Stephen Paddock Mystery Solved: Just Another Right Wing Gun/Conspiracy Nut
- Thread starter Elfiero
- Start date
Not when the actual attorney disagrees with the Liberal point of view, hell no.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 11,432
- Reaction score
- 17,361
- Points
- 113
Article 4, Section 3 Explained
Congress can admit new states into the Union, but a single state cannot create a new state within its boundaries. For example, the state of New York cannot make New York City a separate state. In addition, two states, or parts of states (i.e. Oregon and Idaho or Wilmington, Delaware, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) cannot become states without the consent of the various state legislatures and Congress. Although an original version of the Constitution included a requirement that each new state join the Union on equal footing with the other states, the language was removed before the document was approved. Nevertheless, Congress has always granted new states rights equal to those of existing states.
Not all of the lands that are owned or controlled by the United States are states. Some lands are territories, and Congress has the power to sell off or regulate the territories. This includes allowing U.S. territories to become independent nations, as was done with the Philippines, or regulating the affairs of current U.S. territories like the District of Columbia, Guam, or Puerto Rico. In addition, this provision gives Congress the power to set rules for lands owned by the United States, such as the national parks and national forests. The last sentence of this clause makes sure that nothing in the Constitution would harm the rights of either the federal government or the states in disputes over property.
Congress can admit new states into the Union, but a single state cannot create a new state within its boundaries. For example, the state of New York cannot make New York City a separate state. In addition, two states, or parts of states (i.e. Oregon and Idaho or Wilmington, Delaware, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) cannot become states without the consent of the various state legislatures and Congress. Although an original version of the Constitution included a requirement that each new state join the Union on equal footing with the other states, the language was removed before the document was approved. Nevertheless, Congress has always granted new states rights equal to those of existing states.
Not all of the lands that are owned or controlled by the United States are states. Some lands are territories, and Congress has the power to sell off or regulate the territories. This includes allowing U.S. territories to become independent nations, as was done with the Philippines, or regulating the affairs of current U.S. territories like the District of Columbia, Guam, or Puerto Rico. In addition, this provision gives Congress the power to set rules for lands owned by the United States, such as the national parks and national forests. The last sentence of this clause makes sure that nothing in the Constitution would harm the rights of either the federal government or the states in disputes over property.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,576
- Reaction score
- 29,904
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
You stupid blithering dildo-wrapping assclown nimrod - the Federal government has no authority over "state land," unless Congress cites specific authority for such regulation and enacts laws under such Constitutional authority for such legislation that withstands scrutiny. Want examples of the Federal government violating this restriction and getting overruled because they apparently took legal advice from an ignorant dumbfuck like you??
United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) - The Supreme Court held that the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which banned possession of handguns near schools, was unconstitutional because it did not have a substantial impact on interstate commerce.
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) - Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas found that the Brady Act's attempted commandeering of the sheriffs to perform background checks violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and struck down that provision.
The Federal government has no right to police state property, unless Congress has granted such authority as I ******* wrote above, and as the FB ******* I says on its own ******* web site, you flaccid embarrassment of an excuse for a living creature.
Jesus, once again, you get bitchslapped. Do you ever tire of the beatings, Rodney?
There are all kinds of attorneys...right?
Steeltime if he is an attorney is probably a slip and fall guy. I come to that conclusion from observing his glaring ignorance and belief in conspiracy nonsense, to reading all the obscenities that come out of his filthy pie hole.
So now you think he's a constitutional lawyer? LMAO....
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,576
- Reaction score
- 29,904
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
You nitwit, every lawyer is required to know the U.S. Constitution. It is a topic on every bar exam of every state in the Union. Further, actual lawyers - not wannabe nobodies like you - must know the limits on the legislative branch, the separation of powers and how that affects the judicial branch's power, and the limits on State and Federal governments to enact legislation.
We take a test on stuff like this. It's called the bar exam. Unlike your heroes - Hillary, et al. - I took the toughest bar exam in the nation and passed on my first attempt, after I was Law Review at one of the best law schools in the nation.
Also, your obsession with what type of law I practice is creepy. And bizarre. Tell us, scumbag, what exactly is a "slip-and-fall guy"? (P.S. When related terms are used as an adjective, like "choice-of-law analysis" or "slip-and-fall guy," then the words are connected via a hyphen. Just so you know.)
As to your profession - you obviously did not need to pass an exam to work your trade. Your illiteracy on basic rules of spelling and grammar prove that point, *****.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
Listen Komrades, the State owns everything, so shut up.
Well yeah, but Bill and Hildebeast, Bomma and Mrs. Bomma, are all lawyers. Although I maintain that Bomma was an expert in Constitutional law because He was busy finding ways around it.
And once again you make an *** of yourself. Did that require a prostate exam? I'm sure you passed with flying rectums...........
Here you go putz, from a law professor who knows this specific matter intimately:
University of California Hastings College of the Law Emeritus Professor and long-time Trust board member John Leshy served as solicitor (general counsel) of the Interior Department from 1993 to 2001
https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/advocatemag/spring-summer-2017/myth-federal-lands-unconstitutional
Exploding the Myth That Federal Lands Are Unconstitutional
Utah “land grabbers” misread history, as well as the dictionary.
BY JOHN LESHY
America’s common ground—the hundreds of millions of acres of public lands owned and managed by the national government—has long occupied an important place in our national culture. Yet in some quarters a myth persists that the U.S. Constitution requires that these lands either be turned over to the states or private interests. Arguments for such a “land grab” were recently assembled by a team of lawyers hired by Utah’s state government. The team’s report misreads history, as well as the dictionary, and ignores or distinguishes on dubious grounds many authoritative Supreme Court decisions to the contrary.
U.S. public lands grew out of a dispute dating back to the Declaration of Independence in 1776. At the time, seven of the original 13 states had indefinite western boundaries, allowing them to claim lands beyond the Appalachian Mountains. Six states had fixed boundaries, and were concerned that the other seven would use their claims to vast western lands to enrich themselves and dominate the others. Eventually, the argument that these lands had been wrested from foreign governments and Native Americans by the “blood and treasure” of all the states persuaded the seven to cede their western land claims to the new national government. All states agreed to give that government the responsibility to determine the future of these lands, including overseeing their settlement and admitting new states as settlement advanced.
Ever since then, whenever the U.S. took control of lands from foreign governments and Native American tribes, Congress has exercised its “power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States,” the language of the so-called Property Clause of the Constitution adopted in 1787.
“Land grabbers” argue that the phrase to “dispose of” forbids Congress from keeping lands in U.S. ownership permanently.
But this is wrong, for “dispose of” also meant (and still means) to “arrange for” or to “husband,” as in, for example, “disposing of” nuclear waste. There is, in fact, no credible evidence that our nation’s founders intended to require the national government to divest itself of title to all of the lands it came to own, to newly admitted states or anyone else.
Likewise, there is no credible evidence to support another “land grabbers” argument that the nation’s founders thought new states had to be on an “equal footing” with existing states, especially concerning federal public lands. To the contrary—the framers of our Constitution rejected a proposal that would have required Congress to admit new states “on the same terms” as existing states. Congress made generous grants of public lands to almost all the new states it admitted, but it also made abundantly clear that the U.S. retained ownership and full control over other federal lands within their borders. This made perfect political sense. The congresses that admitted these new states were composed entirely of representatives of the existing states, and they were understandably unwilling to give newly admitted states title or total control over all the U.S. lands found within their borders, because those lands had been acquired with the “blood and treasure” of the existing states.
From 1790 on, the U.S. decided to retain ownership of some land inside newly admitted states, to serve such important national purposes as settling Native American claims to land, meeting military needs (including keeping some forested lands to supply wood for naval ships), and keeping and leasing lands containing mineral and salt deposits, in order to prevent monopolization of these valuable commodities. As the frontier moved westward, the U.S. began to retain title to lands for additional reasons, such as preserving scenic, inspirational landscapes, wildlife habitat, places of historic or scientific interest, and vast tracts of mostly forested uplands to protect water supplies for downstream use. The U.S. Supreme Court, in more than a dozen decisions handed down since the Civil War (almost all of them unanimous), found all such actions consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
The “land grabbers” can point to only two pre-Civil War decisions of the court that suggest otherwise—Pollard in 1845 and Dred Scott in 1857. Both were decided as the nation’s division over slavery was intensifying, where a huge question was whether the Property Clause authorized Congress to outlaw slavery in territories soon to be admitted to the Union. In a muddled opinion that contained unsupported grandiose statements purporting to invent constitutional limits on Congress’s power over public lands, the court in Pollard actually decided a very narrow question—namely, it decided that states newly admitted to the Union took title to submerged lands under navigable waters within their borders, even if Congress had not granted them these lands. A dozen years later, in Dred Scott, the court went much further, and purported to hold that the Property Clause gave Congress no power over lands west of the Mississippi River. Dred Scott, today mostly remembered for the court’s pronouncement that African-Americans could never have rights as citizens, is generally considered the worst decision in the court’s history. A leading constitutional scholar said it “did violence to the Constitution’s text, structure, enactment history, and early implementation.”
After the terrible Civil War, the court quickly abandoned Dred Scott’s view of the Property Clause. While Pollard’s narrow holding regarding ownership of the beds of navigable waters has survived, the court has narrowed it even further in modern times, by recognizing that Congress has the constitutional authority to retain ownership of such submerged lands in newly admitted states.
Besides being at odds with many authoritative Supreme Court decisions, the “land grabbers” case is problematic in other ways. Utah’s team of lawyers does not come right out and say that it is unconstitutional for the U.S. to own places like national parks, but its view of the Constitution leaves it up to the states or to the federal courts—and not the Congress—to determine whether the U.S. can keep national parks, or indeed any other public lands, in national ownership.
Indeed, taking Utah’s constitutional argument seriously would require the courts to confront the deeply unsettling prospect of voiding thousands of federal laws, and literally millions of land transactions, that have all been based on the long-held, widely shared understanding that the U.S. can hold title to public lands.
The nation’s founders wisely gave Congress the responsibility to direct the future of the nation’s public lands, not states or unelected federal judges, and I am confident the U.S. Supreme Court would agree if asked.
This is not to say that defenders of continuing national ownership of public lands should be complacent. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits Congress from turning some or even all of these lands over to states or private interests. All it takes is simple legislation. Every generation of Americans, in other words, must decide what kind of land legacy it wants to leave for future generations. As our elected representatives in the national government continue to address that question, they need to hear from defenders, as well as opponents, of public lands.
You're just not too good above the neck are you?......................BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!
And just to beat a dead jackass for ***** and giggles:
Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.
Bundy much like Steeltime doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
And we are done here
Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.
Bundy much like Steeltime doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
And we are done here
Last edited:
This next Steeltime beat down will be of the epic variety, I predict.
Comedy ******* gold when Steel destroys Elfie.
Comedy ******* gold when Steel destroys Elfie.
This next Steeltime beat down will be of the epic variety, I predict.
Comedy ******* gold when Steel destroys Elfie.
Yeah! "We'll get em next year. This just wasn't our year."
................................................................................................
PATHETIC, per usual from Tiny Tim.
you have never even had a day...much less a year. You suck at discussion.....you suck at everything except sucking
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,576
- Reaction score
- 29,904
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
What the ******* **** ******* **** does that have to do WITH THE ******* POINTS I RAISED ABOUT THE LIMITS ON FEDERAL AUTHORITY OVER STATE LAND, YOU ******* DIMWIT????
You cockholster, dildo-warming, limp-dick, dipshit, assclown, nobody - I did not - repeat, NOT - you ******* ****-eating, taxpayer-stealing, lying, disgusting, vile asswipe, say a ******* thing suggesting that the Federal government HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER FEDERAL ******* LAND.
Jesus ******* ****, asslick. Take the LSAT, and try to get into a law school. I am sure some community college with an adjunct "law school" will accept you. At which point, you flunk out because the teachers even in the community college adjunct "law school" are lawyers and will immediately recognize you AS A ******* KNOW-NOTHING NOBODY.
Arguing with you is like trying to talk to a whining, sobbing 2-year old. You cannot follow a basic discussion, such as the ACTUAL application of Article 4, Section 3, which has ******* NOTHING to do with the Land Management and the FBI being involved with Bundy. NOTHING, according to ... wait for it, buttfuck ... THE FBI'S OWN ******* WEB SITE, YOU MALIGNANT TUMOR ON A *****'S OVARIES.
What authority do FBI special agents have to make arrests in the United States, its territories, or on foreign soil?
In the U.S. and its territories, FBI special agents may make arrests for any federal offense committed in their presence or when they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed, or is committing, a felony violation of U.S. laws. On foreign soil, FBI special agents generally do not have authority to make arrests except in certain cases where, with the consent of the host country, Congress has granted the FBI extraterritorial jurisdiction.
https://www.fbi.gov/about/faqs/what...ted-states-its-territories-or-on-foreign-soil
IS THAT BIG ENOUGH FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND, YOU DIMWITTED, ****-BRAINED, KNOW-NOTHING WANNABE LAWYER??
Finally, as usual, you ignore the actual Supreme Court decisions I cited, researched a non-issue never under discussion, ignored the questions I raised, embarrassed yourself, embarrassed your gene pool, made your great-grandparents wish they had never met, and continued your unending, habitual idiocy.
Hey, dipshit, are you going to cite this as another time you "schooled" me?? Yeah, thought so. You blithering, uneducated, lazy, thieving, lying fuckweasel, asswipe - how about you give your real name to to Supe, I give my real name to Supe, we share real names and then talk to our respective bosses??
I'm self-employed. Your boss is Donald Trump. How about it, ******? HOW ABOUT IT???
And hey, I asked three, four times for you to admit you posted as Polamalu43. Ready to cop to that?!? Yeah, thought so, liar. Caught you in a massive, repeated lie. Hey, calls to mind something lawyers call a "jury instruction." You, of course, have no ******* clue what that means since you are NOT A LAWYER, YOU STUPID NITWIT, AND YET CONTINUE TO ARGUE THE LAW WITH A LAWYER. Anyway, California's jury instruction, CACI No. 107, which provides in part, "However, if you decide that a witness did not tell the truth about something important, you may choose not to believe anything that witness said."
Liar, liar ... that's you, ehh? "I'm not Polamalu43," then you are banned, Supe catches you trying to post as your alternate ID, and exposes you. You avoid my question 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 times ... admit it, ******, you posted as Polamalu43 and lied repeatedly about that.
So Steeler Nation, consider that elfiePoloLiar is a proven liar. His whining, weaseling, topic-changing cowardice is what you would expect of a cowardly liar, and "you may choose not to believe anything" - ANYTHING - that [weaseling ********] said.
Aaaaaaaand the final score as elftardPoloLiar is destroyed yet again - well, ****, I actually played sports, unlike elfiePoloLiarCoward. I let the scoreboard do the talking and it is saying as to elfiePoloLiar's flaccid attempt and a certain lawyer's response:
Hey Elfie, are you familiar with the phrase "delusions of grandeur"?
Look it up, cause that'd be you.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 6,982
- Reaction score
- 6,963
- Points
- 113
Elfie,
I'm not going to cut and paste everything you posted I will simply point out that the only way leftist judges and legal professors come to those opinions is by ignoring written statute and making "law" up as they go. In this case the written statute they are ignoring is the US Constitution and therefore operating outside of the law. The fact that you don't see a problem with this gives the lie to how you tout your super-genius intellect.
I'm not going to cut and paste everything you posted I will simply point out that the only way leftist judges and legal professors come to those opinions is by ignoring written statute and making "law" up as they go. In this case the written statute they are ignoring is the US Constitution and therefore operating outside of the law. The fact that you don't see a problem with this gives the lie to how you tout your super-genius intellect.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,576
- Reaction score
- 29,904
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
"I'm sorry, elftardPoloLiar is unavailable right now as she is having her anus repaired. A team of doctors is bravely trying to stem the damage done in elftardPoloLiar's latest ***-raping. Please leave a message and elftardPoloLiar will try to get back to you after she is able to lift something as heavy as a cell phone. Please wait for the tone before leaving your message."
Last edited:
Lmao. This is comedy gold.
Elfie and other leftist vermin take opinions and interpretations from "scholars" and activist judges as etched in stone truth.
For example, the only statute in the Constitution pertaining to religion is this one:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Very simple and straightforward, yet out of those few words comes out a gazillion page thesis as to why a moment of silence should not be allowed in public schools, therefore rendering it "unconstitutional".
The key word is "respecting"...which in this case as written by the Founders means "regarding" or "with respect to", which makes the sentence even more clear.
re·spect·ing
/rəˈspektiNG/
preposition
datedformal
preposition: respecting
with reference or regard to
For example, the only statute in the Constitution pertaining to religion is this one:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Very simple and straightforward, yet out of those few words comes out a gazillion page thesis as to why a moment of silence should not be allowed in public schools, therefore rendering it "unconstitutional".
The key word is "respecting"...which in this case as written by the Founders means "regarding" or "with respect to", which makes the sentence even more clear.
re·spect·ing
/rəˈspektiNG/
preposition
datedformal
preposition: respecting
with reference or regard to
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,023
- Reaction score
- 11,689
- Points
- 113
I think Elfie is more realistic in her Katsung threads. This **** here is way too crazy.
Sent from my SM-N950W using Steeler Nation mobile app
Sent from my SM-N950W using Steeler Nation mobile app
Elfie: "I'm right. You are wrong. See I just won the argument."
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2014
- Messages
- 910
- Reaction score
- 1,024
- Points
- 93
Fbi covering up evidence of Isis involvement.
Where is our media on this?
