Prove her wrong

[cawacko]

Old racists like you will die off soon Desh

This

 

[Damocles]

DAMO WHY ARE YOU IGNORING THE PARTS OF HE CONSTITUTION THAT KILL YOU CLAIM?

This portion restricts the ownership of the property to those pieces which they have been given permission by the legislature of the states, the portions you post talk about the power they can use in regulating property they own. In order to own the property Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 must be followed first.

You ignore the restriction because it is inconvenient to your political cause.

 

[evince]

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/44/212.html

 

[evince]

I proved this women is a fool or a liar


will any of you on the right accept those FACTS?

 

[evince]

If anyone proves this lady wrong, I will thank each post.

https://www.facebook.com/tiffany.house.96/videos/1070795146273987/

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1070795146273987

<div id="fb-root"></div><script>(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));</script><div class="fb-video" data-allowfullscreen="1" data-href="/tiffany.house.96/videos/vb.100000305365400/1070795146273987/?type=3"><div class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore"><blockquote cite="https://www.facebook.com/tiffany.house.96/videos/1070795146273987/"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/tiffany.house.96/videos/1070795146273987/"></a><p>KrisAnne Hall, a constitutional attorney, discusses what's going on in Oregon and she is ON POINT!!</p>Posted by <a href="#" role="button">Tiffany Taylor</a> on Tuesday, January 5, 2016</blockquote></div></div>

get to thankin my posts

 

[Taft2016]

I remember this...

http://www.wnd.com/1998/09/3343/

 

[evince]

As far back as 1845, the United States Supreme Court held that Congress holds title to public lands, not by virtue of cession, but by law. Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 21, 11 L.Ed. 565 (1845). The Property Clause "authorized the passage of all laws necessary to secure the rights of the United States to the public lands, and to provide for their sale, and to protect them from taxation." 11 L.Ed. 571.

That Court went on to state:
And all constitutional laws are binding on the people, in the new States and the old ones, whether they consent to be bound by them or not.

The Court concluded that The proposition, therefore, that such a law cannot operate upon the subject matter of its enactment, without the express consent of the people of the new State where it may happen to be, contains its own refutation, and requires no farther examination.

Congress had the authority to control the public lands without the consent of the State.

this

 

[evince]

As far back as 1845, the United States Supreme Court held that Congress holds title to public lands, not by virtue of cession, but by law. Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 21, 11 L.Ed. 565 (1845). The Property Clause "authorized the passage of all laws necessary to secure the rights of the United States to the public lands, and to provide for their sale, and to protect them from taxation." 11 L.Ed. 571.

That Court went on to state:
And all constitutional laws are binding on the people, in the new States and the old ones, whether they consent to be bound by them or not.

 

[Damocles]

And again, Desh. In order to actually be constitutional and be "public lands" they would need to follow Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17.

 

[Damocles]

So far every post by Desh is simply examples cited by the woman of government overreach. Bad decisions by the SCOTUS notwithstanding, the woman is right and nothing Desh posted proves otherwise.

 

[Taft2016]

This portion restricts the ownership of the property to those pieces which they have been given permission by the legislature of the states, the portions you post talk about the power they can use in regulating property they own. In order to own the property Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 must be followed first.

You ignore the restriction because it is inconvenient to your political cause.

And let's be fair, a lot of strict constructionists ignore all precedents and complicating court decisions as if they don't exist and don't need to be dealt with.

 

[Damocles]

And let's be fair, a lot of strict constructionists ignore all precedents and complicating court decisions as if they don't exist and don't need to be dealt with.

Indeed. I did make that point earlier in the thread. We constantly ignore restrictions on the power of the Feds and the SCOTUS serves mostly as an enabler.

It was also the point of the woman in the video.

 

[evince]

that women is a nutter.

the SCOTUS is our government



pretending its evil is unAmerican

 

[evince]

So far every post by Desh is simply examples cited by the woman of government overreach. Bad decisions by the SCOTUS notwithstanding, the woman is right and nothing Desh posted proves otherwise.

you don have that power


the constitution does not give you the power to override he supreme court of he united states of America.

 

[evince]

go get where in the constitution it gives you people that power?



no where huh


you are all just lying to protect your failed ideas

 

[Taft2016]

And again, Desh. In order to actually be constitutional and be "public lands" they would need to follow Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17.

And is the lady's point in the video that the Oregon lands in question do *NOT* meet this standard?

If the Oregon state legislature sanctioned the federal wildlife refuge, does that then pass Constitutional muster?

I still don't understand this conversation. Admittedly I have Desh on ignore, but I can't see how that can do anything but help the situation.

 

[evince]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution



Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. The judicial branch comprises the Supreme Court of the United States and lower courts as created by Congress.

 

[cawacko]

that women is a nutter.

the SCOTUS is our government



pretending its evil is unAmerican

A lot of liberals are unAmerican then for complaining about the Bush-Gore and Citizens United ruling

 

[evince]

And is the lady's point in the video that the Oregon lands in question do *NOT* meet this standard?

If the Oregon state legislature sanctioned the federal wildlife refuge, does that then pass Constitutional muster?

I still don't understand this conversation. Admittedly I have Desh on ignore, but I can't see how that can do anything but help the situation.

you ignore me so you can ignore he consttiution

 

[Damocles]

And is the lady's point in the video that the Oregon lands in question do *NOT* meet this standard?

If the Oregon state legislature sanctioned the federal wildlife refuge, does that then pass Constitutional muster?

I still don't understand this conversation. Admittedly I have Desh on ignore, but I can't see how that can do anything but help the situation.

I wonder about that, has Oregon's legislature voted against Cession or for it for these lands? Did they vote at all?