• 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!

Obama Establishes National Monument in New Mexico

it was already federal land, there was no seizure of any kind.... Obama simply changed the designation of the federal land in question, which he was empowered to do by Congress.

the act does not empower the President to seize private land... but it does empower him to reserve or accept such property.

additionally, SCOTUS has ruled on 3 cases involving the Act... it's been upheld in each case

for the SCOTUS nerds among us.. here are the cases in case you want to dig into them
United States v. California, 436 U.S. 32, 56 L. Ed. 2d 94, 98 S. Ct. 1662 (1978)
Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128, 141-42, 48 L. Ed. 2d 523, 96 S. Ct. 2062 (1976)
Cameron v. United States, 252 U.S. 450, 64 L. Ed. 659, 40 S. Ct. 410 (1920).

Technically it was Mexican land. The US govt took it from them during a war, something they also arent allowed to do. When NM became a state, it became their land. I can find no agreement between NM and the fed giving them power over their land for the purposes of creating parks.
 
Technically it was Mexican land. The US govt took it from them during a war, something they also arent allowed to do. When NM became a state, it became their land. I can find no agreement between NM and the fed giving them power over their land for the purposes of creating parks.

you literally have no idea what you are talking about

start with Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1885)... then move on to...
Camfield v. United States (1897)
Light v. United States (1911)
Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976)

actually, before you do any of that, read the US Constitution.....particularly Article 4, section 3, clause 2.. "the property clause"

"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"
 
The BLM is unconstitutional. If the states never gave the federal govt the power to own land outside of DC or in relation to specifically enumerated powers (with due process and just compensation, then all laws and actions that flow from it are also illegal. The federal govt cant pass a law saying it has the power to do something. Only states can.

Hate to break it to you but your posting information that is not true.

Congress passed the laws to create the BLM in 1946. Last I looked Congress is made up of elected representation from the States.
Detailed History

So unless you can prove that Congress acted illegally and against the Constitution, your wrong.

So who do you think created the States, The States or the Federal govt.?
 
you literally have no idea what you are talking about

start with Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1885)... then move on to...
Camfield v. United States (1897)
Light v. United States (1911)
Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976)

actually, before you do any of that, read the US Constitution.....particularly Article 4, section 3, clause 2.. "the property clause"

"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"

Which only includes DC according to the constitution. Maybe you should read it.
 
Hate to break it to you but your posting information that is not true.

Congress passed the laws to create the BLM in 1946. Last I looked Congress is made up of elected representation from the States.
Detailed History

So unless you can prove that Congress acted illegally and against the Constitution, your wrong.

So who do you think created the States, The States or the Federal govt.?

The states of course. You dont actually think the federal govt existed before states signed the constitution do you? Furthermore, Im posting my opinion, not 'information'. The constitution prohibits the states from doing anything that is not in the constitution. If you dont see 'nationalize state land to create parks' in the constitution, then its not allowed. Its the whole point of the bill of rights.
 
The states of course. You dont actually think the federal govt existed before states signed the constitution do you? Furthermore, Im posting my opinion, not 'information'. The constitution prohibits the states from doing anything that is not in the constitution. If you dont see 'nationalize state land to create parks' in the constitution, then its not allowed. Its the whole point of the bill of rights.

Yes, I realize its your opinion.
misdirected as it is.:mrgreen:

Do you see the State of New Mexico raising objection to the designation?
 
just a minor detail.. but Congress has control over national parks....the President can't designate a park all on his own.

the answer to your overall question, is... hell no.

So you are basically against this because it is President Obama that wants to do it. At least your consistent.
 
So you are basically against this because it is President Obama that wants to do it. At least your consistent.

oh man.. you absolutely nailed it.... ya got me red handed!

you are totally correct!.....well, except for the part about "being against it"

seriously ...read the thread before you decide to troll.
 
oh man.. you absolutely nailed it.... ya got me red handed!

you are totally correct!.....well, except for the part about "being against it"

seriously ...read the thread before you decide to troll.

Sorry, I misread you posting.
 
Yes, I realize its your opinion.
misdirected as it is.:mrgreen:

Do you see the State of New Mexico raising objection to the designation?

Officially, probably not. The states have long since accepted that they are subservient to the whims of the federal govt. I dont see anything ever changing.
 
Back
Top Bottom