• 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!

Department of Justice sues California over land transfer law

In other words, the exercise of that right would NOT result in the loss of a dime to the Federal government. On the other hand it might prevent the Federal government flogging land to its favoured contributors for 10 cents on the dollar.

A real cynic might conclude that the Federal government is opposing the California legislation simply because that legislation might interfere with the Federal government "doing favours for its friends"
Click to expand...

Nothing like poisoning your thead with irrelevant pearl clutching.

California is making noise just to make noise. Somehow they have been told the opposing the federal government at every turn is worth votes. The last I heard there is no land up for acquisition, and when it is California is always consulted even when the US constitution says that is unnecessary.

It’s just noise.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Your argument is interesting and gives hints that you might make a fine lawyer one day. Unfortunately, at law, the only part of the United States of America that is NOT "in a State" is the District of Columbia.

The territory of the District of Columbia was ceded to the Federal government and thus is no longer "in" Maryland (or any other State for that matter).
Click to expand...

Does that same principle not hold true for all federal owned lands? I used DC as an obvious example but even national parks are part rolled by federal police. As far as I am aware state police have no jurisdiction on those lands.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
"Interesting" is a really good word for it. It will also generate a whole bunch of legal fees.

One does wonder is some state in a different Federal Court Circuit isn't considering passing similar legislation just so that there can be "conflicting rulings" which would force the matter up into the Supreme Court (and thus FURTHER delay matters).

More and more the situation is starting to look like the one a person who showed up to Yankee Stadium for a tryout with the NY Yankees and not only didn't know where first base was, but couldn't even spell either "base" or "ball" (let alone spell "baseball") would be facing - with Mr. Trump playing the role of prospective team member.
Click to expand...

Mr. Trump is not the governor of California.

This is a law that would be challenged no matter who is in the White House.
 
What 'irreparable harm' would be done to California? They don't own the land. If anything, you could argue the other way, that both the federal government and a potential buyer would be harmed.
 
The Mark said:
I'm not sure I understand this fully.

It seems completely reasonable for a state to get first option on any federal land within it's borders that the federal government wants to sell.
Click to expand...

At face value, that is reasonable. However, it's not up to the state to place that limitation on the federal government. The right approach would be for a California representative to submit this as a bill to congress.

Note that it does go beyond giving the state the right to first refusal -- as it's written, the state could also force a sale to someone else. It could also effectively block land swaps, such as one where the US government exchanged one parcel of land for a much larger (and less useful for development) parcel of land -- that actually resulted in a much bigger natural area.
 
apdst said:
Or, maybe the Federal government isn't bound by state law, in this scenario at least.
Click to expand...

Bingo!

The complaint argues that the state law, Senate Bill 50 (SB 50), passed in October 2017, is unconstitutional because it discriminates against the US and therefore violates intergovernmental immunity and the Supremacy Clause [Cornell LII material]. It also quotes the Act for the Admission of the State of California into the Union and stresses that it automatically invalidates SB 50:

California is admitted into the Union upon the express condition that the people of said State, through their legislature or otherwise, shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the public lands within its limits, and shall pass no law and do no act whereby the title of the United States to, and right to dispose of, the same shall be impaired or questioned.
The complaint gives several examples of federal land [DOJ report] that was ready for purchase but have been prohibited from proceeding because of SB 50. Examples include conveyance of land to Native Americans, a proposed veteran housing project and other military projects.
US Attorney General Jeff Sessions made a statement [text] about the lawsuit on Monday:

We have a duty to defend the rightful prerogatives of the U.S. military, the Interior Department, and other federal agencies to buy, sell, exchange or donate federal properties in a lawful manner in the national interest. We are confident that we will prevail in this case—because the facts are on our side.
This is the second lawsuit the DOJ has filed against California in the past month. The first, filed in March, was to stop the implementation of Californian immigration laws [JURIST report].
Click to expand...

JURIST - DOJ sues California over state's federal land use bill
 
chuckiechan said:
Nothing like poisoning your thead with irrelevant pearl clutching.

California is making noise just to make noise. Somehow they have been told the opposing the federal government at every turn is worth votes. The last I heard there is no land up for acquisition, and when it is California is always consulted even when the US constitution says that is unnecessary.

It’s just noise.
Click to expand...

Or "chain jerking"?
 
trouble13 said:
Does that same principle not hold true for all federal owned lands? I used DC as an obvious example but even national parks are part rolled by federal police. As far as I am aware state police have no jurisdiction on those lands.
Click to expand...

Since there are 50 States, doing 50 sets of research simply isn't something that REALLY appeals to me, so I'll refer you to RCWs > Title 37 > Chapter 37.08 > JURISDICTION IN SPECIAL CASES.

From that STATE law you will see that the STATE has ceded jurisdiction (over most matters involving the enforcement of the law) to the Federal Government in National Parks.

Since the STATE had to cede the jurisdiction, that means that the STATE had the jurisdiction in the first place.

Since the ceding of jurisdiction was done by STATE legislation, that means that STATE legislation can repeal the STATE legislation ceding jurisdiction.

If STATE legislation repeals the earlier STATE legislation ceding jurisdiction, then jurisdiction is no longer ceded.

If jurisdiction is no longer ceded by the STATE then that means that the STATE regains jurisdiction over the enforcement of the law in the National Parks.

In short, the at least this particular instance the State government DELEGATES to the Federal government the power to enforce the law in National Parks.

You cannot delegate authority that you do not have.
 
dcsports said:
Mr. Trump is not the governor of California.
Click to expand...

True, but he is the one instructing the lawyers who have filed the lawsuit challenging the legislation.

dcsports said:
This is a law that would be challenged no matter who is in the White House.
Click to expand...

Quite likely, and it is a law which would be defended on the same grounds no matter who is in the White House.

"Person A" can say "I think that this is a good law and perfectly within the power of the State government to enact."

"Person B" can say "I think that this is a bad law and completely outside the power of the State government to enact."

But what really matters is what Judge Scotus ends up saying about the law.
 
dcsports said:
What 'irreparable harm' would be done to California?
Click to expand...

The "irreparable harm" would be the transfer of land that the State of California wants to obtain title to to some third party.

dcsports said:
They don't own the land.
Click to expand...

True, but they do have jurisdiction over the transfers of land titles in the State of California.

dcsports said:
If anything, you could argue the other way, that both the federal government and a potential buyer would be harmed.
Click to expand...

You most certainly could, and that's how lawyers make a living.

However, simply delaying a transfer of title - even if it delays the actual completion of sale - does not prohibit the Federal government and the potential buyer from later transferring the title to the land if the California law is struck down while forcing the transfer of title before final judicial determination of whether the law is within the legislative competence of the State of California means that the State of California would be (effectively) barred from obtaining land that it could legitimately have obtained if the legislation is found to be within the legislative competence of the State of California.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
True, but he is the one instructing the lawyers who have filed the lawsuit challenging the legislation.
Click to expand...

You referred to someone conducting clueless overreach. In this case, it's the governor of California, knowing the law would be challenged and invalidated. The DOJ is on firm footing here. It's doubtful Trump was even involved.

Quite likely, and it is a law which would be defended on the same grounds no matter who is in the White House.

"Person A" can say "I think that this is a good law and perfectly within the power of the State government to enact."

"Person B" can say "I think that this is a bad law and completely outside the power of the State government to enact."

But what really matters is what Judge Scotus ends up saying about the law.
Click to expand...

Person A is clearly incorrect in this case, and shouldn't be wasting the state's (and federal government's) money.
 
dcsports said:
You referred to someone conducting clueless overreach. In this case, it's the governor of California, knowing the law would be challenged and invalidated. The DOJ is on firm footing here. It's doubtful Trump was even involved.

Person A is clearly incorrect in this case, and shouldn't be wasting the state's (and federal government's) money.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your opinion, and only point out that it is of such disagreements that lawyer's incomes are made.

On the other hand, the proposition that the State of California cannot instruct an agency of the California State government how the laws of the State of California are to be interpreted and enforced does sort of boggle the mind slightly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom