliven Bundy himself may not be. Should the material on Mr. Bundy's life outside the land dispute be split out to a full Cliven Bundy article? I'm in favor of a split, for the record, but I'd like to see what others think.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.98.115 ( talk) 05:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The mall shooting two weeks later, perpetrated by two of the people involved with the stand-off. Why isn't this mentioned in the article? Am I missing something? -- RThompson82 ( talk) 09:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Certainly isn't how it is referred to any news report I've read. Let's get something more encyclopedic? 98.67.188.224 ( talk) 14:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Several sections of this article say things like "still" and "In April" without giving a date when it was written. April when? April 2015? Needs to be edited. (And I suggest avoiding using unclear language like this when adding dates here in future edits, and elsewhere on wikipedia.) I don't know enough about the details of this case to feel confident about editing, hopefully someone who knows more can clean things up.
4.15.125.75 ( talk) 05:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
There is information missing on why Bundy refused to renew his grazing permit. The article is currently getting tens of thousands of reads per day, I'm not interested in getting involved in a bunch of drama with a bold edit. I just thought I'd leave this here for review/consensus/historical -- this can certainly wait until the news cycle goes elsewhere. 009o9 ( talk) 06:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Proposed changes to Permits section
|
---|
Under Bureau of Land Management permits first issued in 1954, Bundy grazed his cattle legally and paid his grazing fees on the Bunkerville Allotment until 1993. In that year, the BLM reduced his permit to 150 head of cattle for the coming decade on the 158,666 acre allotment, in protest, Bundy did not renew his permit.
[1] Bundy's refusal paved the way for Clark County to purchase all of the Gold Butte allotment grazing permits for $375,000, which where then retired,
[2] as authorized by the Clark County Habitat Conversation Plan, of which the BLM became a signatory of in 1991.
[3] In an April 9, 2014, town-hall meeting with fellow residents, Bundy stated: "I know without doubt that our Constitution didn't provide for anything like the federal government owning this land, and so when I pay my grazing fees -- if I owe any grazing fees -- I will sure pay it to the right landlord, and that will be to Clark County, Nevada."
[4]
[5]
The BLM made several attempts to have Bundy renew the permit, the rancher declared that he no longer recognized the BLM's authority to regulate his grazing and he asserted that he had "vested rights" to graze cattle on the land. [6] He also claims that the remedy to the government is to provide a fence, as per Nevada State Law. [7] [8] [9] Federal courts have consistently ruled against Bundy, finding that he is a trespasser with no right to graze on federal land and authorized the BLM to remove his cattle and levy damages for unauthorized use. [6] [10] Bundy has since accumulated more than $1 million of unpaid grazing fees and court-ordered fines. [11] [12] The Portland Oregonian newspaper reported in May 2014 that the amount that Bundy owed stood in "stark contrast" to the situation in Oregon, where just 45 of the state's roughly 1,100 grazing permit holders collectively owed $18,759 in past-due payments to the BLM. [13] Excluding Bundy's unpaid fees, the total of all late grazing fees owed nationwide to the BLM was only $237,000, the newspaper said. [14]
|
Extended content
|
---|
Closing this up, got kind of off topic, the law rather than this article
009o9 (
talk) 06:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
|
Regarding our article about the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge please consider commenting at that article's talk page on the question "Should we say anything more about Public Lands Privatization and demand feds cede ownership?" NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Why are sources needed in the lead? The information is basically repeated in the rest of the article. Besides, a lead is a summary. 100.12.206.17 ( talk) 01:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't have time to add all six charges to the standoff article, but FYI here is the criminal complaint. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
We know that Finicum made reference to the standoff after it was over, but was he there or otherwise supporting the standoff at the time? Does anyone know of RSs to verify this? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Bundy standoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted a bold edit by Bongey ( talk · contribs) which removed from the lede a graf discussing Cliven Bundy's racist comments and the impact they had on his public support. I think it's worthy of being discussed in the lede precisely because they did cause many one-time supporters to distance themselves from Bundy. However, if there's a general consensus that the material doesn't belong there, I will of course yield to that determination, so let's discuss the subject here and see what other editors think. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 08:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Is there any reason whatsoever to discuss Congressman Steve Stockman's letter? Congressmen write letters on all manner of topics, and there is no reason to believe that this one is particularly significant. No reliable sources even covered the letter. And a letter is less significant if written by only one member (as opposed to letters signed by a number of members, which often do get noteworthy coverage). Neutrality talk 19:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bundy standoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I have reverted this edit because it amounts to unsourced POV and speculation. There are no reliable sources which have reported any claim that any BLM employee acted wrongfully, much less criminally, during the standoff, and therefore it is entirely inappropriate to create the suggestion or intimation that such was the case. It amounts to a false equivalency which cannot be permitted here. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 01:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The article as written is badly biased in favor of the Feds by making the Bundys sound like simple scofflaws who do not have any legal justification for their actions. The fact of multiple state legislatures effectively agreeing with their position should be included in the lede of the article. I tried to add this material, but someone keeps deleting it. Starchild ( talk) 04:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
@ StarchildSF: Skimming thru the dialogue, I noticed your statement above that "This should never be taken as proof that..." This succinctly flags the core problem here. Wikipedia editors are not concerned with "proof". To be concerned with proof means sifting through stuff and arguments and writeups and making a by god decision what the truth is. As Doug already mentioned, we are forbidden from engaging in WP:Original research of this sort. Instead, we neutrally report what reliable sources of say. Often we use inline attribution and try to watch out for stating facts in WP:Wikivoice. Anything else is using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX. In a nutshell then, see our essay Verifiability, not truth. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. I've been attempting to clean up the article for foul language, but I'm getting flak from certain individuals who seem to not understand the Constitution. Article I, Section VIII, Clause XVII states the following:
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;
I'm not sure how this exactly applies to what is happening in Nevada. This section applies only to the seat of the government. It actually clearly states that it cannot be used for the purposes of "Exclusively Legistlating" in other federally owned lands, only the 10x10 square. My edits were removed, and I'm going to add them back in, but I want to hear from people on how the Constitution provides this freedom. The article mentions the supreme court, but lists no verdict. If there was a verdict, it would be supreme law of the land in the absence of Constitutionally provided powers. This crisis is getting more relevant in the current information trends, so it is important to be clear on this issue.
But yeah, don't revert my edits if you're not going to back up your claims. I backed up mine, show some respect. I'm getting tempted to become vulgar. And another thing, stop being rude when referencing Cliven Bundy, this website demands NPOV and I will see to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:6520:2AB:4164:E378:5AB7:E1D1 ( talk) 00:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.. This clause gives Congress plenary authority over lands owned by the United States (property) - to sell them or to make rules about how they can be used. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 02:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Would it be better to place the following reference to the release of Ammon Bundy in this article, or the Malheur refuge takeover article, or both? I don't want to rock the boat, I just think it should be added: http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2017/11/ammon_bundy_free_on_house_arre.html
I have reverted the undiscussed and poorly-justified removal of longstanding, reliably-sourced material from this article. There is extensive discussion in reliable sources of links between the events, and the perpetrators were briefly *resident* at the Bundy compound. The claim that the events are entirely unrelated is simply refuted by the cited reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Done unless someone doesn't like how I did it. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Both myself and
Leitmotiv have reverted edits to the lede of this article made by
Clepsydrae. I have reverted those edits because they are objectionable - they present a false dilemma and misrepresent the state of Constitutional law. The
Property Clause of the United States Constitution has repeatedly and invariably been interpreted by courts to mean that the Congress of the United States has plenary authority over property owned by the federal government, including land. That power is not diminished or modified by the
Enclave Clause - they are separate authorities. The Enclave Clause merely permits the Congress, with consent of affected state legislatures, to exercise
exclusive jurisdiction over certain enumerated areas of federal property. Public lands are not under exclusive jurisdiction - they are under
concurrent jurisdiction, which means that such areas are considered part of the state, and to the extent not pre-empted by federal law, are part of state civil and criminal jurisdiction. The federal government merely owns the land, as any other landowner, and Congress has Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States
.
The edit's deceptive presentation of the wording "Nevertheless, while", combined with selective quoting of the Enclave Clause to omit its full statement and context - Congress shall have power * * * To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.
acts to create the implication of a contradiction which does not exist in settled Constitutional law. For that reason, it is not beneficial to this article.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk) 17:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority and the History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention. Here is a paper from the Hastings Law Journal written by John Leshy, distinguished professor of real property law at Hastings College of Law. There's plenty to be had. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 17:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
But while Congress can acquire exclusive or partial jurisdiction over lands within a State by the State's consent or cession, the presence or absence of such jurisdiction has nothing to do with Congress' powers under the Property Clause. Absent consent or cession a State undoubtedly retains jurisdiction over federal lands within its territory, but Congress equally surely retains the power to enact legislation respecting those lands pursuant to the Property Clause. And when Congress so acts, the federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause.
include and describe [fringe] ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. Clepsydrae, I am sure you hold in good faith the viewpoint that American public lands are unconstitutional. But that viewpoint is a fringe minority and holds zero legal standing at this time. Established scholarship, law, and the beliefs of the wider world demonstrate that American public lands are constitutional. Wikipedia is required by policy to reflect that status. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 20:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
might have made an error in judgementis irrelevant, as is your personal opinion of such. Our personal opinions don't belong in Wikipedia. That would be textbook original research. By foundational policy, we write articles based upon what is published in reliable sources, and reliable sources unanimously state that the Supreme Court has repeatedly and without exception ruled the concept of federally-owned and -managed public lands to be consistent and compliant with the Constitution. If and when that established fact changes, then and only then can Wikipedia make a change. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 23:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I have read a fair amount of this Wiki-article but not all of it. Mostly, from the 1st 10 pages or so.
Yet, I found nothing regarding what specifically changed in the BLM contract with Bundy regarding the difference in the DOLLAR amount BLM was asking for, any difference in payment schedule from the previous 20 years of his payments, etc. This, it seems to me, is highly relevant for basic perspective. For example, was the BLM only asking for a 5% increase per acre or 50%? Was there a schedule of increases proposed over the next few years? Was there any explanation offered for why the land adjacent to HIS property was chosen and / or why other areas were not available or even considered? Was the new contract more of an ultimatum than a reasonable negotiation between lifelong business agents?
Secondly, was one of the sources of irritation and resentment with BLM management that OTHER Departments of the Fed Government were interfering? Thus, this amalgam of bureaucracies enforcing arbitrary, abrupt, and significant changes in a contract long held a source of irritation?
Third, what about the need for, veracity, reality, and significance to the overall local view of ranching and living in this desolate land of making a desert tortoise's life more enhanced vs the cost to manage this land dispute? The BLM, Forest service, et al, and various enforcement agencies and courts have spent, likely, millions of dollars these last 20 years handling this debacle. Their actions against one rancher had a highly leveraged effect to the extent that it galvanized radical supporters from around the United States to show up on this remote area-- resulting in human deaths. The question begging for answer is: Would the BLM, if knowing in advance their actions to assistance the Forest Service and Environmental groups would cause human deaths, have agreed to force this policy on Bundy, et al? The gain certainly was not worth it at all as the tortoise is no better off now than before but human deaths have resulted in this action.
Granted, all the facts regarding the case and prosecution are likely documented here but the initial background I describe seems lacking. It seems this information should be added; and that, I feel, is a reasonable suggestion. It is important to be fair in the statement of the initial situation from all points of view. Otherwise, it appears that Bundy, et al suddenly and with little rational reasoning chose to stop the legal and peaceful process he had been doing for 20 years. Beschreib77 ( talk) 21:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Beschreib77 ( talk) 14:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
The stated goals within the infobox seem to contradict one another and are written with poor grammar. I can't tell who or what entity is rounding up the cattle and what the purposes and motivations are. It sounds like the BLM wants the cattle rounded up and prevented from grazing, but the second goal gives the impression the ATF is attempting to do the opposite and uphold the grazing rights of Bundy. Someone please edit for clarification. 66.91.36.8 ( talk) 00:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Having been through a large part of this article (not all of it), this is a great example of a neutral point-of-view on a controversial topic. Not just in what is covered, but also with fair amounts of emphasis. It should be shown to people who are editing information on other divisive incidents to demonstrate how to inform readers without taking a stance or trying to influence their opinion. I'm trying to see how to nominate it. EGarrett01 ( talk) 17:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)