Militia groups meet with Oregon Protesters

Discussion in 'U.S. News and Current Events' started by LibertarianLiberty, Jan 10, 2016.

Tags:
?

Does the occupation at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge make these men domestic terrorists?

  1. Yes

    7.1%
  2. No

    92.9%
  3. I don't know

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. US | Sat Jan 9, 2016 1:38pm EST
    Related: U.S.
    Militia groups meet with leaders of Oregon occupation, pledge support
    BURNS, Ore. | By Jonathan Allen


    [​IMG]



    Leader of a group of armed protesters Ammon Bundy talks to the media at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Oregon, January 8, 2016.
    Reuters/Jim Urquhart
    Members of self-styled militia groups met on Friday with armed protesters occupying a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon, pledging support for their cause, if not their methods, and offering to act as a peace-keeping force in the week-long standoff over land rights.

    During the 30-minute meeting at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, a leader of the occupation, Ammon Bundy, told about a dozen representatives of such groups as Pacific Patriots Network, Oath Keepers and III% that he had no immediate plans to abandon the siege.

    "I was asked to do this by the Lord," said Bundy, a Mormon, as some of the militia members nodded in understanding. "I did it how he told me to do it."

    ADVERTISING

    Earlier on Friday the Pacific Patriots Network called on its members to establish a safety perimeter around the refuge in remote southeastern Oregon to prevent a "Waco-style situation" from unfolding.

    In 1993 federal agents laid siege to a compound in Waco, Texas, being held by the Branch Davidians religious sect for 51 days before the standoff ended in a gun battle and fire. Four federal agents and more than 80 members of the group died, including 23 children.

    The Pacific Patriots Network has previously said that while it agrees with Bundy's land rights grievances, it does not support the occupation, a position leader Brandon Rapolla reiterated during the meeting.

    Bundy thanked Rapolla and handed him a small roll of bills, which he said came from donations.

    "We're friends, but we're operating separately," Rapolla, a former Marine who helped defend the Bundys in 2014 in their standoff with the U.S. government at their Nevada ranch, told Reuters in an earlier interview.

    Related Coverage
    The militia members are not joining the occupation, but are sleeping in their vehicles or in hotels in Burns, he said.

    Rapolla said he had also taken sausage McMuffins to FBI agents who are stationed at nearby Burns Municipal Airport to monitor the occupation and had coffee with deputies from the county sheriff's office on Thursday.

    The meetings were friendly, he said, and he told them that they were there to make neither side escalates the dispute.

    "That's really the point of militias: it's community involvement," Rapolla said. "If something happens in your community, that's what militias are for."

    Some two dozen armed protesters have occupied the headquarters of the refuge since last Saturday, marking the latest incident in the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion, a decades-old conflict over federal control of land and resources in the U.S. West.

    The move followed a demonstration in support of two local ranchers, Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son Steven, who were returned to prison earlier this week for setting fires that spread to federal land.

    A lawyer for Hammond family has said that the occupiers do not speak for the family.

    Ammon Bundy met briefly with Harney County Sheriff David Ward on Thursday but rejected the lawman's offer of safe passage out of the state to end the standoff.

    During a press conference on Friday morning, Bundy seemed to soften his position, saying: "We will take that offer but not yet and we will go out of this county and out of this state as free men."

    Following Bundy's press conference on Friday morning, a lands right activist opposed to the occupation spoke to the media.

    "This is about furthering an extremist right-wing agenda," Barrett Kaiser, a Montana resident and a representative of the Center for Western Priorities said, as supporters of Bundy tried to interrupt him and argue with him. "They need to be charged and prosecuted."

    Local residents have expressed a mixture of sympathy for the Hammond family, suspicion of the federal government's motives and frustration with the occupation.

    Federal law enforcement agents and local police have so far kept away from the occupied site, maintaining no visible presence outside the park in a bid to avoid a violent confrontation.

    (Reporting by Jonathan Allen in Burns, Oregon; Writing by Dan Whitcomb; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

    source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oregon-militia-idUSKBN0UM2ED20160109
     
    Angry Barista and Patriot like this.
  2. I don't want to sway the poll, but.....

     
    Agravan likes this.
  3. I was nodding my head until the "Supreme Court are not the arbiters of the Constitution" comment.
     
  4. @Patriot & @ConcreteBill, I would tend to agree with Ms. Hall on almost every issue. I do concur with @Patriot in his response. If the supreme court are not the arbiters of the constitution, than the states are the arbiters of the constitution. So, one can reasonably assume that each state would rather defer to their own constitution for the enforcement of the law rather than what is prescribed in the U.S. Constitution. That being said, it's just my opinion; pure conjecture. However, it is something that I fear would come to fruition if left unchecked. As far the Oregon situation is concerned, these men are doing what they feel to be right. No one has been harmed or even threatened with violence unless violence in brought to them first. A universal law that all men can respect. And I'm of the opinion that you can't trespass on public land. However, to make the claim that the supreme court cant deliberate on the constitutionality of law seems erroneous and the symptom of a flawed logic.
     
    Agravan likes this.
  5. Yeah, I hadn't looked at it from that perspective after reading the comment by @Patriot

    If that was her point she probably should have made that clear. I am certainly a state's rights advocate, but without SCOTUS serving as the arbiter of the Constitution it would be meaningless.
     
  6. I agree. Without our Supreme Court the laws of our land would be relegated to the laws of our state.
     
  7. Thomas Jefferson, Judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy

    You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.

    Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is “boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,” and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.

    The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.

    It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

    If the legislature fails to pass laws for a census, for paying the judges and other officers of government, for establishing a militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the Constitution, or if they fail to meet in congress, the judges cannot issue their mandamus to them ; if the President fails to supply the place of a judge, to appoint other civil or military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the judges cannot force him. …

    The Constitution, in keeping three departments distinct and independent, restrains the authority of the judges to judiciary organs, as it does the executive and legislative to executive and legislative organs.

    @Patriot you should check this out - I see where you are getting tossed up though from our own Supreme Court:

    "The republic endures and this is the symbol of its faith."
    - CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES EVANS HUGHES
    Cornerstone Address - Supreme Court Building

    "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

    The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence. A century and a half ago, the French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville noted the unique position of the Supreme Court in the history of nations and of jurisprudence. "The representative system of government has been adopted in several states of Europe," he remarked, "but I am unaware that any nation of the globe has hitherto organized a judicial power in the same manner as the Americans. . . . A more imposing judicial power was never constituted by any people."

    The unique position of the Supreme Court stems, in large part, from the deep commitment of the American people to the Rule of Law and to constitutional government. The United States has demonstrated an unprecedented determination to preserve and protect its written Constitution, thereby providing the American "experiment in democracy" with the oldest written Constitution still in force.

    The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society's need for order and the individual's right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government.

    The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

    While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.

    Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.

    Despite this background the Court's power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. "It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is," he declared.

    In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."

    The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with "Cases" and "Controversies." John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court's history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases.

    The Justices must exercise considerable discretion in deciding which cases to hear, since more than 10,000 civil and criminal cases are filed in the Supreme Court each year from the various state and federal courts. The Supreme Court also has "original jurisdiction" in a very small number of cases arising out of disputes between States or between a State and the Federal Government.

    When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.

    Chief Justice Marshall expressed the challenge which the Supreme Court faces in maintaining free government by noting: "We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding . . . intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs."
     
  8. Yeah - this gets to be a confusing issue. On one hand I see the argument that Hall makes in the video regarding the inability of SCOTUS to serve as the final arbiter, but then I also see the side of it in the modern day of unified states. That would mean state judges could counter rulings all over the place, which might have been a larger problem for Jefferson.

    I am willing to bet Ted Cruz has an accurate opinion on this. He has argued before the Supreme Court on a number of occasions and probably knows the nuances of this inside and out. Going to see if I can find anything he has said on the matter.
     
  9. And that's the fear that I have. I myself am not willing to risk the solidarity of my country. Ted Cruz is my candidate brother.
     
  10. So, I don't believe they are terrorists, but I wonder if they were not armed do you guys believe the FBI would have taken the facility back already? A lot of people are taking issue with the fact that they are carrying weapons. I believe they are demonstrating their 2nd Amendment right and if they we not armed the FBI would have already moved in - which essentially justified the entire point of the 2nd Amendment. Your thoughts?
     
    LibertarianLiberty likes this.
  11. If the folks in Oregon were not armed, the federal government would have gone in, with force, to "reclaim" what already belongs to the tax payer. Going in armed was the right move. Proves that the founders enacted the 2nd Amendment for a good reason.
     
  12. Yep and the outcome would have been the same, the MSM would have declared them terrorists and the whole thing would have been over before there was enough time to get the word out. This was a calculated and well planned approach to call attention to this issue.
     
    Agravan likes this.
  13. The stand-off in Oregon can be resolved through dialogue. There's no need to begin firing on protesters. Any analogy to terrorist organizations is outlandish. These people are not thugs like BLM and they are not Al Qaeda. It is almost as if the NYT and Salon.com types are salivating at the thought of these protesters being fire-bombed and shot to death by a SWAT team.
     
    LobsterGuy likes this.

Share This Page