Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 3AngelaD

“Ideologue”? I *like* ideologues! Here’s what the fired man said:

“To Mr. Schornack, the dispute is largely one of too much fealty to property rights. “I’m not an ideologue, and it seemed to me that I was being demanded to adopt the ideology of the Justice Department.” He claims that the Justice Department lawyers “are on basically amission to pare back what they see as government intrusion intoprivate property.” The problem? That treaty the IBC relies upon for its authority does not actually authorize the regulation of that 20-foot-wide zone. Even so, Mr. Schornack and the IBC set a deadline for the Leus to remove their retaining wall, otherwise the IBC would do it themselves.”


12 posted on 07/17/2007 6:12:30 AM PDT by hocndoc (http://ccgoporg.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: hocndoc
That treaty the IBC relies upon for its authority does not actually authorize the regulation of that 20-foot-wide zone.

I spent a few minutes searching through their website and their provided links as well as and independent google search of "1960 international boundary commission act" (where I got only a single hit - to their website!) and could find nothing but their "interpretation", ie 20 ft. Have you found any source documents?
30 posted on 07/17/2007 7:05:23 AM PDT by caveat emptor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson