1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWhich puts a different light on the debate from the rather emotive line of argument in the link posted in the OP. Really I feel a wildlife reserve ought to be a wildlife reserve and that hunting should happen elsewhere. What I don't know is how much wild area there is in Alaska that isn't part of a National Reserve.
That isn't what Congress did here; it used the Congressional Review Act to overturn an administrative rule passed last year. Info on the CRA (passed in 1996 but only used once before this January) is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act
Presumably, States could pass laws banning such practices. I think there's a good chance tha ...[text shortened]... ay/2017/03/22/521089304/congress-rolls-back-obama-era-rule-on-hunting-bears-and-wolves-in-alaska
Originally posted by EladarYes they could.
If a State wanted to declare itself a slave state, the Federal Government could not stop it.
The Constitution clearly states what the Federal Government can own.
As long as a simple majority of Supreme Court Judges say is what governs the land.
No it doesn't.
😴😴😴
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarIn the areas being discussed there was:
There was no prohibition against slavery at the time.
You need to get your eyes checked.
No, seriously, get your eyes checked, you Pinko.
Sec. 14. It is hereby ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, That the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the said territory and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent, to wit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art. 6. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nworder.asp
EDIT: And be a dear and point out where: The Constitution clearly states what the Federal Government can own.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderOnce the territory becomes a state, the territory restrictions no longer exist.
In the areas being discussed there was:
Sec. 14. It is hereby ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, That the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the said territory and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent, to wit:
------------------------ ...[text shortened]... a dear and point out where: The Constitution clearly states what the Federal Government can own.
You really are dense.
Of course the anti slave people who settled there would not own slaves, which is what I said to begin with.
As for what the government can own, try the tenth amendment.
Originally posted by vivifyI'm so glad there's an ocean between us and them.
You can't look at things so narrowly. Step back and see the bigger picture. Putting such as decision in the hands of a Republican-controlled congress, during a Republican presidential administration, means conservatives won't have to worry about nature-loving hippies ruining their fun at the state-level. Basically, it's one less hurdle gun-toting conservat ...[text shortened]... concerned with in an effort to use their toys to kill as many of any animal they want for sport.
1 edit
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 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;--
I do not believe anyone can argue that a National Park is a needful building.