• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Pardons Terrorists

calamity

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,849
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Mr Person said:
She keeps leaving speech-to-text on when she takes her laptop into the bathroom.
Click to expand...

I just died. Loudly. And inappropriately in a workplace. You win the Internet today, sir.
 
calamity said:
Right Wing Terrorists, of course.

https://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2018/07/president_trump_xxxxxxxx_orego.html

Unbelievable
Click to expand...

Wait, were these the people who actually took control of the Wildlife refuge? Or not. If they were, I understand your point. However it looks like, from your article, the only thing they did was arson. While by no means a GOOD thing and definitely worthy of condemnation, and questioning of whether they should be pardoned, painting them as terrorists is kind of ridiculous.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
You obviously know nothing about the case, nor the issue of the perfectly legal & constitutional ownership of land by the federal government in western states.

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL34267_12032007.pdf
Click to expand...

Oh really? What is the enumerated power that grants the federal government the power to own all that land, or even a supporting implied power needed to accomplish the enumerated power? If you can't point to that well...the 10A means you're SOL. I understand you won't actually be able to answer this question but will prefer to bluster.
 
Zyphlin said:
Wait, were these the people who actually took control of the Wildlife refuge? Or not. If they were, I understand your point. However it looks like, from your article, the only thing they did was arson. While by no means a GOOD thing and definitely worthy of condemnation, and questioning of whether they should be pardoned, painting them as terrorists is kind of ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It's not really just a matter of arson, from what I'm trying to recall from reading about the incident from a while back, but a matter of the federal land not being maintained in a way that was safe for the ranchers so they did a controlled burn to reduce the risk.
 
Phift....roughly translated mean, Yeah, whatever!

So the People own large portions of the western US, NICE!
 
Fishking said:
Oh really? What is the enumerated power that grants the federal government the power to own all that land, or even a supporting implied power needed to accomplish the enumerated power? If you can't point to that well...the 10A means you're SOL. I understand you won't actually be able to answer this question but will prefer to bluster.
Click to expand...

The short answer is that the Constitution, through the Property Clause, specifically gives the government the power to own land. ... "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States."

Or

Art 4, Sec 3, Clause 2 "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States...."

The clause has been used by the Supreme Court to justify the legality of the retention of federal lands - repeatedly: Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U.S. 92, 99 (1872), Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 336 (1936), Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 405 (1917), Light v. United States 220 U.S. 523 (1911).

The U.S. Constitution allows the U.S. government to retain lands in federal ownership in perpetuity, and allows the government a great deal of discretion in the management of those lands.

There are many who disagree, but the Supreme Court has been very clear and consistent on the issue.

I wish some of you would just turn off Fox News and learn about our country and its laws. It would save you from making jackasses of yourself online if you did just a little homework.
 
Fishking said:
Oh really? What is the enumerated power that grants the federal government the power to own all that land, or even a supporting implied power needed to accomplish the enumerated power? If you can't point to that well...the 10A means you're SOL. I understand you won't actually be able to answer this question but will prefer to bluster.
Click to expand...

Yawn.

A. In 1902 and again in 1935 the SC ruled that the federal government owns and has the legal right to own the land.
B. The Constitution, through the Property Clause, specifically gives the government the power to own land. The USSC has ruled (as above) that not only does the government own the land, but additionally that it has expansive rights in deciding what happens on that land.
C. Article IV of the Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States."

I see you couldn't be bothered to read the link I offered.

Seems you have no desire to understand the issue and wish only to rely on your emotions and .jpgs.

Meh. 'twas ever thus.
 
Vadinho said:
The short answer is that the Constitution, through the Property Clause, specifically gives the government the power to own land. ... "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States."

Or

Art 4, Sec 3, Clause 2 "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States...."

The clause has been used by the Supreme Court to justify the legality of the retention of federal lands - repeatedly: Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U.S. 92, 99 (1872), Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 336 (1936), Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 405 (1917), Light v. United States 220 U.S. 523 (1911).

The U.S. Constitution allows the U.S. government to retain lands in federal ownership in perpetuity, and allows the government a great deal of discretion in the management of those lands.

There are many who disagree, but the Supreme Court has been very clear and consistent on the issue.

I wish some of you would just turn off Fox News and learn about our country and its laws. It would save you from making jackasses of yourself online if you did just a little homework.
Click to expand...

Some people are simply immune to reason and actual historical record and have no desire to change that condition.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Some people are simply immune to reason and actual historical record and have no desire to change that condition.
Click to expand...

Very true, they are usually the same people who think originalism is objective, creationism is science, climate change is a hoax and Mexicans are rapists. The perfect storm of stupidity brought to them by Fox News, right wing radio and a lazy good for nothing Democratic leadership who could not make a case against Sirhan Sirhan even though he was caught red handed on live TV.
 
Zyphlin said:
Wait, were these the people who actually took control of the Wildlife refuge? Or not. If they were, I understand your point. However it looks like, from your article, the only thing they did was arson. While by no means a GOOD thing and definitely worthy of condemnation, and questioning of whether they should be pardoned, painting them as terrorists is kind of ridiculous.
Click to expand...
It's only called "terrorism" when a Muslim starts a fire. I know.
 
Fishking said:
You obviously know nothing about the case, nor the issue of the unconstitutional overreach of the federal government in their burdensome land ownership in western states.

View attachment 67236002
Click to expand...

Interesting graph, though it doesn’t show a breakdown for National Parks, National Forests, National Monuments, BLM land and of course all the mountains and deserts. I still tell the HS students when I guest-teach of the incredible experience the West is and how Teaching gives you that. I tell my home-school friends to go in the Fall and Spring.

My experiences out West have always boiled down to the utmost importance of WATER. As I think, nothing short of an IKE 2.0 Infrastructure Grid will do, including a National water pipeline system from East to West.

And, the graph clearly showed where the Homestead Acts ended. It’s always been about Land and Water out West and it always will be. I doubt the Gilded and Rancher Wings of the gop have much use for President Theodore Roosevelt.
 
It’s not *their* burdensome ownership, it’s ours, from national forests that accommodate business and recreation, to national parks that allow us to recreate and contemplate nature’s beauty. Rather have that than have the lands fenced off from Americans. Or would you like the Grand Teton NP or Yosemite NP to be developed? If it’s unconstitutional, sue.
 
Linc said:
Interesting graph, though it doesn’t show a breakdown for National Parks, National Forests, National Monuments, BLM land and of course all the mountains and deserts. I still tell the HS students when I guest-teach of the incredible experience the West is and how Teaching gives you that. I tell my home-school friends to go in the Fall and Spring.

My experiences out West have always boiled down to the utmost importance of WATER. As I think, nothing short of an IKE 2.0 Infrastructure Grid will do, including a National water pipeline system from East to West.

And, the graph clearly showed where the Homestead Acts ended. It’s always been about Land and Water out West and it always will be. I doubt the Gilded and Rancher Wings of the gop have much use for President Theodore Roosevelt.
Click to expand...

I too have argued that we need water pipelines to the West. All that is needed is to divert water to the Colorado, likely into the San Juan River in the south. In the north, the mighty Mo is not needed, the northwest has plenty of water. What is needed is to make the Colorado a river again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom