Saving our National Parks.

[Technosoul]

Our National Parks and areas set aside for wildlife preservation could soon vanish if many of the Republican canidates have their way. As well as Republicans now holding office.

Republican Ron Paul wants to get rid our National Parks all together with he claim that they are unconsitutional. Thompson thinks that dilling for oil is much more important then and would allow drilling in the Everglades of Fla. Bush and others want to do it in Alaska among sensitive wetlands.

Alaska Wildlife Viewing

They are all in danger due to Repulican love for Big Oil. Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, and so forth.

[tinybear]

Noooo, surely nobody would support destroying Grand Canyon, Yellowstone or Denali!!! Would they?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Technosoul Our National Parks and areas set aside for wildlife preservation could soon vanish if many of the Republican canidates have their way. As well as Republicans now holding office. Republican Ron Paul wants to get rid our National Parks all together with he claim that they are unconsitutional. Thompson thinks that dilling for oil is much more important then and would allow drilling in the Everglades of Fla. Bush and others want to do it in Alaska among sensitive wetlands. Alaska Wildlife Viewing They are all in danger due to Repulican love for Big Oil. Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, and so forth.

National parks are unconstitutional. Now, if individual states want to set land aside for state parks, they're free to do so as long as their state constitutions allow it.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Chancellor National parks are unconstitutional. Now, if individual states want to set land aside for state parks, they're free to do so as long as their state constitutions allow it.

Chancellor, everybody already knows you're against everything that isn't clearly allowed in the Constitution no matter how harmless. If there was an amendment on the table allowing the creation and maintenance of national parks would you support it?

[Mr. Jaggers]

Congress certainly does have the power to condemn property to provide for national parks. See U.S. v. Gettysburg Electric R. Co., 160 U.S. 668 (1896); citing McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).

[Mr. Jaggers]

Mr. Chancellor thinks that all the Supreme Court decisions since Marbury v. Madison are unconstitutional because, according to him, the court does not have authority to “interpret” the Constitution. His posts are utter nonsense. He is a good example of the danger of having a little knowledge.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Mr. Jaggers Mr. Chancellor thinks that all the Supreme Court decisions since Marbury v. Madison are unconstitutional because, according to him, the court does not have authority to “interpret” the Constitution. His posts are utter nonsense. He is a good example of the danger of having a little knowledge.

Not all, but certainly many of them.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Mr. Jaggers Congress certainly does have the power to condemn property to provide for national parks. See U.S. v. Gettysburg Electric R. Co., 160 U.S. 668 (1896); citing McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).

Show me where THE CONSTITUTION says Congress has the power to condemn property to provide for national parks. I want you to quote the exact article and section or, at the very least, amendment. If it is not actually written in the Constitution the federal government doesn't have the power.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chancellor Show me where THE CONSTITUTION says Congress has the power to condemn property to provide for national parks. I want you to quote the exact article and section or, at the very least, amendment.

Well, I'm aware that Watt, Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, wanted to sell all the
National Parks to "private" interests. I don't the constitution says much about this issue, either way.

Grandpa h.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Thanatos Chancellor, everybody already knows you're against everything that isn't clearly allowed in the Constitution no matter how harmless. If there was an amendment on the table allowing the creation and maintenance of national parks would you support it?

While I might not support the amendment itself, I do support the amendment process. If the people of the United States want to give the federal government the authority to create national parks then I support their use of the amendment process to do so and, should the amendment pass, I would from that point on consider national parks (created after that point) constitutional.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: grandpa Well, I'm aware that Watt, Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, wanted to sell all the National Parks to "private" interests. I don't the constitution says much about this issue, either way. Grandpa h.

That's just it: the land doesn't belong to the federal government, it belongs to the particular state in which it is located.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Chancellor Show me where THE CONSTITUTION says Congress has the power to condemn property to provide for national parks. I want you to quote the exact article and section or, at the very least, amendment. If it is not actually written in the Constitution the federal government doesn't have the power.

The fed does have the power if the courts declare it.

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.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chancellor That's just it: the land doesn't belong to the federal government, it belongs to the particular state in which it is located.

Well, then either way you'd give it to the government.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

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

Theoretically, if there is an unconstitutional statute, no courts are bound to enforce it. There are supposed to be restrictions on "Gestapo-ish" behavior in the US Constitution.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

Helio said: The fed does have the power if the courts declare it.

The government has the power the people conscent to. The people can remove conscent.

The government has no right to that land, or to prevent citizens from owning it, unless those citizens collectively purchase it and maintain it, which IS possible.

National Parks can exist by mutual ownership, or collective ownership, but the government has no right to do that, much less tax you for its maintenance without your ability to opt-out and/or provide oversight in entirety.

Helio said: 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.

Your wrong.

Amendment IV 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.

What is a "right to be secure"?

It is a right to effect, invoke privacy and private control over personal property. The right to protect that privacy, and prevent unwanted intrusion and/or infringement.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Chancellor While I might not support the amendment itself, I do support the amendment process. If the people of the United States want to give the federal government the authority to create national parks then I support their use of the amendment process to do so and, should the amendment pass, I would from that point on consider national parks (created after that point) constitutional.

Why not? Parks are storehouses of ecological diversity and valuable tourist destinations.

[Osborn F Enready]

Thanatos said: Why not? Parks are storehouses of ecological diversity and valuable tourist destinations.

Do you value the concept of a nation of law?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Chancellor Show me where THE CONSTITUTION says Congress has the power to condemn property to provide for national parks. I want you to quote the exact article and section or, at the very least, amendment. If it is not actually written in the Constitution the federal government doesn't have the power.

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)

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

[Osborn F Enready]

IF the people conscent, and conscent can be removed.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: tinybear Noooo, surely nobody would support destroying Grand Canyon, Yellowstone or Denali!!! Would they?

Yes, canidate Ron Paul said that such federal lands are unconsitutional and should be under the control of the states and they would in turn have the right to sell them to private companies or people. ( or use them as a state park).

If a logging company or coal mine company outbid a enviornment group (such as Greenpeace) for those parks then they could do as they please with their private properties.

In a interview canidate Thompson said that become independant form forien oil is more important then having a park, and he thinks that oil drilling and nature can co-exsist.

Both men are Republicans. Bush want to drill oil in the Alaska federal wildlife areas and that would open the door to do it elsewhere.