Contested Ideas About Consent

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. brad says:

    If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

  2. dht says:

    I think you are giving Mr. Bundy more credit than he deserves in terms of a coherent theory supporting his actions. It is much more likely that he is simply unwilling or unable to pay the grazing fees, and has come up with some intelligent sounding language to support his position out of necessity, not actual conviction.

  3. Joe says:

    I think dht might be correct, but the OP is probably best seen as using a certain artificial “objective observer” construct here, or to be somewhat more generous, voice what many people not quite as “out there” as the specific individual at issue probably think. We in general are not “deep thinkers” about various things and hold somewhat competing ideas. Still, the idea the U.S. has no “place in Nevada” is a confused idea. To take an easy case, what about a post office?

  4. Robert Tsai says:

    Every legal theory is motivated, at some level, by instrumental concerns. The fact that Bundy stands to benefit materially doesn’t disqualify him from holding a view about the Constitution. It’s true that popular interpretations will rarely be highly developed or as consistent as those articulated by jurists and academics. But there is something that links Bundy to the Oath Keepers and other militia members who rallied to his defense (including at least one former sheriff), to the elected officials and pundits around the country who rallied to his cause (at least until his views on race became publicized). It’s not compatible financial interests, but rather a shared legal belief system. Even if they don’t agree on everything, there are overlapping features of their worldviews, sense of history, and tactics for legal change.

  5. Seem like we are glorifying Mr. Bundy and giving him more credit than he deserves.