Stathol wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
If there's a power to dispose of and regulate Federal property, there obviously must be a means to acquire it in the first place, or the power would be utterly superfluous.
Congress is empowered to acquire land for the federal seat, so it does have a means of acquiring land, but only for a narrow case. Additionally (and more importantly), there were considerable territorial holdings from the French and Indian war already in existence at the adoption of the Constitution. The whole thrust of Article IV, Section 3 is determining who gets to decide what should be done with these territories. Short answer: Congress will be in charge in charge of regulating the territories until they decide to either dispose of them or carve new states out of them. None of that implies that they can acquire completely new territories.
As pointed out, conquest is a foreseeable result of war, and Congress is empowered to make treaties. Either could result in the acquisition of new land, and neither contains any restriction in that regard. The power to create treaties necessarily includes the power to purchase or take control of additional land, both as a result of a treaty ending war and because that's one of the major reasons for treaties to exist in general - especially at the time, when conquest did not have the negative connotations of today. Elmo, once again, is imposing his own isolationist libertarian ideals on the thoughts of the founders (as if they all had one unified thought process in the first place) but the simple fact is that A) you can't on the one hand argue linguistic exactness, then flip over to "but this is what they REALLY meant" as soon as its convenient and B) there's no reason to think the Founders had thoughts that magically conform to rose-colored modern views of them whether those views are isolationist, libertarian, or anything else, any more than we should idealize them as paragons of freedom and overlook things like the 3/5 compromise. Elmo, once again, is simply claiming for himself the authority to tell everyone else what the Constitution means, which is exactly what he wants it to mean in any circumstance, then claim he's "not interpreting" it. He's no different from Bery telling everyone else here what the Bible means in that regard.
Diamondeye wrote:
Quote:
And thus have no reason to complain of lack of Constitutional protection. Really, if we're going to interpret the Constitution in such a way as to make almost the entire country illegal, there's no point in even having it, or complaining about it. It's very easy to sit back say "oh yeah, we should definitely go with an interpretation that takes us back to 180#!" knowing full well this isn't going to happen, just to be self-righteous on the internet in one's Constitutional orthodoxy.
Is there a reason you're being so hostile?
Because being hostile to the advocation of a totally untenable position, knowing it isn't going to come about and therefore allowing obstinate denial of the consequences that are clear from even a cursory thought experiment is a problem now?
That wasn't directed at you; my reference to 1803 meant "taking us back to the point right before the purchase you cited was made". I actually found your post to be accurate, insightful, reasonable, and generally remeniscient of the Stathol I remember from several years ago. Is there a reason that particular hostility, which is clearly directed at a position, and not a person is an issue for you as opposed to all the OTHER hostility around here?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
)
