Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    27 Mar '17 00:48
    Originally posted by Eladar
    This is from the Constitution.
    Maybe this will wake up a few brain cells:

    http://www.snopes.com/article-1-section-8-clause-17/
  2. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12497
    27 Mar '17 01:06
    Originally posted by Eladar
    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.
    Read what the Constitution does say.
  3. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    27 Mar '17 01:09
    Originally posted by Eladar
    This is from the Constitution.
    So 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" .

    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 could own was the seat of government or forts, magazines, etc. then the authority given in Article I would be all that was needed. But, in fact, the Framers added a specific provision in Article IV, section 3 covering all territory and property belonging to the United States.

    I know some right wing kooks like the ones who took over the bird sanctuary have made the same silly argument, but one really needs to read the Constitution in its entirety rather than trying to shoehorn their ideological biases into one clause while ignoring pertinent other sections.
  4. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    27 Mar '17 01:12
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Read what the Constitution does say.
    Yes do so.
  5. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    27 Mar '17 01:22
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Read what the Constitution does say.
    See Snopes. For true meaning, case law is vital.
  6. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12497
    27 Mar '17 01:40
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    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]
    Does the secondary article describe what the government can own or does is simply state its rights once it is owned?
  7. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12497
    27 Mar '17 01:42
    Originally posted by HandyAndy
    See Snopes. For true meaning, case law is vital.
    Case law is vital, not what the Constitution says. Case law trumps Constitution.
  8. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    27 Mar '17 02:35
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Does the secondary article describe what the government can own or does is simply state its rights once it is owned?
    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 came into possession of a lot of territory and property by Constitutional means. Once it did, it is under no obligation to cede that territory and property to any State that it may admit in the future. And even if it admits a State within who's borders it owns territory and property, it can retain such ownership if it pleases, as can any other property owner in that State.
  9. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    27 Mar '17 02:40
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Case law is vital, not what the Constitution says. Case law trumps Constitution.
    Case law shapes the Constitution.
  10. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12497
    27 Mar '17 20:04
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    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.
    Will you concede that once a territory becomes a state, it is not longer a territory and has equal footing as any other state?
  11. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12497
    27 Mar '17 20:06
    Originally posted by HandyAndy
    Case law shapes the Constitution.
    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.
  12. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    27 Mar '17 20:39
    Originally posted by Eladar
    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.
    Define "bad decision."
  13. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    27 Mar '17 21:09
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Will you concede that once a territory becomes a state, it is not longer a territory and has equal footing as any other state?
    First part: sure.

    Second part: "Equal footing" as far as its legal status vis a vis the other States and Feds, sure. That does not imply the Federal government has to hand over its property to it.
  14. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    27 Mar '17 21:11
    Originally posted by Eladar
    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.
    If so, the Constitution has "meant nothing" since ratification.
  15. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12497
    27 Mar '17 21:52
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    If so, the Constitution has "meant nothing" since ratification.
    Not true at all. The longer we go, the more the Constitution gets ignored.

    The Federal government is allowed to own/control land for defined reasons.

    Once a territory becomes a state, the state is a state. It is no longer a territory.
Back to Top