Printable View
The jury has the case. The defense got to show video of Margaret Houston being thrown to the ground, Ammon tazed, the arrest of Dave Bundy and the BLM snipers on the hills above them. And more . . . . .
John Lamb and Andrea Parker End of Closing Arguments ~ J Brady
http://youtu.be/NjFjCjD8Z0Y
https://youtu.be/NjFjCjD8Z0Y
The jury has the case
Jury Begins Deliberations in Nevada Protest Trial
THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT LIMIT THEIR OBJECTIONS TO JUST ONE OR TWO CLOSING STATEMENTS. THEY OBJECTED TO ALL OF THEM.
April 13, 2017 BLM, Constitution, Nevada, US
http://www.avantlink.com/gbi/11653/2...9211/image.jpg
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...ry-678x381.jpg
Jury Begins Deliberations in Nevada Protest Trial
by Shari Dovale
The Bunkerville protest trial, first round, is coming to end. The closing statements have been given over the past two days. Each attorney spoke well and powerfully for their client.
Todd Engel, the only defendant to represent himself, had a short and emotional closing statement for the jury. However, nearly every sentence he uttered was objected to by the prosecution. It was obvious that the prosecutors were trying to ‘rattle’ him to keep him from being effective.
They would object to his use of pronouns, to his stating that he arrived in Nevada at a certain time, to his claim that he had breakfast that morning, etc. At last count, there had been 20 objections with only 1 being ruled in Engels favor by Judge Navarro.
Even with all of the attempts to disrupt his statement to the jury, Engel did very well.
The defense attorneys seemed to have finally found their groove with the closings. Jess Marchese, representing Eric Parker, was able to get a 45 minute video by Pete Santilli entered into evidence, to the disgruntlement of the prosecution team. Marchese got the entire video entered, though he only planned on playing a minute of it while on the record.
The prosecutors actually let this one get by them until it was too late. Judge Navarro, of course, did not see a problem with it because the prosecution didn’t object. Marchese did say he was going to recommend to the jury that they watch the entire video during the deliberations.
This video includes footage of the cows being slaughtered by the BLM, Ammon Bundy being tazed, Margaret Houston being thrown to the ground, and more. This is crucial information that the defense has been attempting to get in front of the jury, however, Judge Navarro has been accepting the government’s objections to this point and keeping it out.
The government did not limit their objections to just one or two closing statements. They were objecting to all of them, though Engel seemed to receive the majority. The prosecutors objected to Steven Stewart’s attorney when he tried to quote Benjamin Franklin. The objection was that there was no evidence that Stewart himself ever read the quote. Judge Navarro agreed with the government.
Navarro agreed with the government’s objection to Scott Drexler’s attorney, Todd Leventhal, using videos in his closing because Drexler did not testify. The video he was attempting to use was the “Longbow” video interview that had been entered into evidence by the prosecution.
The question was even asked, though objected to, “Where is Dan Love?”
Leventhal ended his statements with the quote, “If you don’t stand for something then you will fall for anything.” Let’s hope the jury got the message.
These are some of the examples of the rulings the judge has been making in her attempt to stack the deck against the defendants.
All sides have rested. The case has been given to the jury and deliberations have begun.
John Lamb contributed to this report.
What the Bundy Ranch Trials Mean to You . . . . . .
Every American Should Care About the Case Against Cliven Bundy
THERE WILL BE NO WAY TO HOLD OUR GOVERNMENT OR ANY OF ITS AGENCIES ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANYTHING.
April 13, 2017 BLM, Constitution, Nevada, US 1
http://www.avantlink.com/gbi/11653/2...9211/image.jpg
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...y1-610x381.jpg
Every American Should Care About the Case Against Cliven Bundy
By Paula Hart
Here is why every American citizen should care about the Federal case against Cliven Bundy, et al. Whether you believe it or not, this case DOES affect you.
The government wants you to believe that this whole case is about Cliven refusing to pay his grazing fees. It wants you to believe that the Bundy’s are anti-government . It wants you to believe that they are a bunch of crazies that keep picking fights with the Government for no reason. It now wants you to believe that they are domestic terrorists simply because they had the courage to stand up to the Government.
What the Government does NOT want you to know is that EVERYTHING the Bundy’s have done is protected by the Constitution. They broke NO Constitutional Laws.
The Bundy’s believe that the Constitution always has been the Supreme Law of the Land, which it is, no matter what the Government tries to tell us now. The Bundy’s do believe in the need of a Federal Government, but the kind that our Founding Father’s established; a LIMITED government of the People, by the People, and for the People. Not the government we have today, where the People have no rights and no say.
The government does NOT want you to know that Cliven paid his grazing fees for years, until one day the government changed the contracts, effectively putting his livelihood in grave danger. Cliven tried to negotiate the terms but the government refused.This is what led to the incident in 2014 in Nevada.
It doesn’t want you to know that Cliven was not allowed to pay his fees until AFTER he agreed to the new contract, which he didn’t agree with. Still, they refused to negotiate the terms in order to come to some type of compromise so that he could pay them.
THAT is when Cliven refused to sign the papers and made his payments to his County instead. Cliven tried, after being screwed over by the government, to still do the right thing.
When they saw the very same tactics being used against another family in Oregon, they stood up for that family and came to their aid. That is what the incident in 2015 in Oregon was about.
The government does NOT want you to know that, for years, it has been doing the same thing to landowners all across the west. The Bundy’s tried to open the Nation’s eyes as to what was going on behind the scenes. The Bundy’s tried for decades to go through the proper channels, to work things out with our elected officials, but got no response at all.
So, this case is not so much about land and grazing rights and unpaid grazing fees as it is about a government that has gone completely rogue.
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...017/01/bar.gif
What it means for YOU
If these men are found guilty, here is what it means for YOU, personally. Here is what’s REALLY on trial…..
The US Constitution- the very one the judges take an oath to uphold and defend, the one that protects We the People- will no longer be allowed in a court of law. Not even mentioned in a court of law. Let that sink in. We will have NOTHING to protect us from our corrupt government!! Nothing.
No more First Amendment rights. No more protesting or disagreeing with the Government or any of its agencies or employees. . If you and one other person says something the government doesn’t like or agree with, you can be charged with conspiracy and sent to prison.
Any comment or “like” on Facebook or other social media platforms can and will be used against you. Media (network or independent) who covers a story that the government does not want covered, will be arrested and sent to prison. If the government wants something you have, you no longer have any right to tell it no or you will be sent to prison.
Your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is all but gone. If you are legally and lawfully carrying a weapon and a member of law enforcement is nearby, you will be charged with threatening an officer. Let’s face it, since we now live in a police state, there is law enforcement everywhere.
You will no longer be allowed to defend yourself in court. You will no longer have the right to face your accuser(s).You will no longer be able to tell the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing BUT the truth. If others show up to testify on your behalf, they will be threatened with arrest for speaking up for you.
A government witness who wasn’t even a witness to the crime’s testimony is more valid than that of a “lay” witness that was there to witness it first hand. Basically, if the government decides you’re guilty, you are guilty.
No more right to bail or a speedy trial.
No more being presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
There will be no way to hold our government or any of its agencies accountable for anything.
I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. The bottom line is, if these men are found guilty, we will no longer have the safety and security that the Constitution gives us. We will no longer be in charge of the government but it will, once and for all, be in charge of us and there will be no turning back.
The Bundy’s, and all who stood with them, have told the truth. They have done everything out in the open. They have been begging for public attention to this case and their grievances. They are doing all they can to uphold our Constitution.
On the other hand, the federal government has lied, repeatedly. They don’t want media coverage and won’t allow cameras in the courtrooms. They won’t respond to any grievances. They are blatantly disregarding the Constitution and want you to believe that if you support it then you are committing a crime!!. And, yet, who’s on trial? Who, really, is fighting FOR us all ,here? Who has YOUR best interests at heart?
Someone said it best (I believe Sandy Anderson III) …”If not now-when? If not us-who? If not this-what?” Out of millions of American citizens, a handful of people had the courage and integrity to stand up. It’s truly heartbreaking to see the majority leaving them to stand alone. To fight for people who can’t be bothered to fight for themselves.
What is it going to take for American’s to wake up and see that we are about to lose everything that matters?!!! When will *YOU* finally stand up and get involved ??? What is it going to take to get you to start caring about what’s happening?!!!
Your time is seriously running out to decide which side you’re with: Those fighting FOR your rights or those doing all they can to take them away.
The story of the song of the "Star Spangled Banner" is a good one to listen to while we wait for the verdict on the trial of the patriots in Nevada. They have stood up against the traitors who have taken control of our government and are working to destroy what the founding fathers of this country gave us.
It is State of Nevada highway right of way, not federal land . . . . .
It Is Nevada DOT Land, Not Federal Land
THE WORDS "TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE" APPEAR IN A HOST OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATUTES.
April 15, 2017 BLM, Constitution, Nevada
http://www.avantlink.com/gbi/11653/2...9211/image.jpg
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...3-678x381.jpeg
“YOU DON’T HAVE JURISDICTION, THE GROUND UNDER THE BRIDGE IS NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LAND, NOT FEDERAL LAND”
By Loren Edward Pearce
During the trial in Las Vegas, Nevada, the prosecutors played a video which showed one of the protestors screaming at the armed men hired by the federal government (whether they were federal contractors or employees was uncertain) that they did not have jurisdiction. This evidence submitted by the federal prosecutors, opened the door to question the whole concept of federal jurisdiction. Unfortunately, this key opportunity was not seized upon by the defense attorneys as they apparently had already conceded jurisdiction to the federal government. It is my opinion, that jurisdiction should have been disputed by the defense and that failure to do so was a major error.
As discussed previously, federal jurisdiction wherein there is a federal judge, on the federal payroll, managing a case for her employer, the United States government, and who was appointed by a federal executive at the request of a federal Senator, is entirely a conflict of interest. It is impossible for her to be unbiased, or avoid the appearance of being biased, because she is ruling on behalf of her employer, her co-workers and her federal sponsors. Therefore, the question of federal versus state jurisdiction is at the core and center of the controversy and it is tragic that it was not attacked by the defense.
Establishment of State and Federal Courts
State and local courts are established by a state (within states there are also local courts that are established by cities, counties, and other municipalities). Federal courts are established under the U.S. Constitution to decide disputes involving the Constitution and laws passed by Congress.
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...o-150x150.jpeg
Judge Gloria Navarro
The irony and the injustice are that federal judge Gloria Navarro, who is supposed to preside over constitutional questions, would not permit discussion of the constitution in her courtroom, especially the 1st and 2ndamendment. She stated that any constitutional question or violation would be handled by the federal court of appeals, not by her. But, if a federal District Court cannot hear a constitutional question, then why do they exist? Deferring constitutional questions to the appellate court, means more prison time for innocent political prisoners.
To add insult to injury, Navarro would not allow pocket constitutions in her court room (not the people’s court room, but hers) unless it was turned around with rear cover facing outward. One defendant supporter was physically thrown out of the court room because his constitution was facing the wrong way.
Most crimes that occur within a state’s borders, or within three miles of its coastline, are prosecuted in state court. But some federally owned land rests entirely within one state’s borders—if a crime occurs on that land, then it’s typically a federal offense.
As the protestor in the video correctly pointed out, the land in the wash belonged to the City of Mesquite according to Clark County records and the bridge was an easement granted by the city to the Nevada Dept of Transportation.
There is no mention of federal ownership or easement. Therefore, under the doctrine of lex locus delicti, law of the scene of the crime, the crime must be tried in the jurisdiction that owns the land. Even if the federal government had an interstate easement through Interstate 15, the easement does not give them exclusive jurisdiction. In other words, the federal charges should be heard in a state court first, and if the state court determines that the federal government has jurisdiction, then it can be removed to a federal court.
Federal criminal jurisdiction commonly arises where:
- the crime occurred on land owned or controlled by the federal government (such as national parks and military bases)
- the offense took place on a ship flying the American flag, even if it occurred in foreign waters, and
- the crime crossed state lines or involved interstate commerce (for example, kidnapping or drug trafficking).
The federal prosecutors will argue that the federal courts have jurisdiction because the criminal charges are for violations of federal statutes. But the defense attorneys should argue that, no, you cannot have violation of federal statutes unless the crime took place on federal land. If the alleged violation of federal statutes occurred on state land, then the defendant has the right to challenge the jurisdiction of the federal government court, which is saturated with bias and with conflict of interest. A state court is more likely to have a judge and jury who reflect local values and local interests.
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...2-150x150.jpeg
The federal team (judge, prosecutors and marshals) tried to argue that Eric Parker and his friends came under federal jurisdiction by crossing state lines and thereby invoking the interstate commerce jurisdiction of the federal team. But, no crime was committed by crossing state lines and no conspiracy was committed as they did not know the Bundys nor were they harkening to any organized conspiracy.
The words “transportation in interstate or foreign commerce” appear in a host of federal criminal statutes. These statutes prohibit the interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles, forged checks, prostitutes, explosives, obscene materials, kidnap victims, counterfeit phonograph records, and numerous other items. In all of these statutes the predicate for federal jurisdiction might reasonably be identified in either of two ways: first, it might require that the subject be transported across a state line; second, as the Court reads this language, it may merely require that the subject be transported during an interstate journey. 455 U.S. 642 – McElroy v. United States
Neither Eric Parker, his friends nor any of the hundreds of protestors came in response to an organized conspiracy, rather it was a spontaneous response to scenes of a woman being thrown to the ground and other acts of excessive force. Their travels across state lines did not invoke the interstate commerce provision of the constitution because they were not transporting illegal items nor were they committing conspiracy. Nevertheless, the federal team prevented the defense from hearing testimony from the woman thrown to the ground and other relevant witnesses.
In some cases, both federal and state courts have jurisdiction. This allows parties to choose whether to go to state court or to federal court.
There was enough reason to doubt federal exclusive jurisdiction such that the defense should have challenged it and should have taken the option to go to a more unbiased state court to determine jurisdiction. In state court, they would have been allowed to present evidence of land records showing state ownership of the land where the cattle were impounded. They could have also presented evidence showing that this was not a federal question because the federal government had no authority there. They could have showed that the BLM had no constitutional roots and especially had no constitutional authority to enforce their own administrative rules and procedures. Any court order issued by the government against the Bundys, must be enforced by local law enforcement, not the BLM.
Unfortunately, the defense attorneys did not go on the offensive by challenging federal jurisdiction and citing violations by rogue BLM law enforcers.
(The defense did challenge jurisdiction, but I think they misssed the most relevant arguments. I think jurisdiction can be challenged on appeal. These guys need better lawyers.)
(This former dept. of justice attorney offers his opinions on the "Property Clause". http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/plrlr/vol24/iss1/4/. " The Power of Congress "Without Limitation" in theTwenty-First Century)
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...4/bridge-1.jpg
Terri Linell, informant, adds her views on the FBI and their involvement at Bundy Ranch and Malheur reserve
Curiously, since Syrian 'Bay of Pigs' when Trump fired 59 missles on the Syrian air base we've heard no more from Mr. Comey or the Susan Rice affair. The MSM is too quiet
Politics, Russia, and the Bundy Ranch by Terri Linnell
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PRESS SECRETARY PUBLICLY STATED IT WAS A LOCAL ISSUE, ADDING CREDIBILITY TO THE STANDOFF JUST BEING A PROTEST.
April 11, 2017 BLM, FBI, Nevada, Politics
http://www.avantlink.com/gbi/11653/2...9211/image.jpg
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...ey-600x381.png
Politics, Russia, and the Bundy Ranch
by Terri Linnell
Clinton Watts, a former FBI agent, testified on March 30th, 2017 during the Russian Congressional Hearings last week regarding the potential Russian interference in the 2016 presidential elections. His testimony was riveting.
“In late 2014 and throughout 2015, we watched active measures on nearly any disaffected U.S. audience,” Watts said. “Whether it be claims of the U.S. military declaring martial law during the Jade Helm exercise, chaos amongst Black Lives Matter protests, or a stand-off at the Bundy Ranch, Russia’s state-sponsored outlets of RT (Russia Today) and Sputnik News — characterized as “white outlets” — churned out manipulated truths, false news stories, and conspiracies.”
Bundy Ranch Standoff? Why was a spontaneous event mentioned in the Russian congressional hearings?
Now I, Terri Linnell, a wife and mother of 3, was at the Bundy Ranch Standoff on Saturday, April 12, 2014. A few days prior, on Wednesday, April 9th, I’d watched a video of an older woman (Ammon Bundy’s Aunt) being thrown to the ground while videoing a dump truck towing a back hoe away from a BLM roundup.
Curious, I then watched a video of the unarmed family screaming to the BLM agents, asking for a reason for the dump truck, fearing their cattle had been killed. Then I saw a man (Ammon Bundy) being tazed, with his wife pulling the tasers off. A dog was commanded to attack the wife, who was pregnant. Wow. I researched further.
The family’s cattle was being rounded up because they hadn’t paid their grazing fees for over 20 years. With my real estate background, I knew Cliven Bundy had created a permanent easement under Preemptive Land Rights or Adverse Possession. I packed my things and arrived at their Nevada ranch by 11am the next morning. I had no idea it was going to be a national event, big enough for the history books a mere two days later. What I can tell you all is there was no conspiracy. People saw the same videos I did and started showing up from all over the nation. This was simply a land rights issue, but the family was clearly in danger.
Over a year and a half later, on January 2nd, 2016, Ammon Bundy took over the headquarter buildings at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon, to call attention to the Hammond family, another rancher who had legal problems with the BLM.
The Hammond father and son who had done their time and paid their fine were being put back in jail over a mandatory sentence requirement. I was a newly paid FBI informant and was asked to go to the Malheur Refuge in Oregon, aka the Oregon Standoff.
How this protest was conducted inspired people. All across the country people were starting to rise up to fix things, one of the more notable events was the Flint, MI Water Crisis which is still in the news today. During the protest, the media kept sounding the drums of white militia, avoiding filming the black people who’d joined the protest. I’d even gone into town and found the majority of the people supported the Hammonds and the Oregon Standoff. So why did the media refuse to tell the truth?
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...er-150x150.png
Mark Kessler
Lets look back a couple years. In September of 2013 a Pennsylvania police chief, Mark Kessler, received national attention for calling for an armed march on DC on the same date another march peacefully was being done, which received no media. It later turned out, announced on national news, that Chief Kessler was actually working for the FBI for that protest.
Kessler had collected a list of Americans over 250,000 in the first week of his (or the FBI’s) website. It’s not a big step to realize the FBI can get the national media to do their bidding. Kessler mentioned Nancy Pelosi in a video, and her response gave it instant national attention. This was odd, since typically politicians don’t respond because they know by saying nothing, it’ll typically go away, gaining no ground.
23 days into the occupation of the Oregon Standoff, on January 26th, 2016 the FBI conducted a ‘routine traffic stop’ (as they publicly put it) and murdered LaVoy Finicum. LaVoy was one of the drivers of Ammon Bundy’s caravan as they went to a neighboring county’s speaking event. There was zero reason to pull the caravan over, nor had an arrest warrant been issued for any of them. Charges were pressed 8 days later while they still sat in jail, mourning their friend’s murder.
After the Oregon Standoff, later in 2016, I was told by the agent I worked with that the most elite FBI team, called HRT for Hostage Rescue Team, had orders signed by President Obama himself to deal with the protesters at the Oregon Standoff.On January 4th, 2016, President Obama’s press secretary publicly stated it was a local issue, adding credibility to the standoff just being a protest. “The White House on Monday was careful not to label an armed occupation of a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon as an act of terrorism, instead referring to the standoff as a “local law enforcement matter.” Please note, in the average video press people saw only this short part, whereas the written press discussed FBI involvement. This added credibility to the protesters, since the President felt it was just a local issue.
http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/up...ma-150x150.png
The main problem with the FBI is that it wasn’t there to keep everyone safe. Had they done so as sworn law enforcement officers, they would have protected the protesters and helped protesters obey any obscure laws, as was their duty since the sheriff refused. Every protest has anti protesters and the volunteer security protected them, escorting them throughout the refuge, so no clashes occurred. This was in fact the duty of real police officers, who were nowhere to be found.
The fact President Obama himself signed the papers to place the FBI there is simply too incredible to believe. However, the Oregon governor, Governor Kate Brown, did in fact appeal to the President to hurry up and end the Standoff. She did not ask him to step in, she asked him to end it.
“In two letters, which she made public Thursday, Brown told President Obama that she spoke with Jerry Abramson, his deputy assistant and director of international affairs, along with FBI director James Comey about the occupation. Brown wrote that in those conversations, she told Abramson and Comey the occupation must end peacefully and “without further delay from federal law enforcement.”
In October of 2016, right before I testified for the defense (the FBI didn’t know I was testifying), I was asked by the FBI how the ‘movement’ was VOTING. I answered they were voting on both sides of the isle… while notes were being taken.
Now one would naturally wonder why the FBI would care about how someone votes, let alone take notes, but they did. The obvious answer is this “law enforcement agency”, the FBI, has clearly entered into politics. They had done this to Martin Luther King’s civil rights marches during the McCarthyism era in the 70’s. (McCarthyism is where the FBI colluded with politicians with the mere accusation of being a communist to destroy political rivals.)
Is this an attempt at a cover up by FBI Director Comey so President Trump doesn’t look into the Bundy Ranch case? Although ‘McCarthyism’ does appear to be happening once again, this time they appear to be blaming Russia to cover up their own actions. The Russia hearings mentioning Bundy Ranch can have but one conclusion. The FBI has entered into politics.
Personally, considering President Obama signed the documents for this operation, Comey definitely knew. I would recommend President Trump tell Director Comey, “You’re fired!” and open a full criminal investigation. Comey deserves no less.
Ryan Budy's daughter's message from her facebook
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.p...00013162061593
Jamie Bunny
March 26 at 1:24pm ·
It honestly amazes me how much tribulation, heartache, and violation my dad will take to stick by and stand for what he knows, believes, and loves. Again, again, and again his rights are being violated. Some of the things that have been done to him and have been gotten away with are stomach turning, inhumane, and unbelievable.
"They deserve to be in jail" people have told me.
Well guess what, my dad and the other men being held are serving more than just time, WAY more than just time. They've been beaten, they've been treated inhumanly, they've been placed in solitary, they've been denied the access to see they're families, they've been denied the access to TALK to their families, they've been denied the right to a fair and speedy trial, they've been completely stripped of their rights and freedom.
Recently, they have been subject to "strip searches".
Every single time they enter the courtroom, leave the courtroom, or visit their lawyers they are forced to have a strip search done to them.
Don't know what a strip search is? It isn't pretty. Numerous rights get violated each time, it's intrusive, violating, uncalled for, and completely wrong. Knowing that this act is just done to violate more rights, and wear them down, my dad and others have refused to comply with any more strip searches.
What is the result? Solitary confinement.
This means that they can't call, they are held in a tiny cement room, they are hardly fed, and they are basically being treated like animals.
"Land of the free because of the brave"? Ha. Far from it.
It makes me sick. It makes me sick to think that there are still people who think that "they're getting what they deserve", or "it's not my place to say or do anything" or "if I just comply and ignore the fact that my rights are being violated I can be happy".
No. No, no, no. I don't know what more my family needs to do to prove to you that you MUST not allow these idiotic thoughts to fill your head.
PROOF, proof has been laid out before you, right in front of your very eyes, this is real. I can't stress it enough. Laugh at it? Fine. Ignore it? Fine.
But when you finally decide to open your eyes and realize how real this, you can't say that you weren't warned.
https://scontent.fbog2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...30&oe=594F3AF1
133 Likes80 Comments510 Shares
The day Las Vegas became the political master of Nevada, forced on us by the Supreme Court
SCOTUS partly to blame for America’s ‘Rural vs Urban’ resentment
April 16, 2017 editor Leave a comment
Thus the concept that was established in the US Constitution for representation of the people in Congress, held true for the states as well until the 1960s. It was obliterated at the state level by these court decisions, leaving our rural regions and cultures at the mercy of urban politicians.Commentary by Bill Goode
Loss of Representation for Rural America
Most of us are aware of the imbalance of representation in the state legislatures for rural areas in the US. It wasn’t always that way. It changed as a result of a series of US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions in the 1960s.
It used to be that states modeled their state legislatures much after the US Congress. State assembly representatives were elected from districts based on population, just as US Congressmen are. State senators were elected to represent geographical districts such as counties, just as US Senators are elected based on states, instead of population districts. That changed in the 1960s by a series of three SCOTUS decisions.
In 1946 in the Illinois case of Colegrove v. Green, the SCOTUS actually properly stated in its 4–3 ruling that the court had no jurisdiction over how states elected their legislators. Justice Rutledge, concurring with the majority opinion, stated that the court had no jurisdiction as the issue was covered in Article I, Sections 2 and 4 of the Constitution. He declined to violate that.
Colegrove v. Green (1946)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-suprem...t/328/549.html
In 1901 the State of Tennessee set the number of state house seats for each of its 95 counties. US Constitution Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 stipulates that redistricting take place by a new census every ten years. The State of Tennessee made the mistake of neglecting that law from 1901 to 1961, as no redistricting took place in Tennessee for that time frame for either Congressional districts or for state representatives. As the state became more urbanized, Mayor Baker of Nashville pleaded in 1962 that his city was under represented in the state house of representatives. He lost his case in a federal court, but appealed to the SCOTUS.
In 1962 the SCOTUS gave itself and other federal courts the right to review redistricting issues, which had previously been considered outside the court’s jurisdiction. In the 1962 Tennessee case of Baker v. Carr, the court ruled in a 6–2 decision that federal courts have the power to determine the “constitutionality” of a state’s voting districts.
Baker v. Carr (1962)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-suprem...t/369/186.html
Had Tennessee redistricted every ten years, as called for in the Constitution, the Baker v. Carr case may well never have come about. Nevertheless it gave the SCOTUS the opportunity to grant itself new powers, an interesting capability, an entity granting new powers to itself.
In 1917 the State of Georgia created an excessively complex and unique “County Unit System” by which to count votes by each of it’s 159 counties. The system tended to overly favor the rural counties. The system was challenged in the SCOTUS in 1963 by the Gray v. Sanders case. By a vote of 8 to 1, the court struck down Georgia’s system. In this decision the court formulated the concept of “one person, one vote”, ignoring the differences between rural and urban values.
The State of Georgia was given the option to either 1) make its “County Unit System” more equitable or 2) base districts strictly on population. The state went with option 2).
Gray v. Sanders (1963)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-suprem...t/372/368.html
The Alabama Constitution, adopted in 1901, stipulated one state senator per each of its 67 counties. In 1964 voters of Jefferson County (Birmingham, largest city in Alabama) pleaded in the Reynolds v. Sims case that they were under represented. The population ratio of the most populated county (Jefferson) to the least populated county was 41 / 1. The voters took their case to the SCOTUS. In an 8–1 decision the court decided, based on the “one person, one vote” concept it had established in the 1963 decision, that Jefferson County was under represented.
In the lone dissenting opinion, Justice John Marshall Harlan likened the “one county, one senator” system to the manner of election of US Senators.
Subsequently all states in the United States were ordered to elect state senators by population districts instead of by counties.
Senator Evertt Dirksen of Illinois threatened a constitutional amendment to counteract the court’s decision, but that obviously never went anywhere.
At the time of the court decision, example divergences in county populations within single states varied to just over 1000 to 1. In 2010 the divergence between California (largest population) from Wyoming (least population) was 66 to 1.
Reynolds v. Sims (1964)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-suprem...t/377/533.html
Thus the concept that was established in the US Constitution for representation of the people in Congress, held true for the states as well until the 1960s. It was obliterated at the state level by these court decisions, leaving our rural regions and cultures at the mercy of urban politicians.
As Justice Rutledge recognized in 1946, the federal government has no constitutional authority to tell states how to apportion their legislatures. These Supreme Court decisions of the 1960s need to be reversed.
Even after such a reversal, restoring the rural representation will be difficult, unless forced by the federal government. Los Angeles County currently has 14 state senator districts either touching or wholly within the county of the 40 member state senate. It will be difficult to convince Los Angeles County to give up its dominance. Nevertheless, another Supreme Court decision could bring that reversal. If the court forced the states to change in 1960s, the court might just as easily force them back.
State of Jefferson or No?
What about the State of Jefferson? Personally I favor the concept of the State of Jefferson, forming a new state from northern California and southwestern Oregon. I feel it’s a great idea to politically separate those rural areas from the urban centers that dominate them politically due to the wide divergence in population and culture.
However, from a practical standpoint, it will never come about constitutionally. The state legislatures in Sacramento and Salem will never be willing to let go of the resources of those areas now under their control. Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 very clearly stipulates that the concept must be approved by the state legislatures concerned, and then by Congress. Never happen. If the case were taken to a court, any court would likely refuse to hear the case, as the Constitution is so clear on this point.
The only other option for the establishment of the State of Jefferson is to outright assert itself and throw out the California and Oregon officials and the feds. But that’s tantamount to secession and / or revolution, and that didn’t work out so well for other states in the 1860s.
Nevertheless, if we look back at the basic problem that these counties are attempting to resolve, there is another solution. The State of Jefferson rightly pleads that it is under represented in the state legislatures in Sacramento and Salem. Rather than push for a new state, it’s far more likely to reverse the three court decisions of the 1960s that ordered the reapportionment of state legislatures. This is supported by the decision of SCOTUS, Colegrove v. Green (1946), which stated that states have the right to designate how their state legislatures are apportioned and elected.
Then California and Oregon would reapportion their state senators, likely to one or two per county. As difficult as this seems, it’s much more likely than getting the state legislatures to relinquish control over the areas in question.
The concept might spread across the country. Some states would likely do it a bit differently. Delaware has only three counties and Rhode Island has only five. So they might further divide their counties or assign more senators per county. Texas has 254 counties and may not want to have that many senators. They may chose to have some counties combine into common districts for election purposes.
Regardless, as Justice Rutledge recognized in 1946, the federal government has no constitutional authority to tell states how to apportion their legislatures. These Supreme Court decisions of the 1960s need to be reversed.
Even after such a reversal, restoring the rural representation will be difficult. Los Angeles County currently has 14 state senator districts either touching or wholly within the county of the 40 member state senate. It will be difficult to convince Los Angeles County to give up it’s dominance. Nevertheless, another Supreme Court decision could bring that reversal. If the court forced the states to change in 1960s, the court might just as easily force them back.
https://i0.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=150%2C161
Bill Goode, Kanab, Utah
Bill Goode has been involved in the public lands issue since April 2014 in Nevada as well as in Oregon. Though not a rancher, he does what he can to support the ranching community, as it is so suppressed. Suppression of ranchers and farmers is a measure of the plight of rural America, which is where our natural resources come from.
https://i0.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=860%2C523
Free Range Report
This podcast of the new Phyllis Schlafly radio show seems important as an overall update as of April 6
The Ranch issue starts at 20:44 Kelly Stewart is the guest reporting.
https://soundcloud.com/pseagles
4/6/17 | Court Watch, Ranchers and Land Rights
John Lamb earlier today, no verdict. Teresa Brookshire reported 45 minutes ago the jury had questions, the defense attorneys were called back to court.
http://youtu.be/sr1ea2lksSY
https://youtu.be/sr1ea2lksSY