• 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!

Portland says federal government owes nearly $200,000 over courthouse fence

The Feds would most certainly require a permit to block off property under the jurisdiction of state and local governments. The Feds can place a fence on their own property if they want to "establish a perimeter".
But it's much more fun to "make up" law to support one's position, than to abide by the actual law, which would require research and citations, you see.
 
ALL "assemblies" start out as "peaceful".

"(American) Conservatives" want to ban all assemblies (other than those held by "[American] Conservatives") because they MIGHT not remain peaceful (regardless of the reason why the peaceful nature of the assembly ends [even if it ends because "The State" initiates the violence]).

Where did you come up with that dumb ass idea? No one wants to ban all assemblies. That is just stupid. Stop them once they do become violent, yes. To just say "[(American)] Conservatives" want to ban all assemblies except "{[(American)]} conservative" assemblies is outright asinine, and thoroughly dishonest.
 
Unfortunately it is contrary to law to force someone into being an involuntary debtor by forcibly providing goods/services that they do not want (and even more so if they have specifically stated that they do not want those goods/services).

But "Nice Try", though.
More "making up laws", I see. It seems to be a trend. Don't you think it's a great debate technique, though? If the law and facts aren't on your side - change them! Oh wait... we've been doing that for 4 years...
 
Not the property the fence is on, which is what this thread is about.
It's amusing to read all these "declarations" about what the federal government can and can't do in this situation. For a not-insignificant period of my life, I was responsible for addressing the jurisdictional issues involved in protecting and administering federal lands, so I'm pretty familiar with the laws surrounding it. But, that's expertise, so irrelevant to a discussion with Trumpanistas, I expect. It is hilarious, though.
Since February 1, 1940, the United States acquires no jurisdiction over federal lands in a state until the head or other authorized officer of the department or agency which has custody of the lands formally accepts the jurisdiction offered by state law. See 40 U.S.C. § 255; Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312 (1943).
In pertinent part, that US Code states: "Unless and until the United States has accepted jurisdiction over lands hereafter to be acquired as aforesaid, it shall be conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been accepted." In most cases, the federal government takes concurrent jurisdiction, not exclusive - meaning both federal and State law apply, but in some aspects, the federal government takes no jurisdiction whatsoever - like in the roadways. Even federal agents are subject to State law once they enter the roadway - like getting traffic tickets, or trespassing - not in their official capacity, but in their personal capacity.

It's a far more interesting issue of law than most posters here imagine. Territorial Jurisdiction on Federal Property (MP3) (Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC)).
Solari: Great, well tell us: why is knowledge of the types of ownership of federal lands important to knowing what federal law enforcement actions can be taken there?

Perry: It all starts with the United States Constitution. Everyone in federal law enforcement knows that there must be a connection between the offense and the federal government, a nexus we call it, for federal law enforcement to take action. The vast majority of law enforcement work is done by state and local police, and has always been so.

Solari: So then the issue then is, when does a federal nexus, or a federal connection, create a need for federal law enforcement on a particular piece of federal property?

Perry: Correct. And federal land has certain territorial jurisdiction aspects.

Solari: Well, and what types of federal property are there?

Perry: Originally, there were relatively few pieces of federal property to be concerned about, a few forts, arsenals, post offices and federal buildings in large cities. There were always large tracts of undeveloped public lands in the western United States, and of course large areas of Indian country lands. But the United States government was land-rich, and it encouraged westward expansion for over a hundred years by giving away and cheaply selling federal lands. Originally, little federal law enforcement took place.
 
Last edited:
ALL "assemblies" start out as "peaceful".

"(American) Conservatives" want to ban all assemblies (other than those held by "[American] Conservatives") because they MIGHT not remain peaceful (regardless of the reason why the peaceful nature of the assembly ends [even if it ends because "The State" initiates the violence]).

What are you talking about? The issue in Portland was with people attacking the federal courthouse at night. The building wasn't moving around looking for protesters.

There were peaceful protests in the park during the day.
 
It really is a marvel that we live in a place where undisguised people can murder, permanently blind with lasers, and lob explosives in an attempt to maim or kill federal law enforcement and live to tell the tale with impunity. If this were a dictatorship they would have been occupying a mass grave months ago.

We also live in a place where hired cops permanently blind and murder people with rubber bullets.
 
ALL "assemblies" start out as "peaceful".

"(American) Conservatives" want to ban all assemblies (other than those held by "[American] Conservatives") because they MIGHT not remain peaceful (regardless of the reason why the peaceful nature of the assembly ends [even if it ends because "The State" initiates the violence]).

No they don't. But most certainly all assemblies do not end peaceably.
 
Where did you come up with that dumb ass idea? No one wants to ban all assemblies. That is just stupid. Stop them once they do become violent, yes. To just say "[(American)] Conservatives" want to ban all assemblies except "{[(American)]} conservative" assemblies is outright asinine, and thoroughly dishonest.

And I'm quite sure that you actually believe that - despite the calls for banning the Democratic Party that some "conservative" posters keep posting and which one elected federal legislator has actually introduced as a potential law.
 
Portland says federal government owes nearly $200,000 over courthouse fence



Every time I think the city officials in Portland can't be more petty and moronic, they surprise me. I'm embarrassed for the good citizens of Portland.

The good citizens of Portland have received the government they voted for.
Now, I hope "the good citizens of Portland" realize how feckless and incompetent their city government has become and prepare to vote them out when the time comes.
If I was Mayor Wheeler, I would be packing my bags preparing to slink out of town; grow a beard; change my hair color so no one can recognize me for the idiot and useless politician that I am.
 
More "making up laws", I see. It seems to be a trend. Don't you think it's a great debate technique, though? If the law and facts aren't on your side - change them! Oh wait... we've been doing that for 4 years...

I presume that you are referring to the post that I referred to in my response.

PS - Your mailbox is full so I can't PM you.
 
We also live in a place where hired cops permanently blind and murder people with rubber bullets.

Now you're sounding like Jerry Nadler (Antifa is a myth) and Nancy Pelosi.
Where is the evidence for that fallacious statement of yours.?
Why didn't you just say, "Hands Up, Don't Shoot"? You would be more consistent.
 
The good citizens of Portland have received the government they voted for.
Now, I hope "the good citizens of Portland" realize how feckless and incompetent their city government has become and prepare to vote them out when the time comes.
If I was Mayor Wheeler, I would be packing my bags preparing to slink out of town; grow a beard; change my hair color so no one can recognize me for the idiot and useless politician that I am.

The good citizens of -Portland- America have received the government they voted for. Now, -I- many people hope "the good citizens of -Portland- America" realize how feckless and incompetent their -city- national government has become and prepare to vote them out when the time comes. If I was -Mayor Wheeler- Mr. Trump or any other "Republican" (whatever that means) politician, I would be packing my bags; preparing to slink out of town; -grow a beard- [sexist comment deleted]; and change my hair color so no one can recognize me for the idiot and useless politician that -I am- they are.
 
I presume that you are referring to the post that I referred to in my response.

PS - Your mailbox is full so I can't PM you.
Wow, thanks. I'll empty it of all the infractions I've gotten. That should free up space
 
And I'm quite sure that you actually believe that - despite the calls for banning the Democratic Party that some "conservative" posters keep posting and which one elected federal legislator has actually introduced as a potential law.

Now you are conflating banning all assemblies with Gohmert's hyperbolic bill in the House of Representatives? The two are not related. I know you are smart enough to know that, just not honest enough to admit it.
 
The federal government ought to send a bill to the Portland government for the damage to the courthouse and the cost of protecting it from the mob they failed to control -- INCLUDING the cost of the fence.

Which I'm sure is more than $200,000. Hell Trump ought to charge both the mayor and governor for the millions in damage they've allowed to be destroyed. They could easily be sent to federal prison on aiding and abetting charges, especially since the governor refuses to keep her stupid trap shut about the feds.
 
Did you miss the part where he said "If the feds want to erect a fence then they should either obtain the proper permits and approvals from the local government who has jurisdiction over the public space being utilized, or erect the fence on Federal property where the feds have jurisdiction" accidentally, or did you do it intentionally?

In an emergency they don't need special permit to build an emergency barricade from the city. Same way the city doesn't need to get permits when they build any emergency barricades, shelters, or road closures. The circumstances determine the REASONABLE need. Rioters throwing Molotov cocktails outside the property and NO COURT would rule against ANYONE taking reasonable and neccesary steps to prevent further damage or possible loss of life.

The Portland city council just like their libtard constituency are acting like babies. Try going to court and collecting the "fines". Lawyers for the Feds could even and turn around and sue Portland for failing to protect the Federal property, for willfully creating the environment which caused the damage in the first place.

Just wait and see what happens to the Portland City council and the city of Portland. There will be so much more litigation against them by business owners than they will even know where to start to defend from.
 
In an emergency they don't need special permit to build an emergency barricade from the city. Same way the city doesn't need to get permits when they build any emergency barricades, shelters, or road closures. The circumstances determine the REASONABLE need. Rioters throwing Molotov cocktails outside the property and NO COURT would rule against ANYONE taking reasonable and neccesary steps to prevent further damage or possible loss of life.

The Portland city council just like their libtard constituency are acting like babies. Try going to court and collecting the "fines". Lawyers for the Feds could even and turn around and sue Portland for failing to protect the Federal property, for willfully creating the environment which caused the damage in the first place.

Just wait and see what happens to the Portland City council and the city of Portland. There will be so much more litigation against them by business owners than they will even know where to start to defend from.

Amen! The feds have more than enough money to squash that whiney lawsuit. And if I were Trump I'd have the FBI arrest the mayor, the city council, and the governor on aiding and abetting charges.

Rioting should be a federal felony punishable for at least 30 years. It is damn near a terroristic act that greatly disrupts law and order.
 
The good citizens of -Portland- America have received the government they voted for. Now, -I- many people hope "the good citizens of -Portland- America" realize how feckless and incompetent their -city- national government has become and prepare to vote them out when the time comes. If I was -Mayor Wheeler- Mr. Trump or any other "Republican" (whatever that means) politician, I would be packing my bags; preparing to slink out of town; -grow a beard- [sexist comment deleted]; and change my hair color so no one can recognize me for the idiot and useless politician that -I am- they are.

Very clever, TU.
Perhaps you are implying the country will be all better once Trump is out of office along with every Republican you can think of.
That's how millions felt when Obama was elected.
We would be in a post-racial society and Michelle would be happy the first time in her life because racial equality was achieved.
 
THE LAW states that violent rioting is a crime and should be stopped by local and state officials. pretty sure that the federal institutions protecting the federal property can show gross negligence on the part of the local officials in carrying out THE LAW, so now why do they now worry about a fence meant to help enforce THE LAW?
 
THE LAW states that violent rioting is a crime and should be stopped by local and state officials. pretty sure that the federal institutions protecting the federal property can show gross negligence on the part of the local officials in carrying out THE LAW, so now why do they now worry about a fence meant to help enforce THE LAW?

It's just another pathetic diversion attempt because Trump embarrassed them. That's why the dumb governor still won't shut her dumb trap. Libturds love hearing the sound of their own annoying ****ing voices.
 
The federal government ought to send a bill to the Portland government for the damage to the courthouse and the cost of protecting it from the mob they failed to control -- INCLUDING the cost of the fence.

Sorry, won't wash.

It is a well recognized judicial/legal fact that "enforcement" of the law is discretionary and no cause of action lies from either any enforcement or any non-enforcement of the law.
 
Back
Top Bottom