Who owns the west?

[JakeStarkey]

OK did exactly, as I said he would above, come back with the Articles of Confederation Congress.

One, the land was ceded to the US by Great Britain.

Two, that it was the Congress who created the way for settlers to map, organize, and gain titles to land.

So the the Articles of Confederation Congress also adopted and approved the Constitution in 1787.

Thus the Congresses before and after the Constitution exercised their proper legislative function. Nothing in the Constitution prevents such functions. (As a side bar: that also applies to Presidential actions create by legislative action, such as the Antiquities Act of 1906. Federal courts will prevent Trump and Congress from amending or eliminating Bears Ears or other monuments.)

OK simply does not know much US history and understands less.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The topic is federal land use, what's wrong, you can't find an authorization for federal parks?

SPECIFICALLY for Federal Parks, there's the one I gave you way back on page #6 I believe it was! You should have been reading instead of ignoring it. I cited it multiple times throughout our exchange and the most recent being my post #224 on page 23...here it is again;

The Hell it doesn't your Ignorance! Article IV, § 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;"

Federal parks are Federal property and the Constitution gives clear power to and in the disposition of those lands including the lands' use! That is clearly written as Constitutional authority for Federal parks as even a 10 year old child could discern. You made this challenge and commitment;

Fine, just show me the constitutional justification for that kind of extortion or where it authorizes parks and national forest ect. and I'll be quiet.

EDIT: OOPS...I missed this one;

I'll tell you that same as I told the other idiot, show me where the federal government is constitutionally authorized to own and operate national parks, national forest, bird sanctuaries and the like and I won't say another word.

Now if your word is any good, admit you were wrong and STFU. I'll bet you come up with an excuse, break your word and keep right on with your ignorance and stupid, stupid antifederalist States Rights dogma/propaganda!

And you have yet to meet the challenge, sure the government has the right to dispose of properties they constitutionally own, like old military installations or post offices and office buildings. You still haven't shown what gives them the authority to own and operate parks or other lands held for purposes not specified in the Constitution, and you won't because it doesn't exist.

.

Not keeping your word, eh? Figures with a lying piece of shit like yourself. Pretending a portion of the Constitution doesn't exist is just another piece of your game plan to never admit your mistakes, errors and lies!

The Hell it doesn't your Ignorance! Article IV, § 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;"

Pretending that the above clause from the Constitution doesn't apply or doesn't exist, displays the depth of your bankrupt character. Federal parks are Federal property and the Constitution gives clear power to and in the disposition of those lands including the lands' use! Plain and simple, and your denial of that Constitutional authority is just another example of your corrupted integrity! What a sad dishonest fucking piece of shit your showing the world, Tex!

 

[OKTexas]

The topic is federal land use, what's wrong, you can't find an authorization for federal parks?

SPECIFICALLY for Federal Parks, there's the one I gave you way back on page #6 I believe it was! You should have been reading instead of ignoring it. I cited it multiple times throughout our exchange and the most recent being my post #224 on page 23...here it is again;

The Hell it doesn't your Ignorance! Article IV, § 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;"

Federal parks are Federal property and the Constitution gives clear power to and in the disposition of those lands including the lands' use! That is clearly written as Constitutional authority for Federal parks as even a 10 year old child could discern. You made this challenge and commitment;

Fine, just show me the constitutional justification for that kind of extortion or where it authorizes parks and national forest ect. and I'll be quiet.

EDIT: OOPS...I missed this one;

I'll tell you that same as I told the other idiot, show me where the federal government is constitutionally authorized to own and operate national parks, national forest, bird sanctuaries and the like and I won't say another word.

Now if your word is any good, admit you were wrong and STFU. I'll bet you come up with an excuse, break your word and keep right on with your ignorance and stupid, stupid antifederalist States Rights dogma/propaganda!

And you have yet to meet the challenge, sure the government has the right to dispose of properties they constitutionally own, like old military installations or post offices and office buildings. You still haven't shown what gives them the authority to own and operate parks or other lands held for purposes not specified in the Constitution, and you won't because it doesn't exist.

.

Not keeping your word, eh? Figures with a lying piece of shit like yourself. Pretending a portion of the Constitution doesn't exist is just another piece of your game plan to never admit your mistakes, errors and lies!

The Hell it doesn't your Ignorance! Article IV, § 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;"

Pretending that the above clause from the Constitution doesn't apply or doesn't exist, displays the depth of your bankrupt character. Federal parks are Federal property and the Constitution gives clear power to and in the disposition of those lands including the lands' use! Plain and simple, and your denial of that Constitutional authority is just another example of your corrupted integrity! What a sad dishonest fucking piece of shit your showing the world, Tex!

And pretending it includes lands within States for purposes which are not constitutionally authorized is dishonest. Congress has no authority to purchase land, hold land or spend money to support theses activities. And you can't prove they do within the text of the Constitution, if they were in would be contained in Article 1, Section 8. Guess what hero, it ain't there. In fact Clause 17 describes the proper use of land within a State, parks and national forest aren't included in the list.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your cognitive bias pushes your losing argument, OK.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The topic is federal land use, what's wrong, you can't find an authorization for federal parks?

SPECIFICALLY for Federal Parks, there's the one I gave you way back on page #6 I believe it was! You should have been reading instead of ignoring it. I cited it multiple times throughout our exchange and the most recent being my post #224 on page 23...here it is again;

The Hell it doesn't your Ignorance! Article IV, § 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;"

Federal parks are Federal property and the Constitution gives clear power to and in the disposition of those lands including the lands' use! That is clearly written as Constitutional authority for Federal parks as even a 10 year old child could discern. You made this challenge and commitment;

Fine, just show me the constitutional justification for that kind of extortion or where it authorizes parks and national forest ect. and I'll be quiet.

EDIT: OOPS...I missed this one;

I'll tell you that same as I told the other idiot, show me where the federal government is constitutionally authorized to own and operate national parks, national forest, bird sanctuaries and the like and I won't say another word.

Now if your word is any good, admit you were wrong and STFU. I'll bet you come up with an excuse, break your word and keep right on with your ignorance and stupid, stupid antifederalist States Rights dogma/propaganda!

And you have yet to meet the challenge, sure the government has the right to dispose of properties they constitutionally own, like old military installations or post offices and office buildings. You still haven't shown what gives them the authority to own and operate parks or other lands held for purposes not specified in the Constitution, and you won't because it doesn't exist.

.

Not keeping your word, eh? Figures with a lying piece of shit like yourself. Pretending a portion of the Constitution doesn't exist is just another piece of your game plan to never admit your mistakes, errors and lies!

The Hell it doesn't your Ignorance! Article IV, § 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;"

Pretending that the above clause from the Constitution doesn't apply or doesn't exist, displays the depth of your bankrupt character. Federal parks are Federal property and the Constitution gives clear power to and in the disposition of those lands including the lands' use! Plain and simple, and your denial of that Constitutional authority is just another example of your corrupted integrity! What a sad dishonest fucking piece of shit your showing the world, Tex!

And pretending it includes lands within States for purposes which are not constitutionally authorized is dishonest. Congress has no authority to purchase land, hold land or spend money to support theses activities. And you can't prove they do within the text of the Constitution, if they were in would be contained in Article 1, Section 8. Guess what hero, it ain't there. In fact Clause 17 describes the proper use of land within a State, parks and national forest aren't included in the list.

.

The Hell it doesn't your Ignorance! Article IV, § 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;"

'Pretending that the above clause from the Constitution doesn't apply or doesn't exist, displays the depth of your bankrupt character. Federal parks are Federal property and the Constitution gives clear power to and in the disposition of those lands including the lands' use! Plain and simple, and your denial of that Constitutional authority is just another example of your corrupted integrity! What a sad dishonest fucking piece of shit your showing the world, Tex!'

So explain YOUR interpretation of Article IV, § 3, Clause 2 cited above if it doesn't concern "...territory or other property belonging to the United States;" like it says, "Mr. Know-it-all communing with all the dead framers of the Constitution"! I'm really anxious to be entertained by this obfuscation, dance, dodge and dissembling load of shit! Come on, Tex, tell us all what it really means!

 

[OKTexas]

The topic is federal land use, what's wrong, you can't find an authorization for federal parks?

SPECIFICALLY for Federal Parks, there's the one I gave you way back on page #6 I believe it was! You should have been reading instead of ignoring it. I cited it multiple times throughout our exchange and the most recent being my post #224 on page 23...here it is again;

The Hell it doesn't your Ignorance! Article IV, § 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;"

Federal parks are Federal property and the Constitution gives clear power to and in the disposition of those lands including the lands' use! That is clearly written as Constitutional authority for Federal parks as even a 10 year old child could discern. You made this challenge and commitment;

Fine, just show me the constitutional justification for that kind of extortion or where it authorizes parks and national forest ect. and I'll be quiet.

EDIT: OOPS...I missed this one;

I'll tell you that same as I told the other idiot, show me where the federal government is constitutionally authorized to own and operate national parks, national forest, bird sanctuaries and the like and I won't say another word.

Now if your word is any good, admit you were wrong and STFU. I'll bet you come up with an excuse, break your word and keep right on with your ignorance and stupid, stupid antifederalist States Rights dogma/propaganda!

And you have yet to meet the challenge, sure the government has the right to dispose of properties they constitutionally own, like old military installations or post offices and office buildings. You still haven't shown what gives them the authority to own and operate parks or other lands held for purposes not specified in the Constitution, and you won't because it doesn't exist.

.

Not keeping your word, eh? Figures with a lying piece of shit like yourself. Pretending a portion of the Constitution doesn't exist is just another piece of your game plan to never admit your mistakes, errors and lies!

The Hell it doesn't your Ignorance! Article IV, § 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;"

Pretending that the above clause from the Constitution doesn't apply or doesn't exist, displays the depth of your bankrupt character. Federal parks are Federal property and the Constitution gives clear power to and in the disposition of those lands including the lands' use! Plain and simple, and your denial of that Constitutional authority is just another example of your corrupted integrity! What a sad dishonest fucking piece of shit your showing the world, Tex!

And pretending it includes lands within States for purposes which are not constitutionally authorized is dishonest. Congress has no authority to purchase land, hold land or spend money to support theses activities. And you can't prove they do within the text of the Constitution, if they were in would be contained in Article 1, Section 8. Guess what hero, it ain't there. In fact Clause 17 describes the proper use of land within a State, parks and national forest aren't included in the list.

.

The Hell it doesn't your Ignorance! Article IV, § 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;"

'Pretending that the above clause from the Constitution doesn't apply or doesn't exist, displays the depth of your bankrupt character. Federal parks are Federal property and the Constitution gives clear power to and in the disposition of those lands including the lands' use! Plain and simple, and your denial of that Constitutional authority is just another example of your corrupted integrity! What a sad dishonest fucking piece of shit your showing the world, Tex!'

So explain YOUR interpretation of Article IV, § 3, Clause 2 cited above if it doesn't concern "...territory or other property belonging to the United States;" like it says, "Mr. Know-it-all communing with all the dead framers of the Constitution"! I'm really anxious to be entertained by this obfuscation, dance, dodge and dissembling load of shit! Come on, Tex, tell us all what it really means!

I guess the word "needful" is alien to you. Where would parks be a needful application in the scope of federal powers? BTW if you can't debate like an adult, don't bother the answer. You childish condescension is getting old.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SPECIFICALLY for Federal Parks, there's the one I gave you way back on page #6 I believe it was! You should have been reading instead of ignoring it. I cited it multiple times throughout our exchange and the most recent being my post #224 on page 23...here it is again;
Federal parks are Federal property and the Constitution gives clear power to and in the disposition of those lands including the lands' use! That is clearly written as Constitutional authority for Federal parks as even a 10 year old child could discern. You made this challenge and commitment;
EDIT: OOPS...I missed this one;
Now if your word is any good, admit you were wrong and STFU. I'll bet you come up with an excuse, break your word and keep right on with your ignorance and stupid, stupid antifederalist States Rights dogma/propaganda!

And you have yet to meet the challenge, sure the government has the right to dispose of properties they constitutionally own, like old military installations or post offices and office buildings. You still haven't shown what gives them the authority to own and operate parks or other lands held for purposes not specified in the Constitution, and you won't because it doesn't exist.
.

Not keeping your word, eh? Figures with a lying piece of shit like yourself. Pretending a portion of the Constitution doesn't exist is just another piece of your game plan to never admit your mistakes, errors and lies!

The Hell it doesn't your Ignorance! Article IV, § 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;"

Pretending that the above clause from the Constitution doesn't apply or doesn't exist, displays the depth of your bankrupt character. Federal parks are Federal property and the Constitution gives clear power to and in the disposition of those lands including the lands' use! Plain and simple, and your denial of that Constitutional authority is just another example of your corrupted integrity! What a sad dishonest fucking piece of shit your showing the world, Tex!

And pretending it includes lands within States for purposes which are not constitutionally authorized is dishonest. Congress has no authority to purchase land, hold land or spend money to support theses activities. And you can't prove they do within the text of the Constitution, if they were in would be contained in Article 1, Section 8. Guess what hero, it ain't there. In fact Clause 17 describes the proper use of land within a State, parks and national forest aren't included in the list.

.

The Hell it doesn't your Ignorance! Article IV, § 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;"

'Pretending that the above clause from the Constitution doesn't apply or doesn't exist, displays the depth of your bankrupt character. Federal parks are Federal property and the Constitution gives clear power to and in the disposition of those lands including the lands' use! Plain and simple, and your denial of that Constitutional authority is just another example of your corrupted integrity! What a sad dishonest fucking piece of shit your showing the world, Tex!'

So explain YOUR interpretation of Article IV, § 3, Clause 2 cited above if it doesn't concern "...territory or other property belonging to the United States;" like it says, "Mr. Know-it-all communing with all the dead framers of the Constitution"! I'm really anxious to be entertained by this obfuscation, dance, dodge and dissembling load of shit! Come on, Tex, tell us all what it really means!

I guess the word "needful" is alien to you. Where would parks be a needful application in the scope of federal powers? BTW if you can't debate like an adult, don't bother the answer. You childish condescension is getting old..

"Needful" is determined by the legislation crafted and its review by the judiciary.

 

[OKTexas]

And you have yet to meet the challenge, sure the government has the right to dispose of properties they constitutionally own, like old military installations or post offices and office buildings. You still haven't shown what gives them the authority to own and operate parks or other lands held for purposes not specified in the Constitution, and you won't because it doesn't exist.
.

Not keeping your word, eh? Figures with a lying piece of shit like yourself. Pretending a portion of the Constitution doesn't exist is just another piece of your game plan to never admit your mistakes, errors and lies!

The Hell it doesn't your Ignorance! Article IV, § 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;"

Pretending that the above clause from the Constitution doesn't apply or doesn't exist, displays the depth of your bankrupt character. Federal parks are Federal property and the Constitution gives clear power to and in the disposition of those lands including the lands' use! Plain and simple, and your denial of that Constitutional authority is just another example of your corrupted integrity! What a sad dishonest fucking piece of shit your showing the world, Tex!

And pretending it includes lands within States for purposes which are not constitutionally authorized is dishonest. Congress has no authority to purchase land, hold land or spend money to support theses activities. And you can't prove they do within the text of the Constitution, if they were in would be contained in Article 1, Section 8. Guess what hero, it ain't there. In fact Clause 17 describes the proper use of land within a State, parks and national forest aren't included in the list.

.

The Hell it doesn't your Ignorance! Article IV, § 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;"

'Pretending that the above clause from the Constitution doesn't apply or doesn't exist, displays the depth of your bankrupt character. Federal parks are Federal property and the Constitution gives clear power to and in the disposition of those lands including the lands' use! Plain and simple, and your denial of that Constitutional authority is just another example of your corrupted integrity! What a sad dishonest fucking piece of shit your showing the world, Tex!'

So explain YOUR interpretation of Article IV, § 3, Clause 2 cited above if it doesn't concern "...territory or other property belonging to the United States;" like it says, "Mr. Know-it-all communing with all the dead framers of the Constitution"! I'm really anxious to be entertained by this obfuscation, dance, dodge and dissembling load of shit! Come on, Tex, tell us all what it really means!

I guess the word "needful" is alien to you. Where would parks be a needful application in the scope of federal powers? BTW if you can't debate like an adult, don't bother the answer. You childish condescension is getting old..

"Needful" is determined by the legislation crafted and its review by the judiciary.

Oh right, the Constitution has nothing to do with legitimate legislation or court decisions. LMAO

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not keeping your word, eh? Figures with a lying piece of shit like yourself. Pretending a portion of the Constitution doesn't exist is just another piece of your game plan to never admit your mistakes, errors and lies!
Pretending that the above clause from the Constitution doesn't apply or doesn't exist, displays the depth of your bankrupt character. Federal parks are Federal property and the Constitution gives clear power to and in the disposition of those lands including the lands' use! Plain and simple, and your denial of that Constitutional authority is just another example of your corrupted integrity! What a sad dishonest fucking piece of shit your showing the world, Tex!

And pretending it includes lands within States for purposes which are not constitutionally authorized is dishonest. Congress has no authority to purchase land, hold land or spend money to support theses activities. And you can't prove they do within the text of the Constitution, if they were in would be contained in Article 1, Section 8. Guess what hero, it ain't there. In fact Clause 17 describes the proper use of land within a State, parks and national forest aren't included in the list.

.

The Hell it doesn't your Ignorance! Article IV, § 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;"

'Pretending that the above clause from the Constitution doesn't apply or doesn't exist, displays the depth of your bankrupt character. Federal parks are Federal property and the Constitution gives clear power to and in the disposition of those lands including the lands' use! Plain and simple, and your denial of that Constitutional authority is just another example of your corrupted integrity! What a sad dishonest fucking piece of shit your showing the world, Tex!'

So explain YOUR interpretation of Article IV, § 3, Clause 2 cited above if it doesn't concern "...territory or other property belonging to the United States;" like it says, "Mr. Know-it-all communing with all the dead framers of the Constitution"! I'm really anxious to be entertained by this obfuscation, dance, dodge and dissembling load of shit! Come on, Tex, tell us all what it really means!

I guess the word "needful" is alien to you. Where would parks be a needful application in the scope of federal powers? BTW if you can't debate like an adult, don't bother the answer. You childish condescension is getting old..

"Needful" is determined by the legislation crafted and its review by the judiciary.

Oh right, the Constitution has nothing to do with legitimate legislation or court decisions. LMAO. .

Of course it does, and Art III gives that determinative authority to SCOTUS.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

SPECIFICALLY for Federal Parks, there's the one I gave you way back on page #6 I believe it was! You should have been reading instead of ignoring it. I cited it multiple times throughout our exchange and the most recent being my post #224 on page 23...here it is again;
Federal parks are Federal property and the Constitution gives clear power to and in the disposition of those lands including the lands' use! That is clearly written as Constitutional authority for Federal parks as even a 10 year old child could discern. You made this challenge and commitment;
EDIT: OOPS...I missed this one;
Now if your word is any good, admit you were wrong and STFU. I'll bet you come up with an excuse, break your word and keep right on with your ignorance and stupid, stupid antifederalist States Rights dogma/propaganda!

And you have yet to meet the challenge, sure the government has the right to dispose of properties they constitutionally own, like old military installations or post offices and office buildings. You still haven't shown what gives them the authority to own and operate parks or other lands held for purposes not specified in the Constitution, and you won't because it doesn't exist.

.

Not keeping your word, eh? Figures with a lying piece of shit like yourself. Pretending a portion of the Constitution doesn't exist is just another piece of your game plan to never admit your mistakes, errors and lies!

The Hell it doesn't your Ignorance! Article IV, § 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;"

Pretending that the above clause from the Constitution doesn't apply or doesn't exist, displays the depth of your bankrupt character. Federal parks are Federal property and the Constitution gives clear power to and in the disposition of those lands including the lands' use! Plain and simple, and your denial of that Constitutional authority is just another example of your corrupted integrity! What a sad dishonest fucking piece of shit your showing the world, Tex!

And pretending it includes lands within States for purposes which are not constitutionally authorized is dishonest. Congress has no authority to purchase land, hold land or spend money to support theses activities. And you can't prove they do within the text of the Constitution, if they were in would be contained in Article 1, Section 8. Guess what hero, it ain't there. In fact Clause 17 describes the proper use of land within a State, parks and national forest aren't included in the list.

.

The Hell it doesn't your Ignorance! Article IV, § 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;"

'Pretending that the above clause from the Constitution doesn't apply or doesn't exist, displays the depth of your bankrupt character. Federal parks are Federal property and the Constitution gives clear power to and in the disposition of those lands including the lands' use! Plain and simple, and your denial of that Constitutional authority is just another example of your corrupted integrity! What a sad dishonest fucking piece of shit your showing the world, Tex!'

So explain YOUR interpretation of Article IV, § 3, Clause 2 cited above if it doesn't concern "...territory or other property belonging to the United States;" like it says, "Mr. Know-it-all communing with all the dead framers of the Constitution"! I'm really anxious to be entertained by this obfuscation, dance, dodge and dissembling load of shit! Come on, Tex, tell us all what it really means!

I guess the word "needful" is alien to you. Where would parks be a needful application in the scope of federal powers? BTW if you can't debate like an adult, don't bother the answer. You childish condescension is getting old.

.

The Hell it doesn't your Ignorance! Article IV, § 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;"

'Pretending that the above clause from the Constitution doesn't apply or doesn't exist, displays the depth of your bankrupt character. Federal parks are Federal property and the Constitution gives clear power to and in the disposition of those lands including the lands' use! Plain and simple, and your denial of that Constitutional authority is just another example of your corrupted integrity! What a sad dishonest fucking piece of shit your showing the world, Tex!'

So explain YOUR interpretation of Article IV, § 3, Clause 2 cited above if it doesn't concern "...territory or other property belonging to the United States;" like it says, "Mr. Know-it-all communing with all the dead framers of the Constitution"! I'm really anxious to be entertained by this obfuscation, dance, dodge and dissembling load of shit! Come on, Tex, tell us all what it really means!

BTW, that's not condescension, it's stimulation to get you off the bloody dime and get you to respond to the points made aligning with the topic of the thread to which you refuse to respond EXACTLY as the child you improbably mentioned. Truth is, you won't respond with what your interpretation is of, "...territory or other property belonging to the United States;" That's the thing you're avoiding you fucking coward. You're running from that like a little girl who's just seen the boogey man, little man! You know what it means but you refuse to go near it because it blows your misbegotten position all to HELL, Tex!

 

[OKTexas]

And pretending it includes lands within States for purposes which are not constitutionally authorized is dishonest. Congress has no authority to purchase land, hold land or spend money to support theses activities. And you can't prove they do within the text of the Constitution, if they were in would be contained in Article 1, Section 8. Guess what hero, it ain't there. In fact Clause 17 describes the proper use of land within a State, parks and national forest aren't included in the list.

.

The Hell it doesn't your Ignorance! Article IV, § 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;"

'Pretending that the above clause from the Constitution doesn't apply or doesn't exist, displays the depth of your bankrupt character. Federal parks are Federal property and the Constitution gives clear power to and in the disposition of those lands including the lands' use! Plain and simple, and your denial of that Constitutional authority is just another example of your corrupted integrity! What a sad dishonest fucking piece of shit your showing the world, Tex!'

So explain YOUR interpretation of Article IV, § 3, Clause 2 cited above if it doesn't concern "...territory or other property belonging to the United States;" like it says, "Mr. Know-it-all communing with all the dead framers of the Constitution"! I'm really anxious to be entertained by this obfuscation, dance, dodge and dissembling load of shit! Come on, Tex, tell us all what it really means!

I guess the word "needful" is alien to you. Where would parks be a needful application in the scope of federal powers? BTW if you can't debate like an adult, don't bother the answer. You childish condescension is getting old..

"Needful" is determined by the legislation crafted and its review by the judiciary.

Oh right, the Constitution has nothing to do with legitimate legislation or court decisions. LMAO. .

Of course it does, and Art III gives that determinative authority to SCOTUS.

And that too is subject to change, see Article 5. Every unconstitutional decision they make brings that possibility closer to reality.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

'Pretending that the above clause from the Constitution doesn't apply or doesn't exist, displays the depth of your bankrupt character. Federal parks are Federal property and the Constitution gives clear power to and in the disposition of those lands including the lands' use! Plain and simple, and your denial of that Constitutional authority is just another example of your corrupted integrity! What a sad dishonest fucking piece of shit your showing the world, Tex!'

So explain YOUR interpretation of Article IV, § 3, Clause 2 cited above if it doesn't concern "...territory or other property belonging to the United States;" like it says, "Mr. Know-it-all communing with all the dead framers of the Constitution"! I'm really anxious to be entertained by this obfuscation, dance, dodge and dissembling load of shit! Come on, Tex, tell us all what it really means!

I guess the word "needful" is alien to you. Where would parks be a needful application in the scope of federal powers? BTW if you can't debate like an adult, don't bother the answer. You childish condescension is getting old..

"Needful" is determined by the legislation crafted and its review by the judiciary.

Oh right, the Constitution has nothing to do with legitimate legislation or court decisions. LMAO. .

Of course it does, and Art III gives that determinative authority to SCOTUS.

And that too is subject to change, see Article 5. Every unconstitutional decision they make brings that possibility closer to reality.

.

An Art V convention will not be held in the life of the youngest poster on this Board.

 

[OKTexas]

I guess the word "needful" is alien to you. Where would parks be a needful application in the scope of federal powers? BTW if you can't debate like an adult, don't bother the answer. You childish condescension is getting old..

"Needful" is determined by the legislation crafted and its review by the judiciary.

Oh right, the Constitution has nothing to do with legitimate legislation or court decisions. LMAO. .

Of course it does, and Art III gives that determinative authority to SCOTUS.

And that too is subject to change, see Article 5. Every unconstitutional decision they make brings that possibility closer to reality.

.

An Art V convention will not be held in the life of the youngest poster on this Board.

I wouldn't bet on that.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Needful" is determined by the legislation crafted and its review by the judiciary.

Oh right, the Constitution has nothing to do with legitimate legislation or court decisions. LMAO. .

Of course it does, and Art III gives that determinative authority to SCOTUS.

And that too is subject to change, see Article 5. Every unconstitutional decision they make brings that possibility closer to reality.

.

An Art V convention will not be held in the life of the youngest poster on this Board.

I wouldn't bet on that.

.

Sure, I would. Less than whatever consider themselves in your cage, and most of them can't define what they are. It would not be you people driving an Art V convention. The powers that be would not let your participate.

 

[OKTexas]

Oh right, the Constitution has nothing to do with legitimate legislation or court decisions. LMAO. .

Of course it does, and Art III gives that determinative authority to SCOTUS.

And that too is subject to change, see Article 5. Every unconstitutional decision they make brings that possibility closer to reality.

.

An Art V convention will not be held in the life of the youngest poster on this Board.

I wouldn't bet on that.

.

Sure, I would. Less than whatever consider themselves in your cage, and most of them can't define what they are. It would not be you people driving an Art V convention. The powers that be would not let your participate.

I think you're underestimating the numbers of really pissed off people in the country, things are going to change, hopefully peaceably.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course it does, and Art III gives that determinative authority to SCOTUS.

And that too is subject to change, see Article 5. Every unconstitutional decision they make brings that possibility closer to reality.

.

An Art V convention will not be held in the life of the youngest poster on this Board.

I wouldn't bet on that.

.

Sure, I would. Less than whatever consider themselves in your cage, and most of them can't define what they are. It would not be you people driving an Art V convention. The powers that be would not let you participate.

I think you're underestimating the numbers of really pissed off people in the country, things are going to change, hopefully peaceably.

.

Not the way you want, I think.

 

[OKTexas]

And that too is subject to change, see Article 5. Every unconstitutional decision they make brings that possibility closer to reality.

.

An Art V convention will not be held in the life of the youngest poster on this Board.

I wouldn't bet on that.

.

Sure, I would. Less than whatever consider themselves in your cage, and most of them can't define what they are. It would not be you people driving an Art V convention. The powers that be would not let you participate.

I think you're underestimating the numbers of really pissed off people in the country, things are going to change, hopefully peaceably.

.

Not the way you want, I think.

That remains to be seen.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

An Art V convention will not be held in the life of the youngest poster on this Board.

I wouldn't bet on that.

.

Sure, I would. Less than whatever consider themselves in your cage, and most of them can't define what they are. It would not be you people driving an Art V convention. The powers that be would not let you participate.

I think you're underestimating the numbers of really pissed off people in the country, things are going to change, hopefully peaceably.

.

Not the way you want, I think.

That remains to be seen.

.

Keep on hoping, because that is all you have.

 

[OKTexas]

I wouldn't bet on that.

.

Sure, I would. Less than whatever consider themselves in your cage, and most of them can't define what they are. It would not be you people driving an Art V convention. The powers that be would not let you participate.

I think you're underestimating the numbers of really pissed off people in the country, things are going to change, hopefully peaceably.

.

Not the way you want, I think.

That remains to be seen.

.

Keep on hoping, because that is all you have.

That and a dozen States that have renewed a call for a convention and counting.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sure, I would. Less than whatever consider themselves in your cage, and most of them can't define what they are. It would not be you people driving an Art V convention. The powers that be would not let you participate.

I think you're underestimating the numbers of really pissed off people in the country, things are going to change, hopefully peaceably.

.

Not the way you want, I think.

That remains to be seen.

.

Keep on hoping, because that is all you have.

That and a dozen States that have renewed a call for a convention and counting.

Means nothing.