"Citizens have no natural rights that need be respected by a "Federal Officer" .
Dred Scott Ruling........ Paraphrased
I will leave the choice of civility or incivility up to you
This statement is not meant to be provocative, it is a simple statement of an intent, a point of view. I by far prefer civil discussion, but I'm quite capable of being remarkably uncivil.
I will address the issue as if we are Communicants in a communion of community, since that is how I prefer to regard my fellow creature, human or otherwise. To my mind this is the Natural Order and original intent of establishing a community, or acquiring or maintaining membership in a community.
In my world, there are 3 types of beings:
1Communicants in our community of faith in US
2. there are Critters,
3.and there are Varmints.
Communicants are those who wish to help each other in our community, to make each other strong together-
This is the base Latin meaning of a Community- A "making Strong Together". Obviously, one of the requisites is the faith and trust that the members are uniformly beneficent toward each the other, since that is both the definition and purpose of "Community" in the first place.
Critters are those beings who wander about the community and interact with its members with no particular awareness of membership in anything larger than their own particular critterhood. They are my fellow Creatures ( Crittures) made by the same creator ( who may or may not exist as a consciousness, but must at the very least be acknowledged - even if only as a "law/rule/force" of "Nature" ( eg "Evolution")
I will help and cherish these beings as unwitting members of the Community, and do them no harm, so long as they do me no harm.
Varmints are that class of Critter who engages in predatory behavior upon members of the community. Again, I will help and cherish these critters as members of the community, and try to warn them away from me and mine, but should they fail to heed the warning, there is no wrong in disposing of them, as they are inclined to dispose of others. WWBBD
Now, Today's Question- as posed by Donegal Descendant.:
As a provocative Question, you raise a good one.
But, as with most things "the Government does", there is no real question of taking the actions of different bodies of actors over time as if there were some sweeping plan or sentient or conscious intent. behind the actions. The order you impose can only be discerned in retrospect. As real life "Government" happens in the real world, there is no such order.
One might as well ask if it makes any sense to raise children in the ghettos of our major cities, or whether the Federal ( State/ Local) governments ever have a duty to fulfill a contractual obligation, since by very definition the "integrity" of the government is at best suspect, and it's responsibility for it's actions and honor in fulfillment of obligations don't even raise to the level of a 6 year old child. In point of fact, by definition, there is no coherent cohesive long term entity that can be pointed out as "The Government".
In our formation of our government, it was and is implicit that this must be so.... Theoretically at least, every 6 years, we may completely change the makeup of our government, turning out such "Rascals" as have become oo adept at playing the game of governance to their advantage, and set in place a new and less sophisticated set of rascals.
You start out by admitting that there is no clear title to the land.
The best you can say is that it was stolen fair and square from its original inhabitants.
Much or all of this theft was accomplished by people like the Bundys, who settled on land that was clearly not fit for human habitation, and made it so ... (well, MORE so than the indigenous people... if you go by quantity of people, rather than quality of life, a view that leads directly to the problem of raising children in ghettos)
The then government in Washington made certain promises to the people who settled the land, in order to get them to perform this theft from nature, this civilizing of "untamed' land.
Chief among these promises were the Rights to the Water and Forage of those lands so that these sanctioned government operatives ( land thieves) could support themselves while performing their duties inherent in stealing this land from nature for the use of "Civilization"( government)" these Rights were to be in perpetuity and heritable just as is any other property earned by dint of hard labor.
All of the other "legal" arguments are simply pettifogging justifications for not fulfilling a contract simply because it's grown inconvenient, and the entity "inconvenienced" has decided that the water rights would be more profitable invested in Las Vegas real estate developers and their government cronies, than with the descendants of the people who originally stole them from Nature.
Like wise, the Rights to the use of the land is more profitably vested in some groups who will clear off the current tenants*, keep The People ( Hoi Polloi) off of it, and return it's use to it's proper owners, the desert tortoise and the sage brush, (and the occasional fracking platform)
The wonderful thing about "legalities" are that if you lack honor and integrity, you can accomplish just about anything simply by making up or changing the rules as you go along. This is more or less a perfect definition of the federal government.**
* Those currently possessed of legal use of the land and water, derived from legal Rights (Water, Forage) as compensations from the federal government to those original thieves who actually stole the land from nature for the benefit of "The Government" (civilization) and passed on by sale or inheritance.
** One may ask why this is less true of government at the State and Local levels, and the answer is quite simple: There are at each successively lower level, Fewer rascals and those that do exist are are more easily obtainable to be hanged. ( This is a probable cause and effect relationship)