One more reason the federal government should not own land.

[Inkara1]

Again, since you ignored what I wrote the first and second time I shall reiterate it still a THIRD time. I asked a question. "Ya think the government will now go after her property; That was a question to YOU fella. DO YOU? Well? There are those pesky seizure and forfeiture laws that the federal government have abused so frequently. What do YOU think?

If she doesn't pay the fine, they might seize the property or garnish wages... just like any other fine for something illegal. Otherwise, they won't... that is, unless you think everyone who goes to the county jail for a misdemeanor will also lose his or her property.

The second part of the question was also to you. "... and when they sell it they won't tout the spectacular view as a major selling point worthy of extra monetary value?" WELL? What do you think? Do you think they will get a valuation of her property like the cops did with Donald Scott's property just before they shot and killed him? Tghey notede that his property had the only natural waterfall in the Santa Monica Mountains. Quite the selling feature don't you think?

So government seizures always go for top dollar? That's news to me. I'd been under the impression that such land was auctioned off with just a brief, frank description of the land, and the proceeds applied toward the fine owed. How silly of me to have thought something so absurd.

Speaking of someone in need of reading comprehension! I say that I am against the government owning property outside ot their constitutional authority and it extends to to her bucking a totalitarian government. I say that the government shouldn't own that property in the first place because they have not, nor will they be, building and forts, arsenals, dock-yards, or other needful BUILDINGS on that land.

Again, you're not understanding what that clause of the Constitution means. It's concerning Washington DC ONLY. By your logic, there should also not be a Yellowstone National Park.

Remember this little gem from the man who wrote the Constitution?
-snip-
It doesn't say "unless the Congress desires to vote themselves more power", now, does it?

1. That whole quote is irrelevant. 2. Check your facts on who the primary author of the Constitution is. You might find that James Madison was the primary author, and that Thomas Jefferson wasn't even a member of the Constitutional Convention.

Interesting. I miskey a number and that is the best argument that you can make.

Most people know that something written in parentheses is a "by the way" sort of thing. It was right in the middle of another sentence, which was making the main argument.

Yes, that paragraph is about the creation or Washington, DC and its maximum allowable size; although I have serious doubts as to whether you would understand the difference between ten miles square and ten square miles.

You really can't come up with a better insult than trying to tell me I don't know the difference between 10 square miles and 100 square miles? I guess my week is effectively over because I can guarantee I won't see anything more pathetic than that within the next seven days. If it even had anything to do with the argument, instead of being a poor attempt at an ad hominem attack, it might not have been a waste of time and bandwidth; however, it's not even a good ad hominem attack.

Yet you focus on the first part of the paragraph and, in typical liberal

Oh noes! I didn't agree with you on something! I MUST be a LIBERAL! Fucking shit, man. Have you read any of my posts over the last six years here? The man who voted AGAINST Gore and AGAINST Kerry, the man who voted for Tom McClintock in the California Recall Election, the man who wrote a long letter to President Clinton as a young teenager explaining why high taxes don't work, is a liberal? Not until he disagrees with some thinks-he-knows-it-all-despite-all-evidence-to-the-contrary blowhard, it seems.

Let's continue...

liberal obfuscation fashion, ignore the second part which reads "... 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;". So let me parse that for you:

"and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be"

This means that the Congress shall have authority over those places on which those forts, arsenals, dock-yards, and needful buildings are to be built AND they shall have authority over same -- "same" being those forts, arsenals, and needful buildings.

Then again, you never know. The feds may have plans in the works to build a dock-yard in Lake Tahoe.

That's pretty bad. You're so wrong, it's hard to believe you're actually signing your own username to that horseshit.

It's obvious I'll have to break that sentence down to help you understand it.

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,
We've agreed that this is referring to Washington DC.
and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be,
The same... the same... same as what? Forts, etc., WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN REFERRED TO IN THIS SENTENCE? Or something which has already been referred to? What this means is land purchased to go for Washington, DC, in addition to land ceded to the feds by the state, which turned out to be Maryland. "The same" means Washington DC. I shall re-iterate that forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings have not yet been referenced, so "the same" CAN NOT be in reference to those things.
for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
If "the same" had been placed after this, then you might have a valid argument that "the same" refers to this. But it wasn't, so you don't.

 

[Inkara1]

Maybe they do...but consider the following. Lake Tahoe is not a natural lake. It was created for the express purpose of delivering water to California.

There is a dam there, but it only controls the top six feet of water. The rest of the 1,600 feet is natural and has been there for 650 years or so... California has only been a state since 1848. Hell, the Spaniards hadn't even been to anywhere near North America 650 years ago, and the missions didn't start being built until the late 1700s.

You're thinking of another lake.

 

[jimpeel]

If she hadn't cut down the trees, then this would be a moot point. BTW...they still haven't mentioned seizing her land.

I never said they did. I asked YOU -- several times -- if you think they will try to seize her property and whether they would use the improved view as a selling point. You have not only not answered, you have avoided the question.

It still makes no difference. The fact is, she went onto property that wasn't hers and destroyed something she didn't own. Answer this question...How much did she pay you for the right to cut down your part of the tree?

I'm still trying to find it. 1/300,000,000 of $10,000 is mighty small but I'm sure it is around here somewhere. How much of the $250,000 is the government going to give me?

Its in my sig.

The very reason I asked. Just wanted to see if you remembered.

Maybe you should look at water rights instead of clamoring on about 'government abuse', when the actual abuse was towards the government, and not from it.

Has nothing to do with it.

California needed a water supply.

Nope. See below.

Maybe they do...but consider the following. Lake Tahoe is not a natural lake. It was created for the express purpose of delivering water to California. In that case, it would make it a man-made structure, and all the land around it government property. This means that they can actually forbid the public from entering, as the whole area is maintained by the government. Those trees were necessary for a water clarification project. No matter how you try to spin it in order to claim the government is wrong, I can stop the spin and show you where she was wrong for cutting down the trees. You refuse to see this, by choice, so this hullabaloo will keep going.

I beg to differ. I think you are referring, mistakenly, to Lake Mead. Tahoe is as natural as they come.

Geology

The Lake Tahoe Basin was formed by a geologic block (normal) faulting about 2 million years ago. A geologic block fault is a fracture in the earth's crust causing blocks of land to move up or down. Uplifted blocks created the Carson Range on the east and the Sierra Nevada on the west. Down-dropped blocks (a graben) created the Lake Tahoe Basin in between.

More technically, Lake Tahoe is the youngest of several extensional basins of the Walker Lane Deformation Belt that accommodates nearly 12 mm/yr of dextral shear between the Sierra Nevada Microplate and North America. The Tahoe basin is formed by a series of large down-to-the-east normal faults, including the West Tahoe—Dollar Point fault, Stateline/North Tahoe fault and the Incline Village fault. These right-stepping en-echelon faults are capable of large magnitude 7 earthquakes, with the most recent M7 paleoquake (~500 B.P.) occurring on the Incline Village fault with nearly 3 m of vertical offset.

Some of the highest peaks of the Lake Tahoe Basin that formed during process of Lake Tahoe creation are Freel Peak at 10,891 ft (3,320 m), Monument Peak at 10,067 ft (3,068 m) (the present Heavenly Ski Resort), Pyramid Peak at 9,983 ft (3,043 m) (in the Desolation Wilderness), and Mount Tallac at 9,735 ft (2,967 m).

Eruptions from the extinct volcano Mount Pluto formed a dam on the north side. Melting snow filled the southern and lowest part of the basin to form the ancestral Lake Tahoe. Rain and runoff added additional water.

Modern Lake Tahoe was shaped and landscaped by scouring glaciers during the Ice Ages, which began a million or more years ago. Many streams flow into Lake Tahoe, but the lake is drained only by the Truckee River, which flows northeast through Reno, Nevada and into Pyramid Lake, Nevada which has no outlet.

Soils of the basin come primarily from andesitic volcanic rocks and granodiorite, with minor areas of metamorphic rock. Some of the valley bottoms and lower hill slopes are mantled with glacial moraines, or glacial outwash material derived from the parent rock. Cryopsamments, Cryumbrepts, rockland, rock outcrops and rubble and stony colluvium account for over 70% of the land area in the basin (see USA soil taxonomy). The basin soils (in the < 2 mm fraction) are generally 65-85% sand (0.05–2.0 mm).

Given the great depth of Lake Tahoe, and the locations of the normal faults within the deepest portions of the lake, modeling suggests that earthquakes on these faults can trigger tsunamis. Wave heights of these tsunamis are predicted to be on the order of 3 to 10 m in height, capable of traversing the lake in just a few minutes. A massive collapse of the western edge of the basin that formed McKinney Bay around 50,000 years ago is thought to have generated tsunami/seiche wave with height approaching 100 m.

Unless the U.S. government was around 50,000 years ago ...

See also http://tahoe.usgs.gov/facts.html

Here's a final question...just for you. What would you say if the government replaced those three trees with three more?

It'll take a while for them to grow to a height where the next guy will cut them down to improve the view.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I never said they did. I asked YOU -- several times -- if you think they will try to seize her property and whether they would use the improved view as a selling point. You have not only not answered, you have avoided the question.

I answered that question. I think that, maybe, you didn't like the answer.

I'm still trying to find it. 1/300,000,000 of $10,000 is mighty small but I'm sure it is around here somewhere. How much of the $250,000 is the government going to give me?

$600... Seriously, though, the government won't pay you a cent for those trees. That question has no bearing upon her actions, either. Why? Because its a fine imposed for an illegal activity.

Nope. See below.

I stand corrected. I was thinking Lake Mead.

It'll take a while for them to grow to a height where the next guy will cut them down to improve the view.

And he should be fined as well. Once again it comes down to this...the property was not deeded to her. It really doesn't matter who owned it.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

I say that I am against the government owning property outside ot their constitutional authority and it extends to to her bucking a totalitarian government. I say that the government shouldn't own that property in the first place because they have not, nor will they be, building and forts, arsenals, dock-yards, or other needful BUILDINGS on that land.

So the only things the government should own are forts, arsenals, dockyards, and what you consider other needful buildings. Interesting.

So...who should own the space shuttles? Or the land they launch from?

I will also assume you would prefer the gubmint rent office space for the Social Security office and anything else instead of buying. But you should buy as it's smarter fiscally.

I shall further assume that there should be no national parks.

I will again assume that, in your world, people should be allowed to build whatever they want, where ever they like. So long as they buy their necessities from WalMart because, as has been previously established, they should not be allowed to spend their money as they choose, like on a lottery ticket.

Therefore, I will conclude that you would be just fine having 37 singlewide trailers, each with 14 1973 Vegas up on blocks in front and an average of 24 residents per domicile who bathe weekly whether they need it or not, as your immediate neighbors, and the Rocky Mountains covered in oil wells instead of trees. Take out the Washington Monument...needless fluff. We could put a Sam's Club there ya know. Sell some more cheap Tiawanese plastic crap to the gullible while we hum God Bless America.

I for one am right glad you ain't in charge of a DAMN thing besides your self checkout ma-chine thingy. So that when some braindead zombie is too damn stupid to scan a barcode, you can drop a shelf stocker and trot right on over and figure that mystery out for 'em. Gotta make sure the right Hong Kong sweat shop gets credit for them cat toys (6 for a dollar! Be still my heart!) so the American economy can continue to thrive.

I can't decide if this shit you spew is more idiotic, hypocritical, or just plain ignorant. I don't suppose you'd know...maybe you can google THAT up for us heathens too.

 

[Gonz]

So the only things the government should own are forts, arsenals, dockyards, and what you consider other needful buildings. Interesting.

Sound fine & dandy. SSA is not their job. Nor is the FDA.

So...who should own the space shuttles? Or the land they launch from?

Private sector. Private land. (hopefully land without owls or horny toads )

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

NASA is private sector? News to me.

 

[Gonz]

You asked who should own...(and operate I presume)

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

Well if we're gonna go completely shoulda, I can think of dozens of things the gubmint needs to get its paws off of. A few of 'em ain't even in Dixie.

 

[catocom]

*wonders if any of those fed dollars are in this????

this is the level of gov. more to my likeing...

http://www.accessnorthga.com/detail.php?n=206243&c=10

ATLANTA- Governor Sonny Perdue has announced a $93 million bond package for Georgia’s Department of Technical and Adult Education (DTAE) as part of his FY09 budget proposal. This bond package will address critical new construction and equipment needs in Georgia’s technical colleges. The bonds are part of Governor Perdue’s FY09 budget proposal, which was presented to the Georgia General Assembly during the Governor’s annual State of the State Address last Wednesday.

Included is $6.5 million for Lanier Tech. (See below).

“These new projects will help Georgia’s technical colleges keep pace with demand and will help DTAE continue to provide excellent lifelong education and training for all adult Georgians and corporate citizens,” said Governor Sonny Perdue. “Improving education and growing our economy are my top priorities. Meeting the increasing needs of our technical colleges across the state is an investment in both.”

The Governor’s budget also includes $12.2 million cash for minor repairs and renovations (MRR).

The list of Governor Perdue’s FY09 DTAE bond projects is as follows:


Purchase equipment for Construction Projects, multiple
technical colleges
$11,590,000

Replace obsolete equipment, statewide
$7,500,000

Design and construct Center for Health Sciences, Milledgeville Campus, Central Georgia Technical College, Milledgeville
$17,670,000

Design and construct Industrial Technology Building, Elbert County Campus, Athens Technical College, Elberton
$5,235,000

Design and construct a classroom building, Cherokee County Campus, Appalachian Technical College, Canton
$7,855,000

Design and construct Logistics Training Center (Building K), Albany Technical College, Albany
$9,150,000

Construct an automotive technology building, Southeastern Technical College, Vidalia
$4,000,000

Construct an auditorium on the Forsyth County campus, Lanier Technical College
$1,500,000

Construct a 25,600 sq. ft. building expansion on the Dawson County campus, Lanier Technical College
$5,000,000

Design and construct a Life Sciences Building, Gwinnett Technical College, Gwinnett County
$18,650,000

Construct High School Career Academies located on public school campuses, statewide
$5,000,000

 

[catocom]

Replace obsolete equipment, statewide
$7,500,000

I hope they hold an auction

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

If it's done like it is here, they won't. It'll gather dust. Waste waste waste.

 

[catocom]

they used to here, but quit because nobody was wiping the sensitive data.

I think there's state auctions sometimes, but I dunno what all the put in there.

 

[jimpeel]

Again, you're not understanding what that clause of the Constitution means. It's concerning Washington DC ONLY. By your logic, there should also not be a Yellowstone National Park.

...

It's obvious I'll have to break that sentence down to help you understand it.

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,
We've agreed that this is referring to Washington DC.
and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be,
The same... the same... same as what? Forts, etc., WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN REFERRED TO IN THIS SENTENCE? Or something which has already been referred to? What this means is land purchased to go for Washington, DC, in addition to land ceded to the feds by the state, which turned out to be Maryland. "The same" means Washington DC. I shall re-iterate that forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings have not yet been referenced, so "the same" CAN NOT be in reference to those things.
for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
If "the same" had been placed after this, then you might have a valid argument that "the same" refers to this. But it wasn't, so you don't.

So you are being even more restrictive of government ownership of land than I am.

You believe that the clause restricts the government to only those entities which exist inside the 100 square miles occupied by Washington, DC.

Ft. Carson, CO; Camp Pendelton, CA; Pt. Mugu, CA; Bremerton, WA shipyard; Newport News; Camp Lejeune -- all unconstitutional under your definition.

I, on the other hand, see all of those as constitutional under the same clause. What I do not consider constitutional is the ownersip of land by the federal government which does not also house "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings". The federal government should not own barren land unless it is an active target range.

There was the Nye County/Elko County Shovel Brigade which went up against the USFS and won after the USFS decided that once a road is washed out it has to remain so. The USFS placed a huge boulder across the road -- a natural barrier I'm sure -- and the people came out and removed it. The purported reason the USFS didn't want to have the road reopened was because it would threaten the Bullhead Trout in the river. The road has been there for over a hundred years but it only now threatens the trout; and we haven't even touched on wild horses and grazing lands.

http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2005/05/04/news/jarbidge.html

Efforts to claim private property as public are being challenged even here in the People's republic of Boulder.

http://www.rs2477roads.com/2boulder.html

The battle against federal control of 87% of Nevada rages on.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_14_16/ai_61892244/pg_1 (Long article; but you might learn something about the free spirit and tenacity that built this country)

http://www.nevadafullstatehood.com/

Of course, there are those on your side of the equation.

http://www.highway-robbery.com/

 

[Inkara1]

Did you hurt yourself making that reach?

 

[Gonz]

Well if we're gonna go completely shoulda, I can think of dozens of things the gubmint needs to get its paws off of. A few of 'em ain't even in Dixie.

Preaching to the choir.

 

[Gonz]

*wonders if any of those fed dollars are in this????

this is the level of gov. more to my likeing...

http://www.accessnorthga.com/detail.php?n=206243&c=10

No federal dollars should be used in the making of this idea.

State problems...state dollars...feds nowhere to be seen.

That is the correct order.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

State problems...state dollars...feds nowhere to be seen.

That is the correct order.

*remains amazed*

 

[jimpeel]

The SCoTUS has stated in rulings that the federal government is an agent for the states. They are not the end-all be-all and are not the arbiter of all things pertaining to the states. This is why the, misnamed, States "Rights" -- should be "powers" -- movement is gaining momentum and has even been reflected in recent SCoTUS rulings.

 

[jimpeel]

Did you hurt yourself making that reach?

Ah, a thoughtfully contrived and skillfully hoisted retort which you must have been waiting to use for a long time. Whatever shall I do against such word mastery as that? You have given further evidence of something; although it may not be what you would like it to be.