You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
|The Market Ticker Single Post Display (Show in context)||
User: Not logged on
|User Info||Jail. Now.; entered at 2018-01-08 16:56:39|
Couldn't agree more. No time for a more thorough comment but I do have a small anecdote.|
A group I was associated with held a protest outside the BLM office in Roseburg, OR one day shortly after the Malheur Wildlife Refuge fiasco began. We had signs quoting the U.S. Constitution (article 1, section 8, paragraph 17) which lays out what type of land the federal government is allowed to own.
Some random BLM employee came out and was waiting at the crosswalk near us. As he started to cross the street he dropped a question on whether we understood what the "rule of law" meant and claimed that the Bundy's guilt was clear because of multiple court opinions that had sided with the BLM regarding land use.
Of course, he intentionally did this as he was walking away, not giving anyone a chance to have a conversation with him and explain our position. Rule of Law does not mean that any given court opinion suddenly has the force of law. Courts have frequently ruled against the equal application of law, just as Karl has pointed out a million times. This guy apparently thought Rule of Law meant that the law was whatever the court said it was at the current time.
There really is no convincing or negotiating with these statists.