Welcome to the AppalachianTrailCafe.net!
Take a moment and register and then join the conversation

the baxter debate continues

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • JimBlue wrote:

      However, the Feds have done a number of things, and enforced it, that they are not authorized by the U.S. Constitution.

      I have watched a number of politicians on television misquote the founders on a number of things.

      Sometimes the courts agree with the feds altering what is allowed and not allowed.
      Agreed. Nevertheless, the enumerated powers are not entirely a dead letter. Simply saying that Federal law trumps State law in all things would say that the States are a quaint historic aberration but have no real existence politically.

      Exercising eminent domain against a State government would be (as far as I am aware) unprecedented, and would surely trigger intensive Constitutional inquiry. The case would be in the courts for years. Most likely, the infinitely elastic Commerce Clause would be involved - and the conclusion would be that hikers arriving from New Hampshire are engaged in interstate commerce, triggering Federal jurisdiction. (The Commerce Clause can be construed to cover virtually anything!) The political branches would surely be involved as well, since any decision would have profound public policy implications.
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.
    • I understand the mentality, I feel the same way when the bubble comes through the Smokies. Last time I saw their mess, I thought, "How dare those aholes trash MY mountains."

      Of course they're not MY mountains but the amount of time I spend there and my deep connection to them makes me feel proprietary.

      (i am not saying that I support BSP.)
      Lost in the right direction.
    • HB thank you for starting the thread - I got halfway thru the article and choked. I don't give a damn about state of federal land. We are all part owners of it. We are individually ultimately responsible for defacing, defecating and LNT what surrounds us.

      So lets get this straight. An adult hiking to the top finishes in a great time and followed by a throng of people. Just like finishing NASCAR. What the hell - the rangers were lying in wait.

      I am glad he finished - I am glad he celebrated. I am happy he had a good time at the top. IMO the rangers were wrong.


      ONCE again if you are an adult and behaving within society - There should not be people lying in wait. This appears entrapment.


      Be wise enough to walk away from the nonsense around you! :thumbup:
    • AnotherKevin wrote:

      JimBlue wrote:

      However, the Feds have done a number of things, and enforced it, that they are not authorized by the U.S. Constitution.

      I have watched a number of politicians on television misquote the founders on a number of things.

      Sometimes the courts agree with the feds altering what is allowed and not allowed.
      Agreed. Nevertheless, the enumerated powers are not entirely a dead letter. Simply saying that Federal law trumps State law in all things would say that the States are a quaint historic aberration but have no real existence politically.
      Exercising eminent domain against a State government would be (as far as I am aware) unprecedented, and would surely trigger intensive Constitutional inquiry. The case would be in the courts for years. Most likely, the infinitely elastic Commerce Clause would be involved - and the conclusion would be that hikers arriving from New Hampshire are engaged in interstate commerce, triggering Federal jurisdiction. (The Commerce Clause can be construed to cover virtually anything!) The political branches would surely be involved as well, since any decision would have profound public policy implications.
      If Baxter is real state park then I can't be barred from access like some town lake. If Baxter isn't a state park then it's free game as far as federal imminent domain is concerned. Which is it?
      Sometimes you will never know the value of a moment until it becomes a memory.
      Dr. Seuss Cof123
    • If it isn't a state park, the name is incorrect. From what has been said here, and what I have read online elsewhere, it is more of a private nature preserve apparently run by the State of Maine as if it were a state park. And yet, it isn't a state park.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.
    • Rasty wrote:

      If Baxter is real state park then I can't be barred from access like some town lake. If Baxter isn't a state park then it's free game as far as federal imminent domain is concerned. Which is it?

      You're spouting more nonsense with every posting. We all agree that it's property deeded with conditions and covenants to the State of Maine. Baxter referred to it as a park, even when it was his private estate, and there certainly is ample precedent for other private lands being called 'parks.'

      Questions to consider:

      You say that it is different from "some town lake." What principle, other than perhaps its size, makes it different? If size makes it different, what is the limiting size beyond which a State must grant access?

      Are State Parks distinct from State Forests? State game management areas? State historic sites? State prison farms? The grounds of State hospitals? The lawn of the Governor's mansion?

      Are all lands owned by the State State Parks? If not, by what means is a State Park distinguished from other State lands?

      If a private park is given to a State, does it ipso facto become a State Park, or can it become some other class of State-owned land?

      What law requires the State to grant free access to its property parks or otherwise, to all comers? Is it a Federal or State law? If it is a Federal law, under what Constitutional authority did the Congress claim to pass it?

      What principle extends Federal eminent domain to State-owned lands? Can you cite a precedent for a Federal condemnation of the property of a State government, without the consent of the State legislature?

      By what means may the Federal government extinguish conditions, covenants and restrictions that were agreed to by both parties in a land transfer between a private party and a State? Could the Federal government use the principle to seize other rights in State lands, for instance, for instance by condemning and reselling rights to timber harvest, mining, oil and gas extraction, and agriculture that were restricted by covenant in a grant of land to the State?

      And would you please take the trouble to spell 'eminent' correctly? 'Imminent' is an entirely different word.
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.
    • JimBlue wrote:

      If it isn't a state park, the name is incorrect. From what has been said here, and what I have read online elsewhere, it is more of a private nature preserve apparently run by the State of Maine as if it were a state park. And yet, it isn't a state park.
      It's somewhat akin to what New York calls a 'state unique area'. New York law defines a state unique area as: "A state project to acquire lands of special natural beauty, wilderness character, geological, ecological or historical significance for the state nature and historical preserve and similar lands within a forest preserve county outside the Adirondack and Catskill parks." Each unique area has its own set of regulations. Some are closed to the public, and most have restrictions considerably tighter than those of a State Forest or most of the State Parks.
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.
    • Carmack. Conceded.

      Now, what act of Congress grants the Federal government condemnation authority regarding the Appalachian Trail?

      16 USC 1246 (g) permits condemnation of private (but not government) lands.

      16 USC 1246 (e) (2) (ii) permits acquisition of Trail corridor lands from State and local government entities by the consent of those entities, and presumably not without their consent.
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.
    • AnotherKevin wrote:

      Carmack. Conceded.

      Now, what act of Congress grants the Federal government condemnation authority regarding the Appalachian Trail?

      16 USC 1246 (g) permits condemnation of private (but not government) lands.

      16 USC 1246 (e) (2) (ii) permits acquisition of Trail corridor lands from State and local government entities by the consent of those entities, and presumably not without their consent.
      commerce and supremacy
      Sometimes you will never know the value of a moment until it becomes a memory.
      Dr. Seuss Cof123
    • AnotherKevin wrote:

      The Executive Branch still can't do anything without an enabling Act of Congress. Which Act enables the condemnation you contemplate?
      congress feels like it and the president signs it. What else is needed if the political is there? Only the supreme court could stop it.
      Sometimes you will never know the value of a moment until it becomes a memory.
      Dr. Seuss Cof123
    • JimBlue wrote:

      AnotherKevin wrote:

      JimBlue wrote:

      Fed Law trumps State Law. I know a number of present day politicians and talking head pundits on tv say something else, but they are totally wrong. They should have stayed awake in high school government/civics class.
      Or perhaps you should have stayed awake.The Constitution, article 6, clause 2:
      This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. (Emphasis added.)

      To that extent, you are correct that Federal law is the supreme law of the land. Nevertheless, the Federal government may not legislate beyond the powers granted to it by the States in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. often called the enumerated powers. Laws made beyond the enumerated powers are void and of no force.

      Alexander Hamilton (Federalist 33), explaining Article 6:
      But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.

      One of the most recent applications of this principle was the overturning of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 in United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995). In that case the Court held that a Federal law regulating the carrying of handguns near schools was not passed pursuant to any of the powers of the Congress enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and was therefore void. The Federal government still has limits on its power.
      However, the Feds have done a number of things, and enforced it, that they are not authorized by the U.S. Constitution.

      I have watched a number of politicians on television misquote the founders on a number of things.

      Sometimes the courts agree with the feds altering what is allowed and not allowed.
      90% of what they do is not authorized by the Constitution...which, by the way, they don't give a crap about...it's all about them.
      I may grow old but I'll never grow up.
    • JimBlue wrote:

      socks wrote:

      hikerboy wrote:

      I think maine would secede from the union if that were to happen.
      Maybe Texas and Maine could get together and form there own Country...and a trail connecting the two. Call it the "Show me your nuts trail"
      Texas can seceed... the US Congress made Texas put it in Texas law. Texas just chose a bad time to do it the last time they tried. And Texas can split into 5 states. Also forced on them by the US Congress in 1845. All they have to do it is do it, already approved.

      Not all Texans are crazy. At least I'm not, and my other personalities agree with me... :)
      gif.014.gif :thumbsup:
      here is a dissenting opinion.

      why Texas can't seceed