Replies

Not some Nevada rancher who got a raw deal from the fed.

You fanned on that one, because you clearly don't even know that Hage wrote Storm Over Rangelands, which is a tour deforce in historical research on the split estate in Federal landownership going back to Roman law.

But holding Hage up as a paragon of constitutional interpretive skill? Not the most convincing move you could make.

Only for the ignorant.

Which of course give insight to why you’d buy into the sickest conspiracy theory I’ve ever seen on this forum, that the leading Founders of this country deliberately sabotaged the Constitution by planting a poison pill in the Supremacy Clause.

Now that's pathetic hyperbole.

LOL! I knew Hage had become a land rights folk hero of some sort. I do work for a living, so my brief google effort had not yet turned up this book. I am not at all surprised to find it, and even less surprised that in all my study of law I'd never run across it. I'm not saying it's good or bad. I've never read it. But after the Vande Pol article, I have no intention of taking it seriously on your say so.

As for your specious allegation of hyperbole, the "poison pill" comment comes directly from Vande Pol's own words, not mine:

"Frankly, I think such wishful thinking is a sort of vanity, where that “original meaning” is elevated to what they believe or wish it to have meant, when in fact that text might instead have been a deliberately-hidden poison pill (hence my comment re commas in the supremacy clause in Treaty Law: The Constitution's Original Trojan Horse, posted on this site)."

Such an accusation is tantamount to a charge of treason. If you think you can support such nonsense, have at it. I have better things to do with my time than subvert the Constitution on FR's bandwidth.

Have a good evening.

Peace,