Posted on 12/11/2012 10:10:21 PM PST by george76
Shame on the Interior Department for trying to drum a family-owned enterprise out of business.
After a seaside area has been designated as wilderness, when is it considered pristine enough by Washington's standards? Is it after airplanes have been banned from flying over it? After electricity pylons and telephone cables have been removed, cars and bikers prohibited, the roads torn up? When hikers are forbidden access to trails, and kayakers, sailors and snorkelers banished from the water? When eucalyptus trees and other foreign species are eradicated? Or only after Miwok Indians' arrowheads have been excavated and placed in a museum?
Apparently it is none of the above, at least according to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. Instead, he seems to think that turning a tiny portion of the lovely coastline of California's Marin County (part of the National Seashore) into the first marine wilderness in the continental United States also requires destroying a family-run oyster operation that has conducted business in the same spot for eight decades
...
Unable to use its doctored studies to close the farm, the Park Service changed tack and resorted to even more dubious arguments
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
U.S Constitution Article 1 section 8 (in part, emphasis mine)
"... snip ... and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased/b> by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And ... snip ..."
Thank you for posting the other relevant Constitutional passages that support my point. This land taking certainly has no relation to building ‘Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.’
So in fact you concede the point that the Federal Government is empowered by the U.S Constitution to purchase and own land? Because that was your point entirely.
The fact remains, you spoke as if you really knew something about the matter, as it turns out you knew nothing and tossed a flippant quote of the 10th amendment as a catch all excuse.
While I, knowing nothing about the situation researched the veracity of the original post and then researched the claim that the Federal Government isn’t entitled to own land. Including Articles in the Constitution and several prominent cases adjudicated by the SCOTUS regarding public land leases, land purchases from States, and adjacent clauses.
And the fact still remains, we don’t even know the providence of the land in question, for all we know it could be part and parcel of land acquired by Federal Government through “Manifest Destiny”, war, stolen from the American Indian, or purchased from a foreign entity.
No, I don’t concede that disingenuous misrepresentation of the text of the Constitution. The text is specific and it clearly doesn’t cover the land use in question.
Whats the providence of the land in question? Do you even know?
SCOTUS determined that land purchases by the U.S government within the jurisdiction of States are negative affirmation purchases. Meaning that if the State doesn’t object to the purchase, the purchases is legal and within the framework of the Constitution.
You can look that one up, took me all but 3 minutes to find it. Think of it as internet searching 101.
Again, what’s the providence of the land in question?
Barring any clauses in the lease regarding rights of renewal, the government has every legal and moral right.
You’re right, that’s my original argument. The government has every legal and moral right not to renew unless the lease has an option at the discretion of the leesee.
But first you have to agree that the Government is entitled to own land, you disputed that. So therefor:
What is the providence of the land in question? (it’s okay to say I don’t know).
I do know. I looked it up three hours ago. It’s irrelevant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.