UNCLE SHOULD HAVE HIS DUE

Short posting this time. I can't let the Rancher Bundy case become yesterday's news before commenting on the federalist issue that his claims bring to the fore. For those of you who have not heard of Rancher Bundy, he is the Nevada rancher who has been using federal lands to feed his cattle. We usually call that trespassing if his cattle is feeding without permission, which is the case. This has been going on long enough to run up a bill for one million dollars that the federal government has issued. Tidy sum. He refuses to pay, claiming that the federal government has no legal ownership to the land. As a matter of fact, he has been quoted as saying he doesn't recognize the federal government and that the only legal authority who has the power to impose any punishment on him or any citizen is the county sheriff. I suppose his thinking runs along the lines that the legitimate government is the state and counties are the extension of state authority to carry out state law at the local level. One begging question is: what is the ownership status of the federal government in Nevada? I live in Florida and I'm not aware of the federal government owning grazing lands. I know we have a national park, the Everglades, and there are national forests. But, as in many eastern states, the federal government's ownership in Florida is limited. Out West, it's a different story.

Nationally, the federal government owns about a third of the land mass of the US. There are states that have more than fifty percent of their land owned by the federal government – e. g., Alaska (98.5 %), Idaho (63.8 %), and Utah (63.6 %). By the by, you might think about that in relation to the national debt. Most of the land owned by the federal government is west of the Mississippi. The basis of that ownership lies with the constitutional provision that state admittance into the union has to be authorized by Congressional action. In the case of most of these western states, as part of its acceptance, Congress made the provision that the federal government would keep ownership of these vast tracts of land. Should that be the case?

As it is, given that eastern states are not so affected, one can argue that this treatment of western states violates the federalist principle of equal treatment. To that extent, Rancher Bundy might have a legitimate point. But his actions in protest, in his refusal to pay his fees, and in his continued use of the federal lands to graze his cattle, all seem unjustified and definitely illegal. Let me add, the government grazing rates, according to the Chris Hayes show on MSNBC,¹ is a mere fraction of what it would cost Bundy on private land; the fact that the federal government owns this land turns out to be a subsidy for ranchers even when they pay. Owners of private grazing land would charge roughly sixteen times more than what ranchers are being charged on these public lands.

Those who have come to Bundy's defense, armed and ready to engage in violent behavior, are way over the line in terms of acceptable protest in that they make it harder to engage in reasonable debate over the prudence of the land-owning policies of the central government. It is this type of claim that gives the “state's rights” position a bad name. But Bundy's position on the legitimate authority of the federal government to enforce its laws has no reasonable, legal, or moral standing. We have a constitution that our ancestors established and defended – with untold sacrifices – for us. That constitution has vested in the federal government certain powers and the authority to exercise those powers. With Bundy's racist remarks that were brought to light today, perhaps his notoriety will come to an end. Perhaps he will be made accountable for his alleged misdeeds – if he owes the government of the people a million dollars, I, for one, want him to pay.

1Chris Hays' show, All In With Chris Hayes, broadcast, April, 23, 2014.