• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What's Really Going on in Oregon! Taking Back the Narrative !

MrT said:
It is a good thing that they did "expand" their powers. The Constitution, being the 200+ year old document that it is, didn't exactly lay out of alot of information about how to handle airplanes, automobiles, or the internet.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely why the amendment process exists. We've allowed nine robed lawyers to take the reins and determine the course of our nation.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Then that is something that must be decided at the ballot box - not by taking over federal buildings.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that path no longer exists. The SCOTUS has long ago set itself up to trump the will of the people.
 
WCH said:
From where we sit now, the SCOTUS should have never been given such power. The States should still have the ultimate decision making power.
Click to expand...

They weren't given that power, they took it.
 
I had this same debate nearly a decade ago. It always comes back to whether or not you agree with a court decision made in 1803.
 
clownboy said:
Unfortunately that path no longer exists. The SCOTUS has long ago set itself up to trump the will of the people.
Click to expand...

Of course, of course! SCOTUS judges all got together and made a deal to subvert the U.S. government...and this cabal in SCOTUS is SO powerful that it's lasted even when the majority of SCOTUS judges were conservative, and even when the majority were liberal!

You need to go let World Net Daily know about this incredible story you found! They'll be SO astounded that I'm sure they'll even post it above their other stories like "Sky is falling due to Obama's tax hike!" and "Conclusive proof that Jimmy Hoffa is actually Joe Biden!"
 
Fearandloathing said:
If she's a constitutional lawyer why doesn't she go to court.

She says only "forts and ports", so I guess I can buy Yellowstone? And I'll take Mt. Rushmore, I want to mine it.
Click to expand...

Chomsky said:
I can see your POV, but what other alternative is there than using judges?

Somebody's got to do it, and be respected as to the authority of their decision, or we'll have anarchy!
Click to expand...

State legislatures as was laid out in the Constitution.
 
MrT said:
That a Constitutional Attorney that challenges you to find evidence to support Federal ownership of land, but will not listen to Executive Action, Congressional Action, The Supreme Court, or 100+ years of historical precedent is a really ****ty Constitutional Attorney.

I would add, as further evidence for a reason to question her expertise, the fact that
she claimed armed militiamen physically occupying a federal building and threatening violence against federal officials are "not acting lawlessly.
Click to expand...
"
Click to expand...



They are acting lawlessly and they are fighting a battle that they won't win. The U.S. government has a lot more resources and it's got the law on its side.
 
clownboy said:
You got that wrong. Not "This lady", but The Constitution. Just read a bit of Madison. You know, the Father of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Care to clarify what you mean by this?
 
WCH said:
Reaction?
Click to expand...

Federally owned land is held by nation and we are charged with its stewardship. WE are responsible for what happens on it. The gun people that have squatted in protest are anti government period - full stop. For instance, one cannot go onto Yosemite and graze cattle or build a house because the government is no good. One has to play by the rules or one is thrown off the property.

With respect to these guys in Oregon, I'm waiting for the pepper spray.
 
Beaudreaux said:
She was correct on that part, and you actually just made her case for her if you read what you posted, not just the bolded parts. She went off the rails with the screed about the SCOTUS, however.
Click to expand...
Here is the authority of the fedearl of bureau land management (she asked us to show her): "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, dockyards and other needful buildings"

And also here Hence: Article Four, section 3, clause 2... "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States"


And the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution...

Also she kept on saying "your land" and "my land" and "their land" like this land was these militiamen's land or at one point was their land in recent history... :roll: Yea right.
 
Fearandloathing said:
If you could explain how that sentence addresses whether I can buy a ****ing national park.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with national parks or conservatories that are public/private ventures. I don't have a problem with building dams that flood once fertile ground or land for building roadways.

I do have a problem with the way the FedGov goes about doing these things. Constitutionally they have very limited powers in this regard so, they create agencies to do the dirty work for them.

BTW: you're gonna need China type money to buy that NP. ;)
 
Chomsky said:
So the legislators determine Constitutionality?
Click to expand...

The States were the original creators of the Constitution so, they should have the final say in any constitutional issue. Anything less should be considered judicial tyranny. IMHO
 
The chief justice has made the case that unconstitutional laws are void and that the courts must adhere to the Constitution. That's a no-brainer. The Constitution is, after all, the supreme Law of the Land. Of course courts must adhere to and enforce Constitutional limits. This is not the same as saying that the courts are the sole arbiters for determining what the Constitution means and when a law is "repugnant" to it.

For one to believe that the founders intended the federal government to police itself, one would have to believe that the founders expected the Judiciary to be infallible. While one might expect the Judicial branch to hold the Executive and Legislative to their Constitutional limits, who is to do the same for the Judicial?

If the Supreme Court is the sole and final arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional, then Constitutional "limits may be passed at pleasure" — at the pleasure of the Supreme Court, and there are no effective limits on the government created by the Constitution.

Indeed, in the more than 200 years since the Supreme Court appointed itself the sole and final arbiter of constitutionality issues, we have seen a gradual but relentless increase in the amount of power in the hands of the government — Legislative, Executive and Judicial. In this the Supreme Court has been a willing accomplice. The founders, in drafting the Constitution, did not address the issue of determining what the Constitution means or who should have this power. In accordance with the tenth amendment, therefore, this is a power reserved to the states. It makes perfect sense for the states to decide such issues as the states are the authors of the Constitution. Who better to determine what the rules mean than those who wrote the rules? Who better to judge what laws run afoul of Constitutionally imposed limits?



Marbury v. Madison
 
MrT said:
That a Constitutional Attorney that challenges you to find evidence to support Federal ownership of land, but will not listen to Executive Action, Congressional Action, The Supreme Court, or 100+ years of historical precedent is a really ****ty Constitutional Attorney.

I would add, as further evidence for a reason to question her expertise, the fact that she claimed armed militiamen physically occupying a federal building and threatening violence against federal officials are "not acting lawlessly."
Click to expand...
Some reserve the right to change the meaning of things as they see fit so that it backs their agenda, it is the new way of the world, didn"t you know that? By the way white is now black, further updates to follow.
 
Here's the problem, on that part, she was correct:

TheDemSocialist said:
Here is the authority of the fedearl of bureau land management (she asked us to show her): "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, dockyards and other needful buildings"
And also here Hence: Article Four, section 3, clause 2... "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States"
Click to expand...
And the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution...

Also she kept on saying "your land" and "my land" and "their land" like this land was these militiamen's land or at one point was their land in recent history... :roll: Yea right.
Click to expand...
Yeah, she went off the rails at that point.
 
There are some locals who don't much care for the Bundy boys and their acolytes

Tribe to protesters occupying Oregon wildlife refuge: ‘We were here first … get the hell out’

As the anti-government protesters dug in for their fifth day at the wildlife refuge, insisting that they would leave only once the land had been “returned to its rightful owners,” the Burns Paiute council convened at its tribal offices 30 minutes away. They all had one, angry question on their minds:

Who exactly did the occupiers think those “rightful owners” might be?
Click to expand...


One more time, the 'Real Americans' have acted and spoken out without actually pondering the possible consequences
 
If only we had a system in our government that could settle these questions...

If only.
 
Beaudreaux said:
"All places ... in which ..."

That called a qualifier. Not "ALL PLACES" but rather "All places ... in which ..." See the difference?
Click to expand...

:doh "In which the same should be for forts, etc etc".
Not only do they have the power to purchase and regulate the places they purchase from the state legislature, as long as the legislature has given consent, but the congress also has the power to regulate in the same manner US forts in the state, docks, other needed places.... Its essentially saying that congress has the power to regulate forts, dockyards, arsentals in the same matter in which they regulate land they have purchased form the states... Its not saying congress has the power to regulate "all places purchased by the states, but never mind it only applies to docks and arsenals"...

"The constitution of the United States declares that congress shall have power to exercise "exclusive legislation" in all "cases whatsoever" 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, dockyards and other needful buildings. When therefore a purchase of land for any of these purposes is made by the national government, and the state legislature has given its consent to the purchase, the land so purchased by the very terms of the constitution ipso facto falls within the exclusive legislation of congress, and the state jurisdiction is completely ousted. This is the necessary result, for exclusive jurisdiction is the attendant upon exclusive legislation; and the consent of the state legislature is by the very terms of the constitution, by which all the states are bound, and to which all are parties, a virtual surrender and cession of its sovereignty over the place. Nor is there anything novel in this construction. It is under the like terms in the same [Volume 3, Page 234] clause of the constitution that exclusive jurisdiction is now exercised by congress in the District of Columbia; for if exclusive jurisdiction and exclusive legislation do not import the same thing, the states could not cede or the United States accept for the purposes enumerated in this clause, any exclusive jurisdiction. And such was manifestly the avowed intention of those wise and great men who framed the constitution." Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17: United States v. Cornell

You have also ignored this as well: "And also here Hence: Article Four, section 3, clause 2... "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom