Posted on 04/01/2010 3:26:12 AM PDT by ICAB9USA
(”To whit?” I stink, and obviously need more coffee...)
right on
we’ll see..........
We almost certainly will. It's probably something the Supreme Court needs to address sooner rather than later.
And the Constitutional authority for the Fed Gov to own land other than national parks and the nation's capital is contained in Article.... Umm... Section... Uhhh....
Never mind.
Looks like the Supreme Court is going to be doing a hell of a lot in the near future concerning Obama and his destruction of the country and the Constitution.
Yes sir.
Ya know it’s bad enough that they practically stole it to begin with, but then: Along come the envirowhacko’s and the groups that want to preserve it for people now unborn thereby keeping people who are already born off of it.
They want no recreational use of it. no commercial uses of it, they just want it to lay there untouched. Which in some cases is fine but in others is a colossal waste.
That's it's job. I can easily see them tossing the health care initiative. And I doubt this action on the part of Utah will stand either. Article IV is pretty specific.
_________
I guess we'll see (again).
I am to the point in life where I merely ask for God's miracles as solutions. Most of the "humans" in our government have little to do with God, as I see it today.
;-)
For the sake of fairness, justice, and the desperately needed Constitutional law, I hope to make sure Utah wins this fight on the behalf of All States! What the Feds are doing to Utah is truly an untenable threat to all Americans!
The history of State cessions being required to establish new States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_cessions
Seems to indicate the Federal Government did not simply acquire first ownership of any land until the Louisiana Purchase, where the Federal government for the first time directly acquired jurisdictional territory as defined in Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2.
While at the same time parts 2, 4, and 5 of Federalist #43
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa43.htm
Seems to be written in light of this development as the Feds had already acquired territorial jurisdiction of some of the land by cession of some but not all of the States, thus with the reality of overlapping clams particularly in the North the Article 4 Section 3 clause 2’s line: “nothing in the Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”
Seems to make a lot of sense as James Madison explained it in part 5 of Federalist 43 in saying the Federal government cannot weld such territorial jurisdiction until such time as the all other such clams have been resolved.
See definition of the word “proviso”:
“ a clause in a document or contract that embodies a condition or stipulation”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proviso
Anyway the key issue here is the differences between federal territorial jurisdiction and that of state Jurisdiction, and whether or not the Federal government can Admit a state to the union and not recognizes the State as having full jurisdiction over all the territory the Federal government has recognized that state as having.
I would like to look further into the issue of the Eastern States and how they have managed to obtain full jurisdiction over so much of their land while the Western States have so little...
Were they granted full initial title to all of their land as well as full jurisdictional rights in their initial statehood?
Is it even possible for both the State and the Federal government to have such “State level jurisdiction” within the recognized bounds of a State?
If so why then do we have Article 4 Section 3, or Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17? Both of which clearly segregate the important of the difference between Federal State level jurisdiction as established by the 2 aforementioned sections, and State “State level jurisdiction” over their own recognized territoriality bounds.
Should we redraw the map of the Western States to exclude that which the Federal government seems to clam as is their “Territory” in jurisdictional power, just like we do with Actual Federal territories and the Federal district?
For that matter does Article 4 Section 3 clause 2 even permit the Federal government to weld power over such a duel clam?
I look at that the American People have rejected a government takeover of healthcare for 100 years.
___
You're right.
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.