Posted on 02/07/2003 9:59:00 AM PST by NormsRevenge
The issue is not about "rights." This issue is about jurisdiction.
The U.S. Constitution is very clear about the extent of federal jurisdiction within the boundaries of the states:
Article I, Section 8, Powers of Congress:
17. 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, 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:
The object landed on a state citizen's property within the boundaries of a state that in all likelihood has NOT been sold to our federal government, thus our federal government has no legislative jurisdiction within the boundaries of that property.
Also, how can you steal something that you had absolutely no direct involvement on how the object ended up on your property?
Ah, the old emotional, tug at the heart strings argument to circumvent our constitution.
Quite astonishing from members of a forum name "FreeRepublic," presumably in tribute to the "free republic" our founding fathers gave to us.
At the close of the Constitutional Conventional in 1787, Benjamin Franklin told an inquisitive citizen that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention gave the people “a Republic, if you can keep it.”
However, there is a constitutional basis for the memorial of the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor.
Article I, Section 8, Powers of Congress:
17. 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, 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:
Note, the word "dock-yards."
Yes, "decency" can play in the decision to give up the Columbia parts out of respect to the dead passengers or to assist in a thorough investigation of the cause.
But, there is no legal obligation to give up those parts.
Oh really, what altitude does the the Constitution specify as the boundary of of the states? Land owners do not own the air space and air navigation corridors that are above their real property. This is contrary to the common law prior to the invention of the airplane. If land owners owned all the airspace above their property, any airplane flying overhead would be trespassing. It is pretty well established that all sorts of aircraft and their pilots within limits have the right to fly over the property of land owners without making any payments to them. Do you really think that if an airplane were have an accident and scatter debris over your land that you would own the pieces that land on your property?
Perhaps if the founding fathers had been omnicient, they would have forseen the invention of aviation and would have made specific provisions about it in the Constitution. On the other hand many of the characteristics of aviation are analogous to travel in navigable waters and on the high seas by ship. The Constitution has quite a bit to say about about those matters.
I guarantee you that if you had property along navigable waters, and part of a US naval ship that had sunk, washed up on your property, you would be in very serious trouble if you looted it and did not report it to the federal government.
The Constitution authorizes Congress to establish and fund the Army and Navy. It says absolutely nothing about establishing an Air Force. I wonder if you would argue that the establishment of the Air Force in 1947 was a violation of the Constitution?
While I do not approve of the judicial activism that has been prevalent since the Roosevelt administration, I think it is rediculous to argue that the Constitution needs to be ammended everytime scientists and engineers invent new technologies. Technology is changing at phenomenal rates, but human nature is not. Our founding fathers were primarily interested in laying the foundations for our form of government based on their observations of thousands of years of history. Our Constitution is as relevant today as Shakespear's plays, because both are based on accurate and profound observation of human nature. In the nearly 214 years since the adoption of the Constitution, every other government in the world except one (Great Britain) has been abolished and re-established. In some noteable cases like France and the Soviet Union, governments founded on the basis of rigid ideologies have collapsed. France has had five republics since 1789 while the US has had just one.
My eyes are getting a bit tired looking at my monitor.
Cool -- so if your car ever skids out of control and ends up on my front yard, I can keep it?
How about your kids, if they run across my yard, does that give me legal claim to them?
Your theory needs some work...
Disclaimer: 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.