a constitional lawyer says....
- Thread starter manny53
- Start date
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
Article 4, Sect. 3, Clause 2.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
At some point in one's life, Every American should be required to read the Constitution of the United States.
Nemont
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
At some point in one's life, Every American should be required to read the Constitution of the United States.
Nemont
eelgrass
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 31,524
>Article 4, Sect. 3, Clause 2.
>
>
>The Congress shall have power to
>dispose of and make all
>needful Rules and Regulations respecting
>the Territory or other Property
>belonging to the United States;
>and nothing in this Constitution
>shall be so construed as
>to Prejudice any Claims of
>the United States, or of
>any particular State.
>
>At some point in one's life,
> Every American should be
>required to read the Constitution
>of the United States.
>
>Nemont
Or at least ask their insurance salesman.
>
>
>The Congress shall have power to
>dispose of and make all
>needful Rules and Regulations respecting
>the Territory or other Property
>belonging to the United States;
>and nothing in this Constitution
>shall be so construed as
>to Prejudice any Claims of
>the United States, or of
>any particular State.
>
>At some point in one's life,
> Every American should be
>required to read the Constitution
>of the United States.
>
>Nemont
Or at least ask their insurance salesman.
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
LAST EDITED ON Jan-08-16 AT 10:24AM (MST)[p]At least Insurance Brokers learned how to read and understand the written word. Doesn't seem like the low hanging fruit around here has got out of See Jane Run books yet.
So how about this, prove me wrong that the Constitution doesn't have Article 4, Sect 3, Clause 2, in it.
I doubt you really care what the Constitution says because it is easier for you to believe what Manny posts as fact so you don't have use a single brain cell to figure out the truth.
If the Government doesn't have the Constitutional power to hold lands such as the BLM or FS, upon what power does it own the National Parks? Should those be liquidated as well?
Nemont
So how about this, prove me wrong that the Constitution doesn't have Article 4, Sect 3, Clause 2, in it.
I doubt you really care what the Constitution says because it is easier for you to believe what Manny posts as fact so you don't have use a single brain cell to figure out the truth.
If the Government doesn't have the Constitutional power to hold lands such as the BLM or FS, upon what power does it own the National Parks? Should those be liquidated as well?
Nemont
If you had read the constitution you wouldn't need to ask anyone.
I don't like the tone of this article, but it has the facts. if you're not going to read the constitution at least read it.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-ranchers-actually-government-moochers-213510
Stay
Thirsty My Friends
I don't like the tone of this article, but it has the facts. if you're not going to read the constitution at least read it.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-ranchers-actually-government-moochers-213510
Stay
Thirsty My Friends
LAST EDITED ON Jan-08-16 AT 01:47PM (MST)[p]>Article 4, Sect. 3, Clause 2.
>The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all >needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or >other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing >in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
>At some point in one's life, Every American should be >required to read the Constitution of the United States.
Nemont,
Yes, and at some point in one's life, Every American should be required to UNDERSTAND the Constitution of the United States........Obviously you do not!
You need to know the definitions of what a "Territory" was and what property the feds had at the time.
When the Constitution was ratified, the federal government did not own any lands within any STATE. The only lands the Feds could lay claim to was the District of Columbia, and those classified as Territories at the time. The intent of the Founding Fathers was that as these Territories were tamed and as settlements expanded, that these Territories would be admitted into the Union as States and given all the rights that all the original 13 States have. As such, as States were admitted into the Union, all lands not owned by private citizens within the Newly created State were given to the State as part of the admission agreement into the Union. However, the federal government did not honor its agreement in many western States.....Hence we have large amounts of so called federally owned land within those States.
Theres a history lesson for ya Nemont.
TOG...The article you refer to couldn't be more wrong. the author of that article is delusional....bathing in big vat of liberalism that he cant back-up. He is giving his interpretation on Acts that he knows nothing about.
>The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all >needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or >other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing >in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
>At some point in one's life, Every American should be >required to read the Constitution of the United States.
Nemont,
Yes, and at some point in one's life, Every American should be required to UNDERSTAND the Constitution of the United States........Obviously you do not!
You need to know the definitions of what a "Territory" was and what property the feds had at the time.
When the Constitution was ratified, the federal government did not own any lands within any STATE. The only lands the Feds could lay claim to was the District of Columbia, and those classified as Territories at the time. The intent of the Founding Fathers was that as these Territories were tamed and as settlements expanded, that these Territories would be admitted into the Union as States and given all the rights that all the original 13 States have. As such, as States were admitted into the Union, all lands not owned by private citizens within the Newly created State were given to the State as part of the admission agreement into the Union. However, the federal government did not honor its agreement in many western States.....Hence we have large amounts of so called federally owned land within those States.
Theres a history lesson for ya Nemont.
TOG...The article you refer to couldn't be more wrong. the author of that article is delusional....bathing in big vat of liberalism that he cant back-up. He is giving his interpretation on Acts that he knows nothing about.
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
LAST EDITED ON Jan-08-16 AT 03:40PM (MST)[p]
So I guess the LA Purchase the U.S. Government didn't get title to those lands?
Also your little history lesson ignores over 200 years of history of how the Constitution was read by the USSC, as the Founder's intended it to be.
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL34267_12032007.pdf
Are you sure it was the Federal Government who did not honor it's agreement with the Western States?
Do this, go look at the enabling acts of States like Nevada and then look at the Nevada State Constitution. What does it say in regards Federal lands?
-A second rewrite of the state constitution was approved by voters on Sept. 7, 1864. Nevada became the 36th state on Oct. 31, 1864. Nevada agreed to let the federal government own ?unappropriated land? within the state, ?unless otherwise provided by the Congress of the United States.?
Nearly every western states has similar language in their founding documents that let's the Federal Government hold title to those lands.
In most cases the states didn't want the burden of owning that land because they viewed it as a burden. Things have changed but the facts are that the voters of the western states approved those state's constitutions with that language in them. So to say the government didn't keep it's word is not true.
Little history lesson for you.
Nemont
So I guess the LA Purchase the U.S. Government didn't get title to those lands?
Also your little history lesson ignores over 200 years of history of how the Constitution was read by the USSC, as the Founder's intended it to be.
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL34267_12032007.pdf
Are you sure it was the Federal Government who did not honor it's agreement with the Western States?
Do this, go look at the enabling acts of States like Nevada and then look at the Nevada State Constitution. What does it say in regards Federal lands?
-A second rewrite of the state constitution was approved by voters on Sept. 7, 1864. Nevada became the 36th state on Oct. 31, 1864. Nevada agreed to let the federal government own ?unappropriated land? within the state, ?unless otherwise provided by the Congress of the United States.?
Nearly every western states has similar language in their founding documents that let's the Federal Government hold title to those lands.
In most cases the states didn't want the burden of owning that land because they viewed it as a burden. Things have changed but the facts are that the voters of the western states approved those state's constitutions with that language in them. So to say the government didn't keep it's word is not true.
Little history lesson for you.
Nemont
azbullhunter
Active Member
- Messages
- 386
It was, is, and will always be the U.S. govt who controls the lands in question. Thank God as the judge in Oregon said they can not afford to take care of the land fight fires etc. In AZ the state can not keep the outhouses(rest areas) open since they cannot afford to
ColoradoOak
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,920
Nemont's right, you know. From Utah's enabling act:
Second. That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States; that the lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without the said State shall never be taxed at a higher rate than the lands belonging to residents thereof; that no taxes shall be imposed by the State on lands or property therein belonging to or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States or reserved for its use;
Second. That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States; that the lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without the said State shall never be taxed at a higher rate than the lands belonging to residents thereof; that no taxes shall be imposed by the State on lands or property therein belonging to or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States or reserved for its use;
It's a good thing some of you simpletons flip burgers for a living and not practice law. you wouldn't be able to make rent on your single wide as a lawyer.
Let's settle this this way. who has the last say on constitutional matters? and what have they said? either put up or shut up.
Stay Thirsty My Friends
Let's settle this this way. who has the last say on constitutional matters? and what have they said? either put up or shut up.
Stay Thirsty My Friends
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
LAST EDITED ON Jan-08-16 AT 04:47PM (MST)[p]
>
>And it is clear it all
>depends on ur presupposition when
>reading the constitution, liberal or
>conservative u know one inch
>equaled a mile to a
>libtard ...
Actually all it requires is the ability to read and comprehend.
>
>And it is clear it all
>depends on ur presupposition when
>reading the constitution, liberal or
>conservative u know one inch
>equaled a mile to a
>libtard ...
Actually all it requires is the ability to read and comprehend.
LAST EDITED ON Jan-09-16 AT 00:52AM (MST)[p]Nemont, your on drugs!
The State Constitutions were written after they were accepted into the Union. The federal government never gave them the land. The western states have never had jurisdiction over those lands. So of course their Constitutions are not going to give their State management of those lands. Go figure!
Another history lesson for ya. This History lesson was part of American History 101. Let me know when your ready for 201.
Tog,
Sounds like that's all your good for is flipping burgers. You just might make manager at McDonalds yet. Good for you!
The State Constitutions were written after they were accepted into the Union. The federal government never gave them the land. The western states have never had jurisdiction over those lands. So of course their Constitutions are not going to give their State management of those lands. Go figure!
Another history lesson for ya. This History lesson was part of American History 101. Let me know when your ready for 201.
Tog,
Sounds like that's all your good for is flipping burgers. You just might make manager at McDonalds yet. Good for you!
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
LAST EDITED ON Jan-09-16 AT 07:43AM (MST)[p]Rackster,
Do some home work read the enabling acts where just like the people of Utah state the Federal government holds title to those lands.
Then come back and attempt once again to try and teach me anything because I love to learn.
Nemont
Do some home work read the enabling acts where just like the people of Utah state the Federal government holds title to those lands.
Then come back and attempt once again to try and teach me anything because I love to learn.
Nemont
Rapster, why don't you provide some facts to back up your claims? I realize facts are not popular in your circle jerks but lets try to stick to them once you break it up.
Ii here the same chit from a few folks around here nd when I ask them to prove it they just babble and stammer like you do.
Stay Thirsty My Friends
Ii here the same chit from a few folks around here nd when I ask them to prove it they just babble and stammer like you do.
Stay Thirsty My Friends
LAST EDITED ON Jan-09-16 AT 09:33AM (MST)[p]Nemont,Glad you want to keep learning. There may be hope for you......maybe.
Look at Section 2 of the enabling Act....."and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the the United States".
This is because, the State was demanding at some point after admission in the Union that all lands will be given to the State. Utah new they would not be admitted into the Union if they demanded title to all lands within the State at the time of admission into the Union.
Also, the beginning of the enabling Act says that the State would "be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States". There was no federally owned land within any of the original States as well as nearly every State admiited in thereafter, except those few western States. On equal footing? The State of Utah would over the next century try to attain that equal footing. However, it has yet to be accomplished...,...the ownership of federal lands is only one example where Utah is still not on equal footing with the original 13 States.
There is the rest of History lesson 101.
History lesson 201 - explains how States no longer have any representation in the US Congreess. Hence, State rights are continually infringed upon, without representation from the States. They haven't had representation since 1912. So, its no wonder the public lands in the western states have not been given to those states.
If you would like History lesson 201, just let me know.
Tog, thanks for the humor. I laugh harder after each of your posts. Any facts from you or are you going to give me a few more laughs?
Look at Section 2 of the enabling Act....."and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the the United States".
This is because, the State was demanding at some point after admission in the Union that all lands will be given to the State. Utah new they would not be admitted into the Union if they demanded title to all lands within the State at the time of admission into the Union.
Also, the beginning of the enabling Act says that the State would "be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States". There was no federally owned land within any of the original States as well as nearly every State admiited in thereafter, except those few western States. On equal footing? The State of Utah would over the next century try to attain that equal footing. However, it has yet to be accomplished...,...the ownership of federal lands is only one example where Utah is still not on equal footing with the original 13 States.
There is the rest of History lesson 101.
History lesson 201 - explains how States no longer have any representation in the US Congreess. Hence, State rights are continually infringed upon, without representation from the States. They haven't had representation since 1912. So, its no wonder the public lands in the western states have not been given to those states.
If you would like History lesson 201, just let me know.
Tog, thanks for the humor. I laugh harder after each of your posts. Any facts from you or are you going to give me a few more laughs?
Rapster , nobody is asking for your version of history or your opinion.
Utah has not succeeded because they have no legal footing. that's how it works .
Explain how states no longer have representation in congress. and what rights are being infringed according to the constitution.
Save your opinion it's worthless. just use facts and be specific.
Stay Thirsty My Friends
Utah has not succeeded because they have no legal footing. that's how it works .
Explain how states no longer have representation in congress. and what rights are being infringed according to the constitution.
Save your opinion it's worthless. just use facts and be specific.
Stay Thirsty My Friends
LAST EDITED ON Jan-09-16 AT 11:59PM (MST)[p]Tog,
That accusation is good for a laugh or two, especially since everything you say is nothing but a bunch of opinionated libreal crap.
It seems you care a great deal about my opinion, cause you keep posting.
Here is some education for ya. During the Constitutional Convention there was great debate about States rights and the big States controlling the Small States.
The compromise lead to 2 senators in the Senate for each state, and the House would be voted in by the people of the States they are representing.
To make sure each State had representation in Congress....each SENATOR was to be VOTED In by the STATE LEGISLATURE. They were to reoresent the State and the rights of their State.....not the people. The House of Representatives would represent the people of each State.
The founding Fathers also wanted the Senate to be a body of individuals that are highly educated. Thhey were afraid that if both houses were voted in by the people, then uneducated people would be voting in uneducated people in both the Senate and the House.
This is the way it was setup by the founding Fathers and it stayed that way until in 1912. A democrat controlled House and Senate along with a Democrat President (Woodrow Wilson) changed the Constitution by amendment to have senators of each State be voted in by the people instead of the State Legislature.
That my friend was the end of any representation in Congress of any State. Now the senators are accountable to the people and not the State. That is also why you have idiots like Diane Feinstein get elected to the Senate.
Tog, you can find the debates our founding fathers had on this subject in James Madison notes on the Constitutional Convention. You can read for yourself the concerns they had about States not having representation in Congress and why they set it up the way they did.
Tog my friend, those are facts of history weather you choose to believe it or not. And frankly, I don't care if you do or not. You can remain in ignorrance if you'd like.
That was part of History lesson 201. Are you up for the rest of 201 or would you like to just jump straight to History lesson 301.....up to you Tog.
That accusation is good for a laugh or two, especially since everything you say is nothing but a bunch of opinionated libreal crap.
It seems you care a great deal about my opinion, cause you keep posting.
Here is some education for ya. During the Constitutional Convention there was great debate about States rights and the big States controlling the Small States.
The compromise lead to 2 senators in the Senate for each state, and the House would be voted in by the people of the States they are representing.
To make sure each State had representation in Congress....each SENATOR was to be VOTED In by the STATE LEGISLATURE. They were to reoresent the State and the rights of their State.....not the people. The House of Representatives would represent the people of each State.
The founding Fathers also wanted the Senate to be a body of individuals that are highly educated. Thhey were afraid that if both houses were voted in by the people, then uneducated people would be voting in uneducated people in both the Senate and the House.
This is the way it was setup by the founding Fathers and it stayed that way until in 1912. A democrat controlled House and Senate along with a Democrat President (Woodrow Wilson) changed the Constitution by amendment to have senators of each State be voted in by the people instead of the State Legislature.
That my friend was the end of any representation in Congress of any State. Now the senators are accountable to the people and not the State. That is also why you have idiots like Diane Feinstein get elected to the Senate.
Tog, you can find the debates our founding fathers had on this subject in James Madison notes on the Constitutional Convention. You can read for yourself the concerns they had about States not having representation in Congress and why they set it up the way they did.
Tog my friend, those are facts of history weather you choose to believe it or not. And frankly, I don't care if you do or not. You can remain in ignorrance if you'd like.
That was part of History lesson 201. Are you up for the rest of 201 or would you like to just jump straight to History lesson 301.....up to you Tog.
manny53
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,257
>LAST EDITED ON Jan-09-16
>AT 11:59?PM (MST)
>
>Tog,
>
>That accusation is good for a
>laugh or two, especially since
>everything you say is nothing
>but a bunch of opinionated
>libreal crap.
>
>It seems you care a great
>deal about my opinion, cause
>you keep posting.
>
>Here is some education for ya.
>During the Constitutional Convention there
>was great debate about States
>rights and the big States
>controlling the Small States.
>
>The compromise lead to 2 senators
>in the Senate for each
>state, and the House would
>be voted in by the
>people of the States they
>are representing.
>
>To make sure each State had
>representation in Congress....each SENATOR was
>to be VOTED In by
>the STATE LEGISLATURE. They were
>to reoresent the State and
>the rights of their State.....not
>the people. The House of
>Representatives would represent the people
>of each State.
>
> The founding Fathers also wanted
>the Senate to be a
>body of individuals that are
>highly educated. Thhey were afraid
>that if both houses were
>voted in by the people,
>then uneducated people would be
>voting in uneducated people in
>both the Senate and the
>House.
>
>This is the way it was
>setup by the founding Fathers
>and it stayed that way
>until in 1912. A democrat
>controlled House and Senate along
>with a Democrat President (Woodrow
>Wilson) changed the Constitution by
>amendment to have senators of
>each State be voted in
>by the people instead of
>the State Legislature.
>
>That my friend was the end
>of any representation in Congress
>of any State. Now the
>senators are accountable to the
>people and not the State.
>That is also why you
>have idiots like Diane Feinstein
>get elected to the Senate.
>
>
>Tog, you can find the debates
>our founding fathers had on
>this subject in James Madison
>notes on the Constitutional Convention.
>You can read for yourself
>the concerns they had about
>States not having representation in
>Congress and why they set
>it up the way they
>did.
>
>Tog my friend, those are facts
>of history weather you choose
>to believe it or not.
> And frankly, I don't
>care if you do or
>not. You can remain in
>ignorrance if you'd like.
>
>That was part of History lesson
>201. Are you up for
>the rest of 201 or
>would you like to just
>jump straight to History lesson
>301.....up to you Tog.
give tog a few he's consulting obamma's hand book for tearing up the constitution ......
>AT 11:59?PM (MST)
>
>Tog,
>
>That accusation is good for a
>laugh or two, especially since
>everything you say is nothing
>but a bunch of opinionated
>libreal crap.
>
>It seems you care a great
>deal about my opinion, cause
>you keep posting.
>
>Here is some education for ya.
>During the Constitutional Convention there
>was great debate about States
>rights and the big States
>controlling the Small States.
>
>The compromise lead to 2 senators
>in the Senate for each
>state, and the House would
>be voted in by the
>people of the States they
>are representing.
>
>To make sure each State had
>representation in Congress....each SENATOR was
>to be VOTED In by
>the STATE LEGISLATURE. They were
>to reoresent the State and
>the rights of their State.....not
>the people. The House of
>Representatives would represent the people
>of each State.
>
> The founding Fathers also wanted
>the Senate to be a
>body of individuals that are
>highly educated. Thhey were afraid
>that if both houses were
>voted in by the people,
>then uneducated people would be
>voting in uneducated people in
>both the Senate and the
>House.
>
>This is the way it was
>setup by the founding Fathers
>and it stayed that way
>until in 1912. A democrat
>controlled House and Senate along
>with a Democrat President (Woodrow
>Wilson) changed the Constitution by
>amendment to have senators of
>each State be voted in
>by the people instead of
>the State Legislature.
>
>That my friend was the end
>of any representation in Congress
>of any State. Now the
>senators are accountable to the
>people and not the State.
>That is also why you
>have idiots like Diane Feinstein
>get elected to the Senate.
>
>
>Tog, you can find the debates
>our founding fathers had on
>this subject in James Madison
>notes on the Constitutional Convention.
>You can read for yourself
>the concerns they had about
>States not having representation in
>Congress and why they set
>it up the way they
>did.
>
>Tog my friend, those are facts
>of history weather you choose
>to believe it or not.
> And frankly, I don't
>care if you do or
>not. You can remain in
>ignorrance if you'd like.
>
>That was part of History lesson
>201. Are you up for
>the rest of 201 or
>would you like to just
>jump straight to History lesson
>301.....up to you Tog.
give tog a few he's consulting obamma's hand book for tearing up the constitution ......
As a farmer/rancher I run into lots of all hat no cows folks all the time. give them 5 acres and a 6 shooter and they're a cowboy. whatever. I've spent my whole life in ag and I've been very successful. I'm sitting on a board fighting with the BOR over the implementation of legislation on our irrigation right now. don't give me your childish talks or think you know more than I do about the feds I live it. but unlike you I will prevail .
So back to your education, if the dog hadn't stopped to chit he'd have caught the rabbit. lets not dwell on what was or might have been let's stay with what is. think you can do that?
What is wrong with people electing their congressmen? not working out for you? do you think you can get that reversed? if not then let it go it means absolutely nothing.
What is your goal? and how do you think you're going to achieve it? those answers will tell us if you're just another wingnut or if you have something to say.
I hunted chuckar on BLM yesterday and I rode my snowmobile on USFS today. I really don't care if you don't think you have enough control over my public lands or not. I like things just the way they are .
Stay Thirsty My Friends
So back to your education, if the dog hadn't stopped to chit he'd have caught the rabbit. lets not dwell on what was or might have been let's stay with what is. think you can do that?
What is wrong with people electing their congressmen? not working out for you? do you think you can get that reversed? if not then let it go it means absolutely nothing.
What is your goal? and how do you think you're going to achieve it? those answers will tell us if you're just another wingnut or if you have something to say.
I hunted chuckar on BLM yesterday and I rode my snowmobile on USFS today. I really don't care if you don't think you have enough control over my public lands or not. I like things just the way they are .
Stay Thirsty My Friends
LAST EDITED ON Jan-11-16 AT 08:15AM (MST)[p]Tog,
My friend, you asked in your previous post for History lesson 201. You asked for facts. You asked how States lost representation in Congress. Was it a little too much history for ya or was it a little too much too fast? I can slow it down for ya just a little, if you'd like.
Goal? Lets see, now what is your goal in this history class TOG? If I know that, then maybe I can help you a little better.
Glad you're enjoying the outdoors on public land. That's great! I do the same. Wouldn't matter if the State owned it or not, you would still be able to do the same thing.
Oh, no.....that's right, if the State owned it, we would have oil rigs on top of every mountain peak, right? The land would be raped and pillaged right? It would all be sold off to the highest bidder, right? Well, my friend the contrary is true....but that is History lesson 342. To get there, you'll need to pass History lesson 201 and 301.
Tog, I have sat on several boards as well, and deal with the feds myself. As you said, I live it. At least we have that in common. We also both have strong opinions.....another thing in common. I knew we could find common ground somewhere.
My friend, you asked in your previous post for History lesson 201. You asked for facts. You asked how States lost representation in Congress. Was it a little too much history for ya or was it a little too much too fast? I can slow it down for ya just a little, if you'd like.
Goal? Lets see, now what is your goal in this history class TOG? If I know that, then maybe I can help you a little better.
Glad you're enjoying the outdoors on public land. That's great! I do the same. Wouldn't matter if the State owned it or not, you would still be able to do the same thing.
Oh, no.....that's right, if the State owned it, we would have oil rigs on top of every mountain peak, right? The land would be raped and pillaged right? It would all be sold off to the highest bidder, right? Well, my friend the contrary is true....but that is History lesson 342. To get there, you'll need to pass History lesson 201 and 301.
Tog, I have sat on several boards as well, and deal with the feds myself. As you said, I live it. At least we have that in common. We also both have strong opinions.....another thing in common. I knew we could find common ground somewhere.
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
Actually most states granted Statehood prior to 1867 hold 0% or near 0% of all the lands granted to them. Go look at the lands granted vs. percentage held in trust today. Some states like NM actually added some state lands but that is the exception rather than the rule.
So I did a little reading in between killing geese and watching football over the weekend. I took on the issue of the Equal Footing Doctrine. It appears that the USSC, a coequal branch of government, has ruled thusly:
The equal footing doctrine is a limitation only upon the terms by which Congress admits a State.268 That is, States must be admitted on an equal footing in the sense that Congress may not exact conditions solely as a tribute for admission, but it may, in the enabling or admitting acts or subsequently impose requirements that would be or are valid and effectual if the subject of congressional legislation after admission.269 Thus, Congress may embrace in an admitting act a regulation of commerce among the States or with Indian tribes or rules for the care and disposition of the public lands or reservations within a State. ?n every such case such legislation would derive its force not from any agreement or compact with the proposed new State, nor by reason of its acceptance of such enactment as a term of admission, but solely because the power of Congress extended to the subject, and, therefore, would not operate to restrict the State?s legislative power in respect of any matter which was not plainly within the regulating power of Congress.?
So I did a little reading in between killing geese and watching football over the weekend. I took on the issue of the Equal Footing Doctrine. It appears that the USSC, a coequal branch of government, has ruled thusly:
The equal footing doctrine is a limitation only upon the terms by which Congress admits a State.268 That is, States must be admitted on an equal footing in the sense that Congress may not exact conditions solely as a tribute for admission, but it may, in the enabling or admitting acts or subsequently impose requirements that would be or are valid and effectual if the subject of congressional legislation after admission.269 Thus, Congress may embrace in an admitting act a regulation of commerce among the States or with Indian tribes or rules for the care and disposition of the public lands or reservations within a State. ?n every such case such legislation would derive its force not from any agreement or compact with the proposed new State, nor by reason of its acceptance of such enactment as a term of admission, but solely because the power of Congress extended to the subject, and, therefore, would not operate to restrict the State?s legislative power in respect of any matter which was not plainly within the regulating power of Congress.?
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
Direct Election of Senators was a result of a legal amendment to the U.S. Constitution as required by the Founder's. Are you claiming the states didn't hold the necessary votes or that the process prior to the 17th Amendment was the right way to elect Senators?
How many Senate Seats were left vacant due to the inability of legislators to elect senators due to one party or the other? States ended up with any representation in DC many different times.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm
The Founder's never imagined that political infighting would lead to times there would be no Senators from a state of extended periods of time.
So if direct election of Senators was a loss for the states, who was having no Senators due to political infighting. If the this process was sacred how come the Founder's left the Amendment process in the Constitution?
Nemont
How many Senate Seats were left vacant due to the inability of legislators to elect senators due to one party or the other? States ended up with any representation in DC many different times.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm
The Founder's never imagined that political infighting would lead to times there would be no Senators from a state of extended periods of time.
So if direct election of Senators was a loss for the states, who was having no Senators due to political infighting. If the this process was sacred how come the Founder's left the Amendment process in the Constitution?
Nemont
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
If we look to the debates of our Founder's as guidance to how we are too live then we would still be living in the times of blacks being 3/5's of a person.
Did the Founders screw up when the allowed an Amendment process and for 3 coequal branches of government?
That seems to be your argument.
Nemont
Did the Founders screw up when the allowed an Amendment process and for 3 coequal branches of government?
That seems to be your argument.
Nemont
LAST EDITED ON Jan-11-16 AT 11:48PM (MST)[p]Nemont,
I think your a little confused. You may have stick with history lesson 101, before you can move on, However, I am impressed that you did some homework. That shows initiative and a willingness to learn.
In all seriousness, if nothing else, it is good that this discussion has resulted in research and thinking.
However, what you posted about the the "equal footing doctrine" is only partially correct. And in fact what you posted actually backs up what I have been explaining. Regardless of any current court ruling, it still does not change the doctrine that the founding fathers discussed during the Constitutional Convention. James Madison for one explained that States should be admitted into the Union on equal footing with the 13 original states in all aspects, regardless of any recent court ruling. That was the intent of the founding fathers.
Now going back to lesson 201. Prior to the Constitutional Convention, each State had a legislature. There were heated debates in the State legislatures. There were heated debates in the Constitutional Convention as well. The most heated being that of States rights and the slave trade. Representatives of two States walked out of the Convention in disgust and never returned. The founding fathers The founding fathers new very well how the State legislatures would work.
To say that the founding fathers could not imagine the political infighting is pure unintelligence on your part. They knew very, well. They experienced it among themselves as well within their State legislatures. You say States went some period of time without electing senators. The founding fathers built the solution into the Constitution. For instance, the longer a State took to elect a senator, the less voice they would have in Congress. Thus, the incentive was there for a State to clear the matter at some point, or they would forfeit their representation in Congress.
Additionally, The founding fathers intended for the Constitution to be difficult to amend.
Now for part of lesson 401.....THIS IS A SHOCKER, so you better sit down. You brought up blacks being counted as 3/5's persons according to the Constitution, and did so in a sarcastic tone. Well, my friend that was actually a saving grace to the black slaves at the time. The southern States were afraid to free their slaves for fear of economic collapse. This was one of the most heated debates. OK, HERE IS THE SHOCKER.That statement in the Constitution was actually put there by the signers of the Constitution to give the southern states the incentive to free their slaves. The constitution actually uses the term " all other persons". The other term used in the Constitution is "free persons". When a slave was freed, that person became a free person therby counting as a whole person. The more slaves a State freed, the more persons that would be counted within that State. Thus, since the Slave states had numerous slaves, if they freed them, then their populous would increase. Since representation in the US House is based on populous, this would then give a State that freed their slaves more representation in the Congress (likely more seats in Congress).
So, there you go Nemont, that is part of lesson 401. There is actually more to it, but this post is already too long.
For your next homework assignment.....try reading James Madisons notes on the Constitutional Convention.
I think your a little confused. You may have stick with history lesson 101, before you can move on, However, I am impressed that you did some homework. That shows initiative and a willingness to learn.
In all seriousness, if nothing else, it is good that this discussion has resulted in research and thinking.
However, what you posted about the the "equal footing doctrine" is only partially correct. And in fact what you posted actually backs up what I have been explaining. Regardless of any current court ruling, it still does not change the doctrine that the founding fathers discussed during the Constitutional Convention. James Madison for one explained that States should be admitted into the Union on equal footing with the 13 original states in all aspects, regardless of any recent court ruling. That was the intent of the founding fathers.
Now going back to lesson 201. Prior to the Constitutional Convention, each State had a legislature. There were heated debates in the State legislatures. There were heated debates in the Constitutional Convention as well. The most heated being that of States rights and the slave trade. Representatives of two States walked out of the Convention in disgust and never returned. The founding fathers The founding fathers new very well how the State legislatures would work.
To say that the founding fathers could not imagine the political infighting is pure unintelligence on your part. They knew very, well. They experienced it among themselves as well within their State legislatures. You say States went some period of time without electing senators. The founding fathers built the solution into the Constitution. For instance, the longer a State took to elect a senator, the less voice they would have in Congress. Thus, the incentive was there for a State to clear the matter at some point, or they would forfeit their representation in Congress.
Additionally, The founding fathers intended for the Constitution to be difficult to amend.
Now for part of lesson 401.....THIS IS A SHOCKER, so you better sit down. You brought up blacks being counted as 3/5's persons according to the Constitution, and did so in a sarcastic tone. Well, my friend that was actually a saving grace to the black slaves at the time. The southern States were afraid to free their slaves for fear of economic collapse. This was one of the most heated debates. OK, HERE IS THE SHOCKER.That statement in the Constitution was actually put there by the signers of the Constitution to give the southern states the incentive to free their slaves. The constitution actually uses the term " all other persons". The other term used in the Constitution is "free persons". When a slave was freed, that person became a free person therby counting as a whole person. The more slaves a State freed, the more persons that would be counted within that State. Thus, since the Slave states had numerous slaves, if they freed them, then their populous would increase. Since representation in the US House is based on populous, this would then give a State that freed their slaves more representation in the Congress (likely more seats in Congress).
So, there you go Nemont, that is part of lesson 401. There is actually more to it, but this post is already too long.
For your next homework assignment.....try reading James Madisons notes on the Constitutional Convention.
LAST EDITED ON Jan-12-16 AT 09:55AM (MST)[p]So, we're back to if the dog hadn't stopped to chit.........
Rapster, so be honest. what do you think your chances are of using your shuck and jive nonsense to accomplish your goals? because I think it's about as likely as your butt buds on the Malheur's chances.
Stay Thirsty My Friends
Rapster, so be honest. what do you think your chances are of using your shuck and jive nonsense to accomplish your goals? because I think it's about as likely as your butt buds on the Malheur's chances.
Stay Thirsty My Friends
Goals?
Lets see TOGLE,
Seems like you toggle back and forth from one ignorant thing to another.
Speaking of goals. What were your goals for this history class? Didn't I ask you that before? If you let me know your goals then I can better help you understand how ignorant your are on the Constitution, American Government, and anything about how this country is run or how it was set up to run.
But then, ignorance is bliss, right?
Let me know if you would like any more history lessons.
Lets see TOGLE,
Seems like you toggle back and forth from one ignorant thing to another.
Speaking of goals. What were your goals for this history class? Didn't I ask you that before? If you let me know your goals then I can better help you understand how ignorant your are on the Constitution, American Government, and anything about how this country is run or how it was set up to run.
But then, ignorance is bliss, right?
Let me know if you would like any more history lessons.
LAST EDITED ON Jan-12-16 AT 08:45PM (MST)[p]I thought for a bit maybe you were a little more on the ball than some of the clowns here. it's hard to admit but I was wrong.
I asked you a specific question and you reply with shuck and jive. you don't want to answer or you can't ?
Save your lessons I'm onto you. I passed you in 4th grade.
Stay Thirsty My Friends
I asked you a specific question and you reply with shuck and jive. you don't want to answer or you can't ?
Save your lessons I'm onto you. I passed you in 4th grade.
Stay Thirsty My Friends
LAST EDITED ON Jan-12-16 AT 11:23PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-12-16 AT 11:22?PM (MST)
Hmmmmm TOG,
Thats all you can come up with? A little shallow. I usually expect more out of one of my pupils, but I'll make an exception for you.
I've answered your questions thus far, but did pose a question to you in answer to one of them. However, you still have yet to answer my question. Avoiding the question are you? Afraid to answer?
TOGLE my boy, I skipped the 4th grade...I actually went straight to college from 1st grade. I'm not sure I believe you ever made it to 4th grade?
I actually remember hearing that you were in speech therapy during the 2nd grade. It appears speech therapy helped you pronounce the words "Muslim" and "racist".......because you use those words on this forum more than any others.
Hmmmmm TOG,
Thats all you can come up with? A little shallow. I usually expect more out of one of my pupils, but I'll make an exception for you.
I've answered your questions thus far, but did pose a question to you in answer to one of them. However, you still have yet to answer my question. Avoiding the question are you? Afraid to answer?
TOGLE my boy, I skipped the 4th grade...I actually went straight to college from 1st grade. I'm not sure I believe you ever made it to 4th grade?
I actually remember hearing that you were in speech therapy during the 2nd grade. It appears speech therapy helped you pronounce the words "Muslim" and "racist".......because you use those words on this forum more than any others.
LAST EDITED ON Jan-13-16 AT 12:34PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-13-16 AT 12:29?PM (MST)
Togle...Don't make me laugh.....oh wait....too late.
Put your 4th grade education to work and read the question and answer it. Unlike you I'll answer any question you have ...lay it on me bud.
Actually I just saw Nemonts question. Togle do you have an answer for that. I'd like to hear it.
Togle...Don't make me laugh.....oh wait....too late.
Put your 4th grade education to work and read the question and answer it. Unlike you I'll answer any question you have ...lay it on me bud.
Actually I just saw Nemonts question. Togle do you have an answer for that. I'd like to hear it.
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
THE UNITED STATES v. GRATIOT ET AL., 39 US 526 - Supreme Court 1840
US v. San Francisco, 310 US 16 - Supreme Court 1940
Quote:
Even without the clear prohibition in the Property Clause, transfer demands face constitutional problems under the Supremacy Clause as well. Article VI makes the Constitution and federal statutes ?supreme? over state statutes. In the words of the Supreme Court, the Supremacy Clause ?secure federal rights by according them priority whenever they come in conflict with state law.?
Insofar as state transfer demands conflict with federal laws, they are unconstitutional. Such conflict is inevitable with respect to state transfer demands. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), for example, articulates a comprehensive policy for managing American public lands. Set against a state transfer demand law, the Supremacy Clause gives effect to the federal law and renders the state demand invalid.
Recognizing the clear hurdles created by the text of the Constitution, transfer demand supporters have also advanced a new, nontextual argument rooted in analogies from contract law. According to the argument, state enabling acts (federal laws giving rise to new states) resemble contracts between the United States and states gaining admission to the Union. By looking at historical evidence at the time of a state?s admission (e.g. newspaper clippings, statements by politicians), supporters argue, it can be established that states expected to eventually gain control over federal lands. Because a contract should give effect to the expectations of both parties at signing, the United States should turn over its land.
Unfortunately for its supporters, the ?enabling act theory? relies as much on a misunderstanding of the Constitution as it does on poor contract law theory. To begin with, state enabling acts are not ?like? contracts. Plainly, they're statutes. They interact with other laws in the manner that statutes do; when an enabling act comes into conflict with a subsequent state law, the enabling act trumps the state law. And the plain text of most Western state enabling acts expressly renounces state claims to federal land.
The Enabling Act of 1889, for example, grants the admission of North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington and Montana to the Union on the condition ?[t]hat the people inhabiting said proposed States do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof.? The Act reserves the right to ?disposition? of public lands to the United States. As a federal law, the enabling act is clear about the division of political authority: The United States makes ownership decisions about United States land; state governments will not.
US v. San Francisco, 310 US 16 - Supreme Court 1940
Quote:
Even without the clear prohibition in the Property Clause, transfer demands face constitutional problems under the Supremacy Clause as well. Article VI makes the Constitution and federal statutes ?supreme? over state statutes. In the words of the Supreme Court, the Supremacy Clause ?secure
Insofar as state transfer demands conflict with federal laws, they are unconstitutional. Such conflict is inevitable with respect to state transfer demands. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), for example, articulates a comprehensive policy for managing American public lands. Set against a state transfer demand law, the Supremacy Clause gives effect to the federal law and renders the state demand invalid.
Recognizing the clear hurdles created by the text of the Constitution, transfer demand supporters have also advanced a new, nontextual argument rooted in analogies from contract law. According to the argument, state enabling acts (federal laws giving rise to new states) resemble contracts between the United States and states gaining admission to the Union. By looking at historical evidence at the time of a state?s admission (e.g. newspaper clippings, statements by politicians), supporters argue, it can be established that states expected to eventually gain control over federal lands. Because a contract should give effect to the expectations of both parties at signing, the United States should turn over its land.
Unfortunately for its supporters, the ?enabling act theory? relies as much on a misunderstanding of the Constitution as it does on poor contract law theory. To begin with, state enabling acts are not ?like? contracts. Plainly, they're statutes. They interact with other laws in the manner that statutes do; when an enabling act comes into conflict with a subsequent state law, the enabling act trumps the state law. And the plain text of most Western state enabling acts expressly renounces state claims to federal land.
The Enabling Act of 1889, for example, grants the admission of North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington and Montana to the Union on the condition ?[t]hat the people inhabiting said proposed States do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof.? The Act reserves the right to ?disposition? of public lands to the United States. As a federal law, the enabling act is clear about the division of political authority: The United States makes ownership decisions about United States land; state governments will not.
![20211028_172035[1].jpg](/xf/data/xfmg/thumbnail/20/20276-f859cf846a716c4d8229b46255512bf9.jpg?1639069947)
