Simple and Honest Qst. on Trump's deportation scheme....

[Mertex]

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 deals with a militia.....has nothing to do with eminent domain. So, just like the Texas Constitution says, adequate compensation and an entity granted the power of eminent domain under law, which I'm sure the Supreme Court would rule in favor of the Feds. You Fail.



Even the Texas Constitution states:

Sec. 17. TAKING, DAMAGING, OR DESTROYING PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE; SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES; CONTROL OF PRIVILEGES AND FRANCHISES. (a) No person's property shall be taken, damaged, or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person, and only if the taking, damage, or destruction is for:

(1) the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property, notwithstanding an incidental use, by:

(A) the State, a political subdivision of the State, or the public at large; or

(B) an entity granted the power of eminent domain under law; or

(2) the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property.
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS

Yeah I miscounted, should have said clause 17. Sue me.

Try this next time instead, Tex? Yeah, I was wrong. That's what real men say.

Fuck off and die fagot, I admitted my mistake.

You also made a mistake in thinking that the Feds can't take property.....you seem to be making a lot of mistakes. You might as well secede....

Supreme Clause:
It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.[2] In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain national acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with national law. In this respect, the Supremacy Clause follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which provided that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress Assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them."[3] A constitutional provision announcing the supremacy of federal law, the Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, at least when that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself.[4] No matter what the federal governmentor the states might wish to do, they have to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. This makes the Supremacy Clause the cornerstone of the whole American political structure.[5][6]

I made no mistake on that, I quoted the Constitution itself, you know, the supreme law of the land. What is it that you failed to understand that the feds can't take land within a State without the consent of the State legislature? The supremacy clause only applies to powers actually granted the feds by the Constitution, not whatever the hell the feds might want to do.

I'm sure you are quoting the Constitution based on the Republican/conservative slanted interpretation....you know the "revised supreme law of the land". If what you claim were to be true, then Donald Trump would not be able to promise to build a wall when we all know that the land where he would have to build it is privately owned, unless he was sure that the "Texas" legislature, being all right-wing and all, would gleefully grant permission. Precedence always trumps in court cases, and the precedence was set a long time ago, and the Feds trump the state's legislatures.

Perhaps if Republican/conservatives weren't so misinformed and didn't pay attention to everything Faux News tells them, they would be smarter and would be able to read the Constitution properly.

Constitutional scholars give an interpretation of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 that is the opposite of what you claim. I tend to believe them before I would believe a conservative whom we all know consistently lie.

That article, also known as the Enclave Clause, grants the federal government the following power:

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, 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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings…”

Scholars I spoke with for this story said it was unclear how Bundy would interpret the Enclave Clause to mean the federal government shouldn’t control public land. Perhaps he interprets the phrase regarding consent of state legislatures to imply that states can decline federal management. But either way, constitutional scholars say Bundy’s interpretation is flat-out wrong. The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Enclave Clause not as curtailing federal control of public land, but protecting it. There is a bargaining process between the feds and states to obtain exclusive jurisdiction over an area of public land.

The Property Clause, outlined in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, states the following:

“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 nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

Although challenged periodically in court, federal application of the Property Clause has been consistently supported in a chain of legal precedent that extends back to 1840.



No, federal land transfers are not in the Constitution

 

[Conservative65]

Besides just answering my question with "I don't give a shit", try to use your objectivity a bit.....

When we debate the issue of basically rounding up 11-15 million people (basically the ENTIRE population of Pennsylvania or Illinois) and shipping them "back".....Where exactly do we mean to ship them back to.....

We know that not all these illegals are NOT Mexicans....So, do we ship them back to various countries in Central and South America? To the countries in the middle and far east? To various countries in Africa?

Do we just put them in boxcars, trucks and buses and drop everybody off in Tijuana?

Ship them back to (fill in the blank). The blank is where they came from and, yes, not all of them are from Mexico. Simple answer to a simple question. In the end, I don't give a fuck where (fill in the blank) is as long as they are gone.

 

[OKTexas]

Yeah I miscounted, should have said clause 17. Sue me.

Try this next time instead, Tex? Yeah, I was wrong. That's what real men say.

Fuck off and die fagot, I admitted my mistake.

You also made a mistake in thinking that the Feds can't take property.....you seem to be making a lot of mistakes. You might as well secede....

Supreme Clause:
It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.[2] In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain national acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with national law. In this respect, the Supremacy Clause follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which provided that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress Assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them."[3] A constitutional provision announcing the supremacy of federal law, the Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, at least when that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself.[4] No matter what the federal governmentor the states might wish to do, they have to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. This makes the Supremacy Clause the cornerstone of the whole American political structure.[5][6]

I made no mistake on that, I quoted the Constitution itself, you know, the supreme law of the land. What is it that you failed to understand that the feds can't take land within a State without the consent of the State legislature? The supremacy clause only applies to powers actually granted the feds by the Constitution, not whatever the hell the feds might want to do.

I'm sure you are quoting the Constitution based on the Republican/conservative slanted interpretation....you know the "revised supreme law of the land". If what you claim were to be true, then Donald Trump would not be able to promise to build a wall when we all know that the land where he would have to build it is privately owned, unless he was sure that the "Texas" legislature, being all right-wing and all, would gleefully grant permission. Precedence always trumps in court cases, and the precedence was set a long time ago, and the Feds trump the state's legislatures.

Perhaps if Republican/conservatives weren't so misinformed and didn't pay attention to everything Faux News tells them, they would be smarter and would be able to read the Constitution properly.

Constitutional scholars give an interpretation of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 that is the opposite of what you claim. I tend to believe them before I would believe a conservative whom we all know consistently lie.

That article, also known as the Enclave Clause, grants the federal government the following power:

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, 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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings…”

Scholars I spoke with for this story said it was unclear how Bundy would interpret the Enclave Clause to mean the federal government shouldn’t control public land. Perhaps he interprets the phrase regarding consent of state legislatures to imply that states can decline federal management. But either way, constitutional scholars say Bundy’s interpretation is flat-out wrong. The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Enclave Clause not as curtailing federal control of public land, but protecting it. There is a bargaining process between the feds and states to obtain exclusive jurisdiction over an area of public land.

The Property Clause, outlined in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, states the following:

“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 nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

Although challenged periodically in court, federal application of the Property Clause has been consistently supported in a chain of legal precedent that extends back to 1840.



No, federal land transfers are not in the Constitution

No, actually what I'm saying is the Constitution only authorizes the feds to own lands necessary to fulfill their enumerated powers. Park systems, national wildlife refuges, national forest and similar types of non essential places are not included in the enumerated powers. This is what Madison said on the subject in Federalist 43, note the last sentence where he says it requires the States concurrence in EVERY case.

The necessity of a like authority over forts, magazines &c. established by the general Government is not less evident. The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend, to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned, in every such establishment.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17: James Madison, Federalist, no. 43, 288--90

Also I said earlier that the courts have been complicit as they most usually are in the feds not following this. When the federal courts expand federal authority, they by extension expand their own. That's why I've said for years that the States need to have an Article 5 convention to redraw the lines around federal power in very definitive terms, leaving nothing open to interpretation by the courts.

 

[easyt65]

Besides just answering my question with "I don't give a shit", try to use your objectivity a bit.....

When we debate the issue of basically rounding up 11-15 million people (basically the ENTIRE population of Pennsylvania or Illinois) and shipping them "back".....Where exactly do we mean to ship them back to.....

We know that not all these illegals are NOT Mexicans....So, do we ship them back to various countries in Central and South America? To the countries in the middle and far east? To various countries in Africa?

Do we just put them in boxcars, trucks and buses and drop everybody off in Tijuana?

Mexico allowed them to come through Mexico to get to us, so I have no problem dumping them all on them. They LET them come in - we didn't.

 

[Mertex]

Besides just answering my question with "I don't give a shit", try to use your objectivity a bit.....

When we debate the issue of basically rounding up 11-15 million people (basically the ENTIRE population of Pennsylvania or Illinois) and shipping them "back".....Where exactly do we mean to ship them back to.....

We know that not all these illegals are NOT Mexicans....So, do we ship them back to various countries in Central and South America? To the countries in the middle and far east? To various countries in Africa?

Do we just put them in boxcars, trucks and buses and drop everybody off in Tijuana?

Mexico allowed them to come through Mexico to get to us, so I have no problem dumping them all on them. They LET them come in - we didn't.

Obviously if they are here, we let them come in. Why would you hold Mexico accountable but not the US? How do you know that just like they evaded the law here they didn't evade the law in Mexico, too? You don't make any sense.

 

[Mertex]

I'm sure you are quoting the Constitution based on the Republican/conservative slanted interpretation....you know the "revised supreme law of the land". If what you claim were to be true, then Donald Trump would not be able to promise to build a wall when we all know that the land where he would have to build it is privately owned, unless he was sure that the "Texas" legislature, being all right-wing and all, would gleefully grant permission. Precedence always trumps in court cases, and the precedence was set a long time ago, and the Feds trump the state's legislatures.

Perhaps if Republican/conservatives weren't so misinformed and didn't pay attention to everything Faux News tells them, they would be smarter and would be able to read the Constitution properly.

Constitutional scholars give an interpretation of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 that is the opposite of what you claim. I tend to believe them before I would believe a conservative whom we all know consistently lie.

That article, also known as the Enclave Clause, grants the federal government the following power:

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, 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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings…”

Scholars I spoke with for this story said it was unclear how Bundy would interpret the Enclave Clause to mean the federal government shouldn’t control public land. Perhaps he interprets the phrase regarding consent of state legislatures to imply that states can decline federal management. But either way, constitutional scholars say Bundy’s interpretation is flat-out wrong. The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Enclave Clause not as curtailing federal control of public land, but protecting it. There is a bargaining process between the feds and states to obtain exclusive jurisdiction over an area of public land.

The Property Clause, outlined in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, states the following:

“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 nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

Although challenged periodically in court, federal application of the Property Clause has been consistently supported in a chain of legal precedent that extends back to 1840.



No, federal land transfers are not in the Constitution

No, actually what I'm saying is the Constitution only authorizes the feds to own lands necessary to fulfill their enumerated powers. Park systems, national wildlife refuges, national forest and similar types of non essential places are not included in the enumerated powers. This is what Madison said on the subject in Federalist 43, note the last sentence where he says it requires the States concurrence in EVERY case.

What we have been discussing here is the so-called wall that Trump wants to build...it isn't a park, a national wildlife refuge nor a national forest, so I don't know what you are defending now.

The necessity of a like authority over forts, magazines &c. established by the general Government is not less evident. The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend, to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned, in every such establishment.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17: James Madison, Federalist, no. 43, 288--90

Also I said earlier that the courts have been complicit as they most usually are in the feds not following this. When the federal courts expand federal authority, they by extension expand their own. That's why I've said for years that the States need to have an Article 5 convention to redraw the lines around federal power in very definitive terms, leaving nothing open to interpretation by the courts.

Well whether or not they have a convention in the future or not, the fact stands that the Federal Government, according to the information I posted can take land as long as they compensate the owner and the state can challenge the Federal Government, but like the article said, they will lose.

 

[oreo]

Besides just answering my question with "I don't give a shit", try to use your objectivity a bit.....

When we debate the issue of basically rounding up 11-15 million people (basically the ENTIRE population of Pennsylvania or Illinois) and shipping them "back".....Where exactly do we mean to ship them back to.....

We know that not all these illegals are NOT Mexicans....So, do we ship them back to various countries in Central and South America? To the countries in the middle and far east? To various countries in Africa?

Do we just put them in boxcars, trucks and buses and drop everybody off in Tijuana?

You couldn't even find 11 million in this country--not unless they plan on sending out Gestapo type squads, illegal search and entry, etc. etc. etc.

The point is it was all BULLSHIT anyway--even Rush Limbaugh got caught admitting that it was all bullshit--when a caller snuck on his program and called him out on a few things.
Caller to Limbaugh Show Exposes That Rush Knows He Blew It with Donald Trump

Here's the audio of it.
LISTEN: Caller takes Rush TO TASK over diminishing Trump flip-flop on immigration

 

[OKTexas]

I'm sure you are quoting the Constitution based on the Republican/conservative slanted interpretation....you know the "revised supreme law of the land". If what you claim were to be true, then Donald Trump would not be able to promise to build a wall when we all know that the land where he would have to build it is privately owned, unless he was sure that the "Texas" legislature, being all right-wing and all, would gleefully grant permission. Precedence always trumps in court cases, and the precedence was set a long time ago, and the Feds trump the state's legislatures.

Perhaps if Republican/conservatives weren't so misinformed and didn't pay attention to everything Faux News tells them, they would be smarter and would be able to read the Constitution properly.

Constitutional scholars give an interpretation of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 that is the opposite of what you claim. I tend to believe them before I would believe a conservative whom we all know consistently lie.

That article, also known as the Enclave Clause, grants the federal government the following power:

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, 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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings…”

Scholars I spoke with for this story said it was unclear how Bundy would interpret the Enclave Clause to mean the federal government shouldn’t control public land. Perhaps he interprets the phrase regarding consent of state legislatures to imply that states can decline federal management. But either way, constitutional scholars say Bundy’s interpretation is flat-out wrong. The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Enclave Clause not as curtailing federal control of public land, but protecting it. There is a bargaining process between the feds and states to obtain exclusive jurisdiction over an area of public land.

The Property Clause, outlined in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, states the following:

“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 nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

Although challenged periodically in court, federal application of the Property Clause has been consistently supported in a chain of legal precedent that extends back to 1840.



No, federal land transfers are not in the Constitution

No, actually what I'm saying is the Constitution only authorizes the feds to own lands necessary to fulfill their enumerated powers. Park systems, national wildlife refuges, national forest and similar types of non essential places are not included in the enumerated powers. This is what Madison said on the subject in Federalist 43, note the last sentence where he says it requires the States concurrence in EVERY case.

What we have been discussing here is the so-called wall that Trump wants to build...it isn't a park, a national wildlife refuge nor a national forest, so I don't know what you are defending now.

The necessity of a like authority over forts, magazines &c. established by the general Government is not less evident. The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend, to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned, in every such establishment.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17: James Madison, Federalist, no. 43, 288--90

Also I said earlier that the courts have been complicit as they most usually are in the feds not following this. When the federal courts expand federal authority, they by extension expand their own. That's why I've said for years that the States need to have an Article 5 convention to redraw the lines around federal power in very definitive terms, leaving nothing open to interpretation by the courts.

Well whether or not they have a convention in the future or not, the fact stands that the Federal Government, according to the information I posted can take land as long as they compensate the owner and the state can challenge the Federal Government, but like the article said, they will lose.

Your right, it's a Constitutional expense related to the common defense. That said, the feds can't just walk in and take the land without purchasing the land with the concurrence of the State. This all goes back to my original statement that the feds have no power of eminent domain within a State. They must negotiate the purchase with the State and the State is normally the one to use their eminent domain powers to gain access to the land. You're the one that brought up Bundy and I briefly expressed my opinion on the feds having land not necessary to preforming proper and constitutional federal functions. I believe Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 supports that opinion.

 

[OKTexas]

Besides just answering my question with "I don't give a shit", try to use your objectivity a bit.....

When we debate the issue of basically rounding up 11-15 million people (basically the ENTIRE population of Pennsylvania or Illinois) and shipping them "back".....Where exactly do we mean to ship them back to.....

We know that not all these illegals are NOT Mexicans....So, do we ship them back to various countries in Central and South America? To the countries in the middle and far east? To various countries in Africa?

Do we just put them in boxcars, trucks and buses and drop everybody off in Tijuana?

You couldn't even find 11 million in this country--not unless they plan on sending out Gestapo type squads, illegal search and entry, etc. etc. etc.

The point is it was all BULLSHIT anyway--even Rush Limbaugh got caught admitting that it was all bullshit--when a caller snuck on his program and called him out on a few things.
Caller to Limbaugh Show Exposes That Rush Knows He Blew It with Donald Trump

Here's the audio of it.
LISTEN: Caller takes Rush TO TASK over diminishing Trump flip-flop on immigration

You forget, your dear leader has already got more than half to register with the government, we know who they are, where they are and have their bio identifiers. Easy peasy.

 

[BettyYeti]

Papers please? Fascists love their police states.

 

[Mertex]

I'm sure you are quoting the Constitution based on the Republican/conservative slanted interpretation....you know the "revised supreme law of the land". If what you claim were to be true, then Donald Trump would not be able to promise to build a wall when we all know that the land where he would have to build it is privately owned, unless he was sure that the "Texas" legislature, being all right-wing and all, would gleefully grant permission. Precedence always trumps in court cases, and the precedence was set a long time ago, and the Feds trump the state's legislatures.

Perhaps if Republican/conservatives weren't so misinformed and didn't pay attention to everything Faux News tells them, they would be smarter and would be able to read the Constitution properly.

Constitutional scholars give an interpretation of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 that is the opposite of what you claim. I tend to believe them before I would believe a conservative whom we all know consistently lie.

That article, also known as the Enclave Clause, grants the federal government the following power:

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, 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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings…”

Scholars I spoke with for this story said it was unclear how Bundy would interpret the Enclave Clause to mean the federal government shouldn’t control public land. Perhaps he interprets the phrase regarding consent of state legislatures to imply that states can decline federal management. But either way, constitutional scholars say Bundy’s interpretation is flat-out wrong. The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Enclave Clause not as curtailing federal control of public land, but protecting it. There is a bargaining process between the feds and states to obtain exclusive jurisdiction over an area of public land.

The Property Clause, outlined in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, states the following:

“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 nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

Although challenged periodically in court, federal application of the Property Clause has been consistently supported in a chain of legal precedent that extends back to 1840.



No, federal land transfers are not in the Constitution

No, actually what I'm saying is the Constitution only authorizes the feds to own lands necessary to fulfill their enumerated powers. Park systems, national wildlife refuges, national forest and similar types of non essential places are not included in the enumerated powers. This is what Madison said on the subject in Federalist 43, note the last sentence where he says it requires the States concurrence in EVERY case.

What we have been discussing here is the so-called wall that Trump wants to build...it isn't a park, a national wildlife refuge nor a national forest, so I don't know what you are defending now.

The necessity of a like authority over forts, magazines &c. established by the general Government is not less evident. The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend, to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned, in every such establishment.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17: James Madison, Federalist, no. 43, 288--90

Also I said earlier that the courts have been complicit as they most usually are in the feds not following this. When the federal courts expand federal authority, they by extension expand their own. That's why I've said for years that the States need to have an Article 5 convention to redraw the lines around federal power in very definitive terms, leaving nothing open to interpretation by the courts.

Well whether or not they have a convention in the future or not, the fact stands that the Federal Government, according to the information I posted can take land as long as they compensate the owner and the state can challenge the Federal Government, but like the article said, they will lose.

Your right, it's a Constitutional expense related to the common defense. That said, the feds can't just walk in and take the land without purchasing the land with the concurrence of the State. This all goes back to my original statement that the feds have no power of eminent domain within a State. They must negotiate the purchase with the State and the State is normally the one to use their eminent domain powers to gain access to the land. You're the one that brought up Bundy and I briefly expressed my opinion on the feds having land not necessary to preforming proper and constitutional federal functions. I believe Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 supports that opinion.

Actually, it does boils down to the fact that the feds can just walk in and take the land without the concurrence of the State. Yes, they will follow the legislative procedure and compensate the owner, because that is in the Constitution, but if the state doesn't concur and challenges the government in court, the US courts will rule in favor of the government.

This prerogative of the National Government can neither be enlarged nor diminished by a State. 166 Whenever lands in a State are needed for a public purpose, Congress may authorize that they be taken, either by proceedings in the courts of the State, with its consent, or by proceedings in the courts of the United States, with or without any consent or concurrent act of the State.
Annotation 14 - Fifth Amendment - FindLaw

 

[Mertex]

Papers please? Fascists love their police states.

That is until they start stopping them. But, oh, yes, they don't like too much government....what a joke.

 

[OKTexas]

I'm sure you are quoting the Constitution based on the Republican/conservative slanted interpretation....you know the "revised supreme law of the land". If what you claim were to be true, then Donald Trump would not be able to promise to build a wall when we all know that the land where he would have to build it is privately owned, unless he was sure that the "Texas" legislature, being all right-wing and all, would gleefully grant permission. Precedence always trumps in court cases, and the precedence was set a long time ago, and the Feds trump the state's legislatures.

Perhaps if Republican/conservatives weren't so misinformed and didn't pay attention to everything Faux News tells them, they would be smarter and would be able to read the Constitution properly.

Constitutional scholars give an interpretation of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 that is the opposite of what you claim. I tend to believe them before I would believe a conservative whom we all know consistently lie.

That article, also known as the Enclave Clause, grants the federal government the following power:

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, 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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings…”

Scholars I spoke with for this story said it was unclear how Bundy would interpret the Enclave Clause to mean the federal government shouldn’t control public land. Perhaps he interprets the phrase regarding consent of state legislatures to imply that states can decline federal management. But either way, constitutional scholars say Bundy’s interpretation is flat-out wrong. The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Enclave Clause not as curtailing federal control of public land, but protecting it. There is a bargaining process between the feds and states to obtain exclusive jurisdiction over an area of public land.

The Property Clause, outlined in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, states the following:

“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 nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

Although challenged periodically in court, federal application of the Property Clause has been consistently supported in a chain of legal precedent that extends back to 1840.



No, federal land transfers are not in the Constitution

No, actually what I'm saying is the Constitution only authorizes the feds to own lands necessary to fulfill their enumerated powers. Park systems, national wildlife refuges, national forest and similar types of non essential places are not included in the enumerated powers. This is what Madison said on the subject in Federalist 43, note the last sentence where he says it requires the States concurrence in EVERY case.

What we have been discussing here is the so-called wall that Trump wants to build...it isn't a park, a national wildlife refuge nor a national forest, so I don't know what you are defending now.

The necessity of a like authority over forts, magazines &c. established by the general Government is not less evident. The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend, to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned, in every such establishment.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17: James Madison, Federalist, no. 43, 288--90

Also I said earlier that the courts have been complicit as they most usually are in the feds not following this. When the federal courts expand federal authority, they by extension expand their own. That's why I've said for years that the States need to have an Article 5 convention to redraw the lines around federal power in very definitive terms, leaving nothing open to interpretation by the courts.

Well whether or not they have a convention in the future or not, the fact stands that the Federal Government, according to the information I posted can take land as long as they compensate the owner and the state can challenge the Federal Government, but like the article said, they will lose.

Your right, it's a Constitutional expense related to the common defense. That said, the feds can't just walk in and take the land without purchasing the land with the concurrence of the State. This all goes back to my original statement that the feds have no power of eminent domain within a State. They must negotiate the purchase with the State and the State is normally the one to use their eminent domain powers to gain access to the land. You're the one that brought up Bundy and I briefly expressed my opinion on the feds having land not necessary to preforming proper and constitutional federal functions. I believe Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 supports that opinion.

Actually, it does boils down to the fact that the feds can just walk in and take the land without the concurrence of the State. Yes, they will follow the legislative procedure and compensate the owner, because that is in the Constitution, but if the state doesn't concur and challenges the government in court, the US courts will rule in favor of the government.

This prerogative of the National Government can neither be enlarged nor diminished by a State. 166 Whenever lands in a State are needed for a public purpose, Congress may authorize that they be taken, either by proceedings in the courts of the State, with its consent, or by proceedings in the courts of the United States, with or without any consent or concurrent act of the State.
Annotation 14 - Fifth Amendment - FindLaw

The fifth amendment deals with criminal procedures, I guess you're one of the lemmings that think you're too stupid to read simple English for yourself. What did you fail to understand that the freaking courts have been complicit in the country moving to a post constitutional government. The States are the only ones with the power to change it now.

 

[OKTexas]

Besides just answering my question with "I don't give a shit", try to use your objectivity a bit.....

When we debate the issue of basically rounding up 11-15 million people (basically the ENTIRE population of Pennsylvania or Illinois) and shipping them "back".....Where exactly do we mean to ship them back to.....

We know that not all these illegals are NOT Mexicans....So, do we ship them back to various countries in Central and South America? To the countries in the middle and far east? To various countries in Africa?

Do we just put them in boxcars, trucks and buses and drop everybody off in Tijuana?

Mexico allowed them to come through Mexico to get to us, so I have no problem dumping them all on them. They LET them come in - we didn't.

More than 40% didn't come through Mexico, they came in on visas and never left when they were supposed to.

 

[Mertex]

I'm sure you are quoting the Constitution based on the Republican/conservative slanted interpretation....you know the "revised supreme law of the land". If what you claim were to be true, then Donald Trump would not be able to promise to build a wall when we all know that the land where he would have to build it is privately owned, unless he was sure that the "Texas" legislature, being all right-wing and all, would gleefully grant permission. Precedence always trumps in court cases, and the precedence was set a long time ago, and the Feds trump the state's legislatures.

Perhaps if Republican/conservatives weren't so misinformed and didn't pay attention to everything Faux News tells them, they would be smarter and would be able to read the Constitution properly.

Constitutional scholars give an interpretation of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 that is the opposite of what you claim. I tend to believe them before I would believe a conservative whom we all know consistently lie.

That article, also known as the Enclave Clause, grants the federal government the following power:

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, 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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings…”

Scholars I spoke with for this story said it was unclear how Bundy would interpret the Enclave Clause to mean the federal government shouldn’t control public land. Perhaps he interprets the phrase regarding consent of state legislatures to imply that states can decline federal management. But either way, constitutional scholars say Bundy’s interpretation is flat-out wrong. The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Enclave Clause not as curtailing federal control of public land, but protecting it. There is a bargaining process between the feds and states to obtain exclusive jurisdiction over an area of public land.

The Property Clause, outlined in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, states the following:

“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 nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

Although challenged periodically in court, federal application of the Property Clause has been consistently supported in a chain of legal precedent that extends back to 1840.



No, federal land transfers are not in the Constitution

No, actually what I'm saying is the Constitution only authorizes the feds to own lands necessary to fulfill their enumerated powers. Park systems, national wildlife refuges, national forest and similar types of non essential places are not included in the enumerated powers. This is what Madison said on the subject in Federalist 43, note the last sentence where he says it requires the States concurrence in EVERY case.

What we have been discussing here is the so-called wall that Trump wants to build...it isn't a park, a national wildlife refuge nor a national forest, so I don't know what you are defending now.

The necessity of a like authority over forts, magazines &c. established by the general Government is not less evident. The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend, to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned, in every such establishment.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17: James Madison, Federalist, no. 43, 288--90

Also I said earlier that the courts have been complicit as they most usually are in the feds not following this. When the federal courts expand federal authority, they by extension expand their own. That's why I've said for years that the States need to have an Article 5 convention to redraw the lines around federal power in very definitive terms, leaving nothing open to interpretation by the courts.

Well whether or not they have a convention in the future or not, the fact stands that the Federal Government, according to the information I posted can take land as long as they compensate the owner and the state can challenge the Federal Government, but like the article said, they will lose.

Your right, it's a Constitutional expense related to the common defense. That said, the feds can't just walk in and take the land without purchasing the land with the concurrence of the State. This all goes back to my original statement that the feds have no power of eminent domain within a State. They must negotiate the purchase with the State and the State is normally the one to use their eminent domain powers to gain access to the land. You're the one that brought up Bundy and I briefly expressed my opinion on the feds having land not necessary to preforming proper and constitutional federal functions. I believe Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 supports that opinion.

Actually, it does boils down to the fact that the feds can just walk in and take the land without the concurrence of the State. Yes, they will follow the legislative procedure and compensate the owner, because that is in the Constitution, but if the state doesn't concur and challenges the government in court, the US courts will rule in favor of the government.

This prerogative of the National Government can neither be enlarged nor diminished by a State. 166 Whenever lands in a State are needed for a public purpose, Congress may authorize that they be taken, either by proceedings in the courts of the State, with its consent, or by proceedings in the courts of the United States, with or without any consent or concurrent act of the State.
Annotation 14 - Fifth Amendment - FindLaw

The fifth amendment deals with criminal procedures, I guess you're one of the lemmings that think you're too stupid to read simple English for yourself. What did you fail to understand that the freaking courts have been complicit in the country moving to a post constitutional government. The States are the only ones with the power to change it now.

You seem to keep deflecting. You were so strong in stating that the Feds can't just walk in and take the land without purchasing the land with the concurrence of the State....yet I have shown you that the Feds can take the land with or without any consent or concurrent act of the state...so now you claim that the "freaking courts have been complicit in the country moving to a post constitutional government" - in other words, you concede that I was right without actually coming right out and admitting it. Tsk, tsk.

It appears now that you have been wrong on various issues...if I were you I would quit digging.

 

[OKTexas]

No, actually what I'm saying is the Constitution only authorizes the feds to own lands necessary to fulfill their enumerated powers. Park systems, national wildlife refuges, national forest and similar types of non essential places are not included in the enumerated powers. This is what Madison said on the subject in Federalist 43, note the last sentence where he says it requires the States concurrence in EVERY case.

What we have been discussing here is the so-called wall that Trump wants to build...it isn't a park, a national wildlife refuge nor a national forest, so I don't know what you are defending now.

The necessity of a like authority over forts, magazines &c. established by the general Government is not less evident. The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend, to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned, in every such establishment.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17: James Madison, Federalist, no. 43, 288--90

Also I said earlier that the courts have been complicit as they most usually are in the feds not following this. When the federal courts expand federal authority, they by extension expand their own. That's why I've said for years that the States need to have an Article 5 convention to redraw the lines around federal power in very definitive terms, leaving nothing open to interpretation by the courts.

Well whether or not they have a convention in the future or not, the fact stands that the Federal Government, according to the information I posted can take land as long as they compensate the owner and the state can challenge the Federal Government, but like the article said, they will lose.

Your right, it's a Constitutional expense related to the common defense. That said, the feds can't just walk in and take the land without purchasing the land with the concurrence of the State. This all goes back to my original statement that the feds have no power of eminent domain within a State. They must negotiate the purchase with the State and the State is normally the one to use their eminent domain powers to gain access to the land. You're the one that brought up Bundy and I briefly expressed my opinion on the feds having land not necessary to preforming proper and constitutional federal functions. I believe Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 supports that opinion.

Actually, it does boils down to the fact that the feds can just walk in and take the land without the concurrence of the State. Yes, they will follow the legislative procedure and compensate the owner, because that is in the Constitution, but if the state doesn't concur and challenges the government in court, the US courts will rule in favor of the government.

This prerogative of the National Government can neither be enlarged nor diminished by a State. 166 Whenever lands in a State are needed for a public purpose, Congress may authorize that they be taken, either by proceedings in the courts of the State, with its consent, or by proceedings in the courts of the United States, with or without any consent or concurrent act of the State.
Annotation 14 - Fifth Amendment - FindLaw

The fifth amendment deals with criminal procedures, I guess you're one of the lemmings that think you're too stupid to read simple English for yourself. What did you fail to understand that the freaking courts have been complicit in the country moving to a post constitutional government. The States are the only ones with the power to change it now.

You seem to keep deflecting. You were so strong in stating that the Feds can't just walk in and take the land without purchasing the land with the concurrence of the State....yet I have shown you that the Feds can take the land with or without any consent or concurrent act of the state...so now you claim that the "freaking courts have been complicit in the country moving to a post constitutional government" - in other words, you concede that I was right without actually coming right out and admitting it. Tsk, tsk.

It appears now that you have been wrong on various issues...if I were you I would quit digging.

So tell me child, who allows the feds taking of land without the consent of the States and for clearly unconstitutional purposes, when the Constitution requires otherwise? Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 clearly defines how the feds may obtain land within a State and for what purposes that land may be used. I'm sorry you have no ability to follow simple logic or read the simple English contained in the Constitution. As I've said time and again the courts have done more to destroy the intended safeguards contained in the Constitution than any branch of government, and you regressives love it.

 

[Calypso Jones]

Besides....Trump's ideas would turn this country into a police state. How's that for the "freedom" you all seem to value so much?

and he never did that. This country was safer and the borders were more secure...and look at us now. A freakin' mess. Criminals, terrorists. NOW we absolutely need mass deportation and the arrest of violent pro hamas protestors For Americans' safety.