And interesting tangential thought
The Mormon church has an enormous investment portfolio much of that portfolio is land and businesses. Where in the Bible does it provide for this
A tangent to the tangent, which comes back to Bundy's rationale for not paying the BLM for his former
The claim, a general one amongst a faction of the aunty gummit folks, is that the Constitution does not include much in the way of land U.S. ownership in the enumerated powers, just as the Bible, or the Book of Mormon does not enumerate the power of the Mormon Church to own an enormous investment portfolio.
The fact is, as anyone who ever tried to form an organization and bound it fully with rules at inception knows, there will be lots of stuff come up that your lack of prescience failed to rule upon.
The Constitution is a set of rules of government that were intended to give our society a framework to facilitate living together with the least mount of unmanageable discord, especially violent discord. These rules were based upon the experience and knowledge of the Founders, and are their best effort to avoid having some of the shiit that they had to deal with from happening again. They were pretty smart, but there was a lot they failed to account for; like the internet, cruise missiles, refrigerators, Porsches, no slavery, and meth. (I may have missed something, but probably nothing important - oh, yeah, a war with Mexico and taking vast amounts of land in the deal).
From my experience, wise folks would understand that the initial set of rules, for living together without killing each other all the time
, would probably need some flexibility in interpretation. Trying to interpret them in questionable, controversial, and inflexible ways 250 years later was probably not an intent. (I have to wonder why the provide for the General Welfare
phrase, which appears twice, is not as ardently supported by the rabid Constitutionalists as the supposed enumerated powers restriction is?) BTW, where is the part about it being okay for people with guns having the right to overrule the real rules by way of threatening to kill the rule enforcers? I can't seem to find it in my King James edition of the Constitution.
Back to Brer Bundy and the Malicias Host, if one tries to work out where their arguments about his ranching rights would lead, it is to anarchy and no rules for living together. That is clearly antithetical to the intent of having rules in the first place, ain't it?
As for the State of Nevada being the proper owner of all that desert, how does one explain that the Nevada Constitution expressly refused to become the owner of all of it at statehood? If they wouldn't take ownership, and the federal gummit can't own it, shouldn't it have gone back to Mexico, or the Indians? Why does Massa Bundy get it? (Maybe he could mollify the Lefties and start a non-profit to help out Negroes by giving them the opportunity to be happy slaves again? Probably some federal grants available for such socially mindful endeavors...)