The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:16 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 110 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:36 am 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Hopwin wrote:
Elmarnieh wrote:
No because the Federal government doesn't own states. Do you think the Federal government owns states Hopwin?

The Federal Government owns the land until a state is established, at least that is what your post states. You said the Federal Government can acquire terrorities via conquest and those territories can then apply to the Federeal Government for Statehood. So until that territory is approved Stateship it is Federal Land.


No I did not say such a thing. Please re-read my statements.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:52 am 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
Elmarnieh wrote:
That would be a war which is given until the Federal government.

Ok lets try this again.

We have an expanonistic war that is declared by Congress.

We conquer Quebec. It can then become a territory and then apply to become a state.

So who owns the territory? It is not Canada anymore, it is not a state yet, it is "ours" (America's).

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:14 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
There's 2 different kinds of ownership going on here (3 in the case of states). The United States owns all of its own territory; i.e. no other country lays claim to it. Each state also owns all its own territory relative to the other states. Individuals, organizations, state governments and the Federal government also own territory that belongs to the government itself.

In other words, when the U.S. acquires new land, all that land now belongs to the nation. That doesn't make it government property in the sense that, say, a navy base is - individuals and corporations can still own land within that territory, but they now own it under U.S. law as opposed to the law of whoever had it before.

The government has the power, under the power both to make war and to make treaties, to acquire new land - both are forseeable results of either action and do not need to be further specified. The idea that treaties can't contradict the Constitution is irrelevant here as there is nothing prohibiting the acquisition of land, nor anything tying the treaty power - a power of the President - to the specified powers of Congress. As long as a treaty does not explicitly contradict something written elsewhere (for example, a treaty agreeing to elect Presidents to 6 year terms, in direct and clear contradiction of the 4 year term), it is within the power to make. As for acquisition by war, it is a "necessary and proper" power to dispose of territory found in our possession after hostilities.

That land, however, isn't necessarily government land just because it's U.S. land.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:32 am 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
Diamondeye wrote:
That land, however, isn't necessarily government land just because it's U.S. land.

Same question then, who's is it? If we took Elmo's example and conquered Quebec, could I claim that territory as my own? How does it get administered and for lack of a better term, divvied up/transferred to private entities? According to historical precendent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemption_Act_of_1841 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Act_of_1862 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Run_of_1889) that land is "owned" lock, stock and barrell by the Federal Government.

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:35 am 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
I'd say its open territory to be claimed by states or individual's so yes you could lay claim to it.

Precedent doesn't define law unless you think that the SC ruling in Korematsu means that it is Constitutional to lock people away because of their ancestry. The law as it is written defines the law.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:14 am 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
You mean like the laws I referenced in my post? :lol:

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:36 am
Posts: 3083
Elmarnieh wrote:
Precedent doesn't define law unless you think that the SC ruling in Korematsu means that it is Constitutional to lock people away because of their ancestry. The law as it is written defines the law.

You know, it always amazes me that the people who are most vocal about Constitutional originalism are so often also completely opposed to the very legal system in which it was developed and from which it derives most of its meaning. If you don't think precedent defines the law, then you simply don't understand or don't accept the legal system that the Constitution enshrines. What you seem to want, Elm, is a civil law system. That's fine - civil law has its merits - but it's just not the legal system embraced by the US Constitution.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 7:59 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Hopwin wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
That land, however, isn't necessarily government land just because it's U.S. land.

Same question then, who's is it? If we took Elmo's example and conquered Quebec, could I claim that territory as my own? How does it get administered and for lack of a better term, divvied up/transferred to private entities? According to historical precendent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemption_Act_of_1841 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Act_of_1862 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Run_of_1889) that land is "owned" lock, stock and barrell by the Federal Government.


Depends on the situation. Note that I said "isn't necessarily"; i.e. it might or might not be. In the case of most of the lands in the Acts you cite, it defaulted to Federal ownership on account of there not being anyone else, aside from the Indians who ahd been ejected and counted (at the time, and with obvious caveats) as foreign powers anyhow.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:36 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
RangerDave wrote:
Elmarnieh wrote:
Precedent doesn't define law unless you think that the SC ruling in Korematsu means that it is Constitutional to lock people away because of their ancestry. The law as it is written defines the law.

You know, it always amazes me that the people who are most vocal about Constitutional originalism are so often also completely opposed to the very legal system in which it was developed and from which it derives most of its meaning. If you don't think precedent defines the law, then you simply don't understand or don't accept the legal system that the Constitution enshrines. What you seem to want, Elm, is a civil law system. That's fine - civil law has its merits - but it's just not the legal system embraced by the US Constitution.


Which is even funnier considering that he's advocated for precedent in the form of common law in the past, as if English Common Law precedent were absolute and inviolable if it gave him the result he wanted. Even more amusing when that interpretation painted pre-Revolutionary English Common Law as some sort of libertarian bastion of sacred individual liberties.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:41 pm
Posts: 1012
Interesting...

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25301551/ ... er-scrutin

and

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25302186/ ... ly-history

Quote:
It has been widely reported that Cliven Bundy’s family claims to have ranched in the Bunkerville area since the 1870s even though a federal judge held a different view of Bundy’s history.

Bundy repeated a similar claim Thursday when he told TheBlaze website: “My family has preemptive, adjudicated livestock water rights filed with the state of Nevada. They were established in 1877 when the first pioneers entered the valley. Among those first pioneers were my grandparents from my mother’s side. My father either bought or inherited his Nevada state livestock water rights and I, in turn, have done the same.”

Contrast that with the 1998 opinion from U.S. District Judge Johnnie Rawlinson in a case where it was determined Bundy wouldn’t be allowed to use federal land for his cattle because of failure to pay grazing fees to the Bureau of Land Management. Rawlinson wrote that it wasn’t until roughly 1954 that “Bundy or his father or both have grazed livestock on public lands owned by the United States and administered by the BLM.”

Clark County Recorder documents show the 160-acre Bunkerville ranch Bundy calls home was purchased by his parents, David and Bodel Bundy, from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt on Jan. 5, 1948. The purchase included the transfer to the Bundys of certain water rights, including water from the nearby Virgin River. Cliven Bundy was born in 1946.

Although no Bundys lived in Bunkerville in 1930 or 1940, according to Census records for those years, Cliven Bundy’s mother Bodel and her parents, John and Christena Jensen, lived in neighboring Mesquite in the early 20th Century.

Census records from 1930 indicate that John was a Mesquite farmer originally from Utah whose parents were from Denmark. Those records state the farm was near Main Street and a bridge over the Virgin River.

Separate records from the website FamilySearch, which is sponsored by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, indicate that Christena Jensen was born in Nevada in 1901 and that Bodel Jensen was born in Nevada in 1924. Christena Jensen’s parents originally were from Utah. This is the side of the family where Cliven Bundy claims long-standing livestock water rights.

Federal grazing districts were established with passage by Congress of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. The Las Vegas area grazing district was established Nov. 3, 1936. The Bureau of Land Management was formed in 1946, the year Cliven Bundy was born.

County records show the earliest construction on Bundy’s ranch was in 1951. The land is zoned rural open land. Since 1994 the ranch has been jointly owned by the David A. and Bodel Bundy Trust and the Bundy Revocable Trust.

Census records show that Cliven Bundy’s paternal great-grandfather, Illinois native Abraham Bundy, lived in Littlefield Village in Mohave County, Ariz., as early as 1900. Abraham Bundy was credited in 1916 with establishment in Mohave County of Bundyville, otherwise known as Mt. Trumbull, according to a history of the Arizona Strip on the Northern Arizona University website.


So... 1877, eh? Not so much.

_________________
When he's underwater does he get wet? Or does the water get him instead?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 110 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 242 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group