As I was contemplating the ramifications of new evidence uncovered (through a whistle-blower) in regards to the US vs. Cliven Bundy et. al., it occurred to me that what was really on trial is the law itself. Let me explain.
Who makes law the laws that we must abide by? According to the system of governance established by the Constitution of the united States of America, it is the bicameral Congress who’s duty it is to pass law(s) in accordance with said Constitution. Now what happens when a law is passed that is beyond the limits placed upon that body politic called the Federal Government? The delegates of the People are the ones who passed such law and the President signed it, signifying that it is constitutionally valid. Unless it’s not. In which case, the issue is petitioned for the Supreme Court to offer an opinion.
Now, the law must be measured against the limits placed on the Federal Government by the Constitution, and the resulting opinion rendered by the Supreme Court shows why they (the Court) thinks that the law is or is not constitutional. And that is not the end of it although a majority of people think so.
The problem originated with Alexander Hamilton and Chief Justice John Marshall by usurpation of States Rights, offering the opinion that the federal government possessed ‘implied powers’ not specifically defined by the limits of the Constitution. Both were and still are incorrect and allow for a gross neglect of both common sense and logic, unless you can see that they (Hamilton/Marshall) wanted a supreme central government that both the State and the Individual would be subservient to its dictates. Remember that Hamilton wanted George Washington to assume the throne as King.
The truth is that the Constitution is just like the tape measure, in that it has rules which are static and can only be effective when you trust the measurements are true. You don’t change the scale of the ruler (measurement) to fit that which is being measured.
One of the tests of any act, bill, code, law, mandate, policy, regulation, rule, or statute is does it conform to the limits of the Constitution AND then will it infringe upon or otherwise deny an Individual or a State rights of which they own?
During the trial in Oregon, Judge Anna J. Brown refused to allow any defendants to mention the Constitution and many observers were admonished and threatened with removal from the courtroom for displaying a pocket-size Constitution visibly in ‘her’ courtroom. Let that sink in. A federal district judge banned display or mention of the Constitution in her court.
In Nevada, Judge Gloria Navarro refused to allow any defendants or witness testimony regarding the government snipers and physical abuse of Bundy family members or supporters claiming it was irrelevant to the charges in the case. As it turns out, not only was it relevant, it was exculpatory and kept from the defense until quite recently (See: Kill Lists and Secret Hearings.)