Saving our National Parks.

[Osborn F Enready]

Point?

[Technosoul]

A lot of crimes might still be legal according to the Consitution, that does not mean we should stand by and allow those corperation lawyers to distroy our national treasures.

Of course the Consitution did not say anything about insanity like that, but sane people must not vote for such people if we want to keep what is good in society and good for our country.

[Osborn F Enready]

Techno said: A lot of crimes might still be legal according to the Consitution, that does not mean we should stand by and allow those corperation lawyers to distroy our national treasures.

Who is saying anything about destroying them?

I am a huge fan of national parks, and visited several, and I don't want to see them damaged.

They can still be protected, just not by the federal government.

Techno said: Of course the Consitution did not say anything about insanity like that, but sane people must not vote for such people if we want to keep what is good in society and good for our country.

Who decides what is good for society? The people, right? Why are you against the people having access to care for that land?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Technosoul A lot of crimes might still be legal according to the Consitution, that does not mean we should stand by and allow those corperation lawyers to distroy our national treasures.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa... what lawyers? How did lawyer bashing come into play here?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: HelioPrime The fed does have the power if the courts declare it.

No, the federal government has exactly and only the power specifically enumerated in the Constitution!

The constitution doesn't say we have a right to privacy either yet the courts will rule in favor of privacy on the base that privacy is hinted at in the constitution.

Again, the Constitution says exactly and only what it says and it's not the Courts' place to tell people what rights they do or do not have. We the people are the only ones who get to decide what our rights are.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: tivodan1116 National parks = public use (even in the strictest sense of the definition and the mission of our national parks, they are "public" places for the use of all Americans)

Yes, but that portion of the fifth amendment doesn't give the federal government the authority to take land that belongs to the states and declare it federal land. Except for what was specifically set forth in the Constitution (e.g. land for a federal capital) there is no such thing in the Constitution as federal land except as follows from Article I, Section 8:

"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, dockyards, and other needful buildings."

The government has the power to condemn property and take it for public use so long as just compensation is given. 5th Amendment.

Where does the amendment say the government has the right to condemn property?

[HelioPrime]

[quote=Osborn F Enready;435350]What is a "right to be secure"?

The right to privacy. Determined however by the needs of the time.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How the court understands this decided how we are protected. The court could take a case and determine this only applies to privacy during an arrest or a crimminal case. The court could decide people have no right to privacy if there is cause to believe invading their privacy is a needed.

The highest court has the power to decide how a the contitution is used. The article can say X but the court can always say X means Y.

[Mr. Jaggers]

The taking of property by eminent domain for public use is subject to the limitation due process and payment of just compensation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; but “public use” has never been narrowly circumscribed to what only the public may use. Eminent domain is nothing new; it happens almost every time a new Wal*Mart goes up in Yourtown, USA. Indeed, history is replete with examples of the government taking private property and transferring it, either by licence or in fee, to corporations and commercial entities for such use as deemed in the public interest. The building of the railroads in the 19th century as well as urban renewal and redevelopment today have been accomplished through the power of eminent domain; and, if exercised within the constraints of the Constitution, it is lawful.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Mr. Jaggers The taking of property by eminent domain for public use is subject to the limitation due process and payment of just compensation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; but “public use” has never been narrowly circumscribed to what only the public may use. Eminent domain is nothing new; it happens almost every time a new Wal*Mart goes up in Yourtown, USA. Indeed, history is replete with examples of the government taking private property and transferring it, either by licence or in fee, to corporations and commercial entities for such use as deemed in the public interest. The building of the railroads in the 19th century as well as urban renewal and redevelopment today have been accomplished through the power of eminent domain; and, if exercised within the constraints of the Constitution, it is lawful.

While I somewhat agree, the argument doesn't even have to reach this point.

Most federal parks were federal land already and are merely designated as parks. Some were other types of public land and became parks, and some were donated for parks. I can't find one instance where the federal government had to use eminent domain condemnation to create a park.

Quote by: Chancellor Where does the amendment say the government has the right to condemn property?

Are you really going to go down this road? The 5th Amendment allows for eminent domain takings for public use so long as there is "just compensation"

Since you're so against eminent domain, why don't you tell me how an interstate highway is built without it?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Are you really going to go down this road? The 5th Amendment allows for eminent domain takings for public use so long as there is "just compensation" Since you're so against eminent domain, why don't you tell me how an interstate highway is built without it?

Eminent domain does not require condemning a property (declaring a property uninhabitable). It does, however, require that the owners of the property be given "just compensation" and that the land be used for "public use."

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Who is saying anything about destroying them? I am a huge fan of national parks, and visited several, and I don't want to see them damaged. They can still be protected, just not by the federal government. Who decides what is good for society? The people, right? Why are you against the people having access to care for that land?

The state governments cannot be trusted to protect those places, for example the state of Alaska was on the bribe to allow oil drilling.

I am advocating that people decide to care about the National Parks by not voting for Republicans such as Thompson or Ron Paul. So I am clearly not against people who care about our National Treasures to take advantage of thier access to the ballot boxes to vote for what is good for our country, by voting for people who are not anti-environmentalists.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Technosoul The state governments cannot be trusted to protect those places, for example the state of Alaska was on the bribe to allow oil drilling.

And you find the federal government more so? Chilling if it wasn't so humorous.

[Osborn F Enready]

Tivo said: Chilling if it wasn't so humorous.

.... and factually in denial of history....

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Technosoul The state governments cannot be trusted to protect those places, for example the state of Alaska was on the bribe to allow oil drilling.

State governments can't be trusted but the federal government can?

I am advocating that people decide to care about the National Parks by not voting for Republicans such as Thompson or Ron Paul. So I am clearly not against people who care about our National Treasures to take advantage of thier access to the ballot boxes to vote for what is good for our country, by voting for people who are not anti-environmentalists.

What you're advocating is a big federal bureaucracy that maintains socialist control over its citizens - which is definitely not good for our country. What is good for our country is for you and people like you to stop supporting the federal government's ongoing usurpation of powers the Constitution doesn't give it.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Chancellor State governments can't be trusted but the federal government can? What you're advocating is a big federal bureaucracy that maintains socialist control over its citizens - which is definitely not good for our country. What is good for our country is for you and people like you to stop supporting the federal government's ongoing usurpation of powers the Constitution doesn't give it.

Well I have good news for you. I switched and am now supporting Ron Paul for the Republican nomination. (but still do not like those other republican canidates).

And having now done so (see my new post in "eleciton forum") I cannot support National Parks if that is unconsitutional. And so the states will have to determine what to do with that real estate property.

The last time I went to a National Park was in 1957. I would never go back to a big national park nowadays because the traffic is backed up for miles, and you must reserve a picnic table months in advance and pay a bunch of money to get in. If it is paid for by the feds with taxes it should be free to the taxpayers to get in. The Feds allow in thousands of tourests who polute the place with gas fumes from vehicles, and by tossing out plastic bags that are hazards for small animals. Then the rangers must shoot the poor black bears who try to get a free lunch in someones tent. What a stupid idea, mixing dumb tourists from the city with dumb black bears. Then the people get lost going hiking and the state must pay money out to rescue them. Some big National Parks allow for hotels and motels and those silly gift shops. All that bad managing is bad for nature, and the goals of preserving wildlife is not well suited to the ideas miles and miles of people driving by on park highways. Not to mention the damage of off-road-vehicles. In recent years gansters have made a business out of robbing people's belongings while they camp out in those park campgrounds. Things like cameras, purses, and expensive camping gear. No wonder the wolves all moved to Canada. ( at least if they do not love it they leave it ).

Perhaps the states can do better?

Take the Grand Canyon for example. Disney could buy it from the state and make a nice nature park there. With real wild rides down the rapids.
And have water slides from the rim down to the bottom of the canyon. Weeee. And a big Dinsey Hotel on the North rim to overlook the canyon, and a elevator from the hotel down to the Native Ameican Village where the Indians can sell their pottery, rugs, and hopi dolls. ( more jobs for the locals ). The thing is that when they have a public hearing many Arizona people would vote NO to allowing Disneyland to buy the park ( just like voters did back east a while back ). I believe they would vote no to a Disney take over. Right? And so the state would keep it as a state park with less funding, and less funding means less 'messing around' which has damaging results environmentally (in most cases).

So ... What do you think of my new opinon?

I personally dislike tourist traps and avoid them as much as possible.

[tivodan1116]

Interesting.

Would you happen to venture a guess what the largest publicly protected land or park is in the contiguous United States?