The Libertarian "State"

[piscator]

Angel on the head of a pin stuff anyway. There won't be a libertarian state as the whole thing is unworkable. As far as anyone will get is arguing about interminably on internet forums.

At least that keeps 'em off the streets...

One of these days one of us will see that...

[Seth]

Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. Pp. 426 U. S. 535-547.

(a) The Clause, in broad terms, empowers Congress to determine what are "needful" rules "respecting" the public lands, and there is no merit to appellees' narrow reading that the provision grants Congress power only to dispose of, to make incidental rules regarding the use of, and to protect federal property. The Clause must be given an expansive reading, for "[t]he power over the public lands thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations," United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 310 U. S. 29, and Congress' complete authority over the public lands includes the power to regulate and protect the wildlife living there. Pp. 426 U. S. 536-541.

Yes, so what? My point is that when a state is admitted to the Union, that territory which was under Congressional control ceases to be under Congressional control and the control and title passes to the legislature of the state by that act.

No it doesn't. According to the Constitution it's up to Congress to do with as it sees fit with those lands. Congress' power over US Public Lands is without limitations.

Yes, it is, but when a state claims it and it admitted to the Union it's no longer "US Public Lands," it becomes the public lands of the state.

Nowhere does the Constitution say anything different. Every "interpretation" of Congress' authority to retain control of lands within a state is based on bootstrap logic by the Court, not constitutional or original intent principles. As I said, if what you claim were true then Congress would not have had a need to coerce the western states into explicitly disclaiming sovereignty over such lands as a condition of statehood. But it did, which proves that Congress knows full well that it's expropriation of the property that justly belongs to the people of the State contravenes the Constitution and the Equal Footing Doctrine.

You can continue to parrot the appeal to common practice fallacy all you like, but you'll still be wrong from a constitutional perspective.

You or the Tea Party don't get to say it "rightfully belongs to" one state or another. That's unconstitutional. Only Congress gets to decide.

Congress DOES decide. When it admits a state to the Union it is deciding to disclaim federal control over the territories that are to become the public domain of the state. It is an empty argument to suggest that the inhabitants of a state would form the state and petition for entry into the Union if none of the land that comprises the state was to belong to the state, but instead a "state" would be created that contains little or no (or merely limited) amounts of state-controlled public domain. The purpose of declaring statehood and petitioning Congress for admission to the Union is precisely to remove the public domain from the control of the Congress and vest it in the people of the new state. What other purpose is there for creating a state in the first place? If the Congress is going to retain dominion and control over everything then the whole structure of the Republic is a pointless exercise. Since that's obviously not the case, particularly in the original 13 states, the same reasoning applies to all the other states.

The best you've got is blind reliance on common practice fallacies and zero intellectual input or support for your position. That's pretty intellectually bankrupt.

You're just another random asshole with an erroneous opinion if you think otherwise.

My goodness, aren't we the ill-tempered one...

[piscator]

Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. Pp. 426 U. S. 535-547.

(a) The Clause, in broad terms, empowers Congress to determine what are "needful" rules "respecting" the public lands, and there is no merit to appellees' narrow reading that the provision grants Congress power only to dispose of, to make incidental rules regarding the use of, and to protect federal property. The Clause must be given an expansive reading, for "[t]he power over the public lands thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations," United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 310 U. S. 29, and Congress' complete authority over the public lands includes the power to regulate and protect the wildlife living there. Pp. 426 U. S. 536-541.

Yes, so what? My point is that when a state is admitted to the Union, that territory which was under Congressional control ceases to be under Congressional control and the control and title passes to the legislature of the state by that act.

No it doesn't. According to the Constitution it's up to Congress to do with as it sees fit with those lands. Congress' power over US Public Lands is without limitations.

Yes, it is, but when a state claims it and it admitted to the Union it's no longer "US Public Lands," it becomes the public lands of the state.

Evidently not. Some rednecks in Nevada tried to claim a bunch of Federal lands without consent of Congress, and got their little peepees whacked. They learned.

Nowhere does the Constitution say anything different.

Except the Property Clause. Welcome to Yellowstone!

You or the Tea Party don't get to say it "rightfully belongs to" one state or another. That's unconstitutional. Only Congress gets to decide.

Congress DOES decide. When it admits a state to the Union it is deciding to disclaim federal control over the territories that are to become the public domain of the state.

Uhmm, no, that's just your fantasy. Hence the American birthright of vast and magnificent Federal Public Lands most of us treasure.
You may think they're State lands, but so what? Were it left to Libertarians, you'd have no wilderness to cry out in anyway.

Gotta run. Putting a Low Distortion Projection together to do a bit of ANILCA work in the Mentastas, compliments of Congress. Busy busy. Ta.

[Seth]

Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. Pp. 426 U. S. 535-547.

(a) The Clause, in broad terms, empowers Congress to determine what are "needful" rules "respecting" the public lands, and there is no merit to appellees' narrow reading that the provision grants Congress power only to dispose of, to make incidental rules regarding the use of, and to protect federal property. The Clause must be given an expansive reading, for "[t]he power over the public lands thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations," United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 310 U. S. 29, and Congress' complete authority over the public lands includes the power to regulate and protect the wildlife living there. Pp. 426 U. S. 536-541.

Yes, so what? My point is that when a state is admitted to the Union, that territory which was under Congressional control ceases to be under Congressional control and the control and title passes to the legislature of the state by that act.

No it doesn't. According to the Constitution it's up to Congress to do with as it sees fit with those lands. Congress' power over US Public Lands is without limitations.

Yes, it is, but when a state claims it and it admitted to the Union it's no longer "US Public Lands," it becomes the public lands of the state.

Evidently not. Some rednecks in Nevada tried to claim a bunch of Federal lands without consent of Congress, and got their little peepees whacked. They learned.

Fallacious appeal to common practice. I've already told you that how things work is not the same thing as how they are supposed to work under the system created by the Founders.

Nowhere does the Constitution say anything different.

Except the Property Clause. Welcome to Yellowstone!

Nowhere does the Constitution give the Congress or the President the power to declare national parks or monuments. The authorized uses of land held by the federal government are explicitly listed in Article 1, Section 8, and that list is exclusive, not inclusive.

You or the Tea Party don't get to say it "rightfully belongs to" one state or another. That's unconstitutional. Only Congress gets to decide.

Congress DOES decide. When it admits a state to the Union it is deciding to disclaim federal control over the territories that are to become the public domain of the state.

Uhmm, no, that's just your fantasy.

Actually it's a well-founded constitutional law argument.

Hence the American birthright of vast and magnificent Federal Public Lands most of us treasure.

You can treasure them just as much as state public lands.

You may think they're State lands, but so what? Were it left to Libertarians, you'd have no wilderness to cry out in anyway.

Strawman.

Gotta run. Putting a Low Distortion Projection together to do a bit of ANILCA work in the Mentastas, compliments of Congress. Busy busy. Ta.

Slopping at the public trough I see...

[piscator]

Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. Pp. 426 U. S. 535-547.

(a) The [Property] Clause, in broad terms, empowers Congress to determine what are "needful" rules "respecting" the public lands, and there is no merit to appellees' narrow reading that the provision grants Congress power only to dispose of, to make incidental rules regarding the use of, and to protect federal property. The Clause must be given an expansive reading, for "[t]he power over the public lands thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations," United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 310 U. S. 29, and Congress' complete authority over the public lands includes the power to regulate and protect the wildlife living there. Pp. 426 U. S. 536-541.

Fallacious appeal to common practice. I've already told you that how things work is not the same thing as how they are supposed to work under the system created by the Founders.

But you don't get to decide.

Exhibit A

Nowhere does the Constitution say anything different.

Except the Property Clause. Welcome to Yellowstone!

Nowhere does the Constitution give the Congress or the President the power to declare national parks or monuments. The authorized uses of land held by the federal government are explicitly listed in Article 1, Section 8, and that list is exclusive, not inclusive.

But you're wrong.

Exhibit B

You or the Tea Party don't get to say it "rightfully belongs to" one state or another. That's unconstitutional. Only Congress gets to decide.

Congress DOES decide. When it admits a state to the Union it is deciding to disclaim federal control over the territories that are to become the public domain of the state.

Evidently not.

Actually it's a well-founded constitutional law argument.

But evidently just not good enough... It made me laugh though.

Hence the American birthright of vast and magnificent Federal Public Lands most of us treasure.

You can treasure them just as much as state public lands.

Not any time soon.

You may think they're State lands, but so what? Were it left to Libertarians, you'd have no wilderness to cry out in anyway.

Strawman.

Do you even read your posts? I'll admit I skip a lot...

Gotta run. Putting a Low Distortion Projection together to do a bit of ANILCA work in the Mentastas, compliments of Congress. Busy busy. Ta.

Slopping at the public trough I see...

Shouldn't you be off lubricating your arsenal or something?

[Seth]

Shouldn't you be off lubricating your arsenal or something?

Shouldn't you be off lubricating your ass or something?

[JimC]

piscator, this is a reminder that this post: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 6#p1522796
contains a personal attack on another member of the forum. Please refrain from such attacks again, as they are against our rules.

[piscator]

Shouldn't you be off lubricating your ass or something?

Shouldn't you be advocating positively for your political religion rather than trying to be clever?

[rainbow]

The question is not the need for water, the question is the moral justification for seizing it from whomever owns it without their consent.

Actually, that is the question.

If you were dying of thirst and had no other option, you'd take water from someone without their consent.

...or are you saying that in a Libertarian State the right to Property overrides the right to Life?

[Tyrannical]

The question is not the need for water, the question is the moral justification for seizing it from whomever owns it without their consent.

Actually, that is the question.

If you were dying of thirst and had no other option, you'd take water from someone without their consent.

...or are you saying that in a Libertarian State the right to Property overrides the right to Life?

At every gas station in the country you can get all the water you can drink for free.

[piscator]

"Duh! Just take the Mercedes down to the gas station to get water." -- Marie Antoinette

[Tyrannical]

The 16th amendment killed the libertarian state. Once the government could raise almost unlimited funds through taxes, it discovered almost unlimited ways to spend it.

[piscator]

So by implication, you're saying the first practical thing America needs to do to institute a New American Libertarian State is to gather a 2/3 majority of state legislatures to repeal the 16th Amendment?

[Svartalf]

More like rewrite the constitution from the preamble up

[piscator]

The question is not the need for water, the question is the moral justification for seizing it from whomever owns it without their consent.

Actually, that is the question.

If you were dying of thirst and had no other option, you'd take water from someone without their consent.

...or are you saying that in a Libertarian State the right to Property overrides the right to Life?