27 Mar '17 00:48>
Originally posted by EladarMaybe this will wake up a few brain cells:
This is from the Constitution.
http://www.snopes.com/article-1-section-8-clause-17/
Originally posted by EladarRead what the Constitution does say.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_17.html
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by ...[text shortened]... n argue that a National Park is a needful building. It seems to me that it is Unconstitutional.
Originally posted by EladarSo it is. It refers only to the subjects mentioned while Article IV, sec 3 specifically refers to "territory or other property belonging to the United States" .
This is from the Constitution.
Originally posted by no1marauderDoes the secondary article describe what the government can own or does is simply state its rights once it is owned?
So it is. It refers only to the subjects mentioned while Article IV, sec 3 specifically refers to "territory or other [b]property belonging to the United States" .
Your absurd reading would make Article IV, section 3 superfluous when, in fact, the provisions deal with different subjects i.e. IF the only "territory and property" the United States ...[text shortened]... ng to shoehorn their ideological biases into one clause while ignoring pertinent other sections.[/b]
Originally posted by EladarThere are no "secondary articles" in the Constitution.
Does the secondary article describe what the government can own or does is simply state its rights once it is owned?
Originally posted by no1marauderWill you concede that once a territory becomes a state, it is not longer a territory and has equal footing as any other state?
There are no "secondary articles" in the Constitution.
Will you concede that the Constitution gives the power to make treaties to the United States (and bars it from the States)?
Will you concede that treaties often result in the exchange of territory between nations?
Once you concede both of those points, the result is that the United States c ...[text shortened]... erty, it can retain such ownership if it pleases, as can any other property owner in that State.
Originally posted by HandyAndyIf by shape you mean redefines, I can see your point.
Case law shapes the Constitution.
Originally posted by EladarDefine "bad decision."
If by shape you mean redefines, I can see your point.
I do not believe courts should redefine the Constitution. Bad decisions are bad decisions and those should be reversed. But as long as you have 5 politically pointed judges making the decisions, the Constitution means nothing.
Originally posted by EladarFirst part: sure.
Will you concede that once a territory becomes a state, it is not longer a territory and has equal footing as any other state?
Originally posted by EladarIf so, the Constitution has "meant nothing" since ratification.
If by shape you mean redefines, I can see your point.
I do not believe courts should redefine the Constitution. Bad decisions are bad decisions and those should be reversed. But as long as you have 5 politically pointed judges making the decisions, the Constitution means nothing.
Originally posted by no1marauderNot true at all. The longer we go, the more the Constitution gets ignored.
If so, the Constitution has "meant nothing" since ratification.