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.
