Just another guy telling people how much better he is then them.Da Wolf wrote:
Sometimes you will never know the value of a moment until it becomes a memory.
Dr. Seuss
Dr. Seuss
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
Just another guy telling people how much better he is then them.Da Wolf wrote:
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.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.
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?AnotherKevin wrote:
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.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.
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.
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?
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.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.
commerce and supremacyAnotherKevin 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.
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.AnotherKevin wrote:
The Executive Branch still can't do anything without an enabling Act of Congress. Which Act enables the condemnation you contemplate?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Trump_State_Parksocks wrote:
Donald Trump could straighten all this out...."You'er Fired"
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.JimBlue wrote:
However, the Feds have done a number of things, and enforced it, that they are not authorized by the U.S. Constitution.AnotherKevin wrote:
Or perhaps you should have stayed awake.The Constitution, article 6, clause 2: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.
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.
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.
here is a dissenting opinion.JimBlue wrote:
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.socks wrote:
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"hikerboy wrote:
I think maine would secede from the union if that were to happen.
Not all Texans are crazy. At least I'm not, and my other personalities agree with me...
Much as i'm a fan of "don't fence me in" I respect peoples right to own and pay for property while they are here on this rock.odd man out wrote:
Sounds like we should all move to Sweden where the right to access land (public and private) is guaranteed in its constitution. Of course that would suck for all those Americans who like to put up "No Trespassing" signs.
Allemansrätten
lol, he just got spanked. gator told him to put a thread on ignore.Da Wolf wrote:
where's birdbrain? he's very vocal on WB and FB. so biased and maine entitled
jimmyjam wrote:
I saw where Jennifer Pharr Davis is now on the ATC board.
Not a mistake but a serious one, do tell. Me, I could care less, it's a non-issue for me, but I am curious why it is a mistake?max.patch wrote:
i really like JPD but i think this is a serious mistake.jimmyjam wrote:
I saw where Jennifer Pharr Davis is now on the ATC board.
Da Wolf wrote:
me, warren and b. jack should be on the ATC board
nuthin' like a good shake up!CoachLou wrote:
Da Wolf wrote:
me, warren and b. jack should be on the ATC board
i know you're trying to be funny, but jack would be an excellent addition to the board.Da Wolf wrote:
me, warren and b. jack should be on the ATC board