Skip to comments.
Time that State/Local Govts assert their authority when it comes to State/Local property.(Vanity)
Posted on 10/09/2013 11:14:31 AM PDT by Reagan‹berAlles
If these State & Local legal entities in any way help; Fund, operate, manage, maintain or otherwise handle or control; National Parks, Forests, Memorials, Beaches, Seashores, Monuments then they have the legal and Constitutional right to continue to operate them.
Enough of this bullshit!! Take them over! Let's see Obama try & send the Army to stop them.
The Feds can have D.C. and that's all they get. The rest is ours!
TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
I thought that Wisconsin was doing some of this. How is it working for them?
posted on 10/09/2013 11:18:20 AM PDT
(Proud resident of the State of Jefferson)
Unless the local sheriff is a dem suck up, they are THE top law enforcement official in each county. They can tell the feds to hit the road and don’t come back. Probably won’t happen much though due to federal funding for their new swat armored vehicles.
posted on 10/09/2013 11:25:18 AM PDT
(Inergalactic background checks? King hussein you're first up.)
I’m really not sure this is possible. The legal structure is: usually the state yields this land to the District (DC) and they own it; Federal law applies there. This is true for Federal Courthouse, Parks, Airports and I’d assume other once were state properities.
This is and has been a problem. The states should not be giving their sovereign territory to D of Crime.
posted on 10/09/2013 11:41:12 AM PDT
posted on 10/09/2013 11:49:12 AM PDT
§ 1140. But it is said, that it would be dangerous to allow any power in the Union to lay out and construct post-roads; for then the exercise of the power would supersede the state jurisdiction. This is an utter mistake. If congress should lay out and construct a post-road in a state, it would still be a road within the ordinary territorial jurisdiction of the state. The state could not, indeed, supercede, or obstruct, or discontinue it, or prevent the Union from repairing it, or the mails from travelling on it. But subject to these incidental rights, the right of territory and jurisdiction, civilly and criminally, would be complete and perfect in the state. The power of congress over the road would be limited to the mere right of passage and preservation. That of the state would be general, and embrace all other objects. Congress undoubtedly has power to purchase lands in a state for any public purposes, such as forts, arsenals, and dock-yards. So, they have a right to erect hospitals, custom-houses, and court-houses in a state. But no person ever imagined, that these places were thereby removed from the general jurisdiction of the state. On the contrary, they are universally understood for all other purposes, not inconsistent with the constitutional rights and uses of the Union, to be subject to state authority and rights.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
posted on 10/09/2013 11:58:19 AM PDT
(Due to the newly adopted policy at FR, every post I make may be my last.)
There were 13 sovereign political entities that joined together to write and later ratify the Constitution. All of them were STATES.
The federal government was not a party to that agreement.
The child of that agreement needs to show some respect, and the parents of that union need to exercise some much-needed discipline over its progeny.
posted on 10/09/2013 2:11:41 PM PDT
( Something wicked this way comes ...)
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson