and can use those weapons and ammunition to prevent federal employees from doing their jobs.
The only rounds fired were by law enforcement personnel, and resulted in the death of LaVoy Finicum and injuries of several others—all non-LEO. (Noting that roadblock setup in violation of departmental policies.)
The first is that it was a clear case of jury nullification.
Really, so says who? I quick Internet search only queues an interview with the dismissed (and biased, retired BLM) juror. We do not yet know their reasoning for acquitting them.
The jury plainly failed to enact their Constitutional duty to apply the law rather than their opinions, and speaking as a professor of politics and government as well as a citizen of the United States, that's scary.
You should be terminated from your teaching position for making such an assertion in a public rag of a paper—seriously who are you to make such allegations? Stick to politics “professor”, stay away from all that is judicial—clearly you cannot hang.
Georgia v. Brailsford, Powell & Hopton, 3 U.S. 3, 4 Dall. 1 1 (1794):
“MR. CHIEF JUSTICE JAY. It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.”
We have a presidential candidate who has said that he might not accept the results of an election (but only if he loses).
…And he would not be the first to do so, dumbass. Obama and Hillary had stated similar claims in the recent past, but I suppose to you those do not count.
And violence and threats of violence have been a regular feature of Trump rallies.
Oh, you mean the violence that is being paid for by the Campaign for Hillary, right?
More recently, the Constitutional Sheriffs movement currently insists that county sheriffs are the primary legal agents of their community, and are not subject to federal or other restrictions on their powers.
This is not correct. They assert only that they will quash federalism/federal supremacy within their jurisdiction that is without constitutional authority—as it lacks an enumerated power so granted to the federal government under our U.S. Constitution.
And now, a jury has decided that because its members don't like the federal government's presence in their lives, it is acceptable for a group of regular people to occupy a federal property, intimidate federal employees and abuse the local environment all at the same time.
It has decided that because its members do not like the federal government, the politics of personal outrage matter more than the rule of law.
Nope, nope, nope. This completely missing the crux of either of the two Bundy incidents. The guy simply does not get it, at all. Not even close.
