Members banned from this thread: Cigar and MisterVeritis


User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 67

Thread: Best President?

  1. #41
    Points: 264,301, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 86.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteranTagger First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Activity Award
    MisterVeritis's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    307871
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Northern Alabama
    Posts
    104,523
    Points
    264,301
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    94,656
    Thanked 39,245x in 27,866 Posts
    Mentioned
    385 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Arrow View Post
    Theodore Roosevelt.
    I have several books on TR I have not yet read. I shall elevate them in the stack. Right now I am reading a two-volume book on George Washington. That will bring the total specifically about Washinton to five.
    Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.


    I pledge allegiance to the Constitution as written and understood by this nation's founders, and to the Republic it created, an indivisible union of sovereign States, with liberty and justice for all.

  2. #42
    Points: 665,250, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 91.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433311
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,547
    Points
    665,250
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,983
    Thanked 80,900x in 54,717 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (02-18-2017),resister (02-18-2017)

  4. #43
    Points: 431,949, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteranOverdriveSocial
    Awards:
    Frequent Poster
    Tahuyaman's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    307947
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    183,359
    Points
    431,949
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    20,173
    Thanked 76,962x in 55,590 Posts
    Mentioned
    700 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45 View Post
    In my lifetime the best president by far would be Ronald Reagan.
    I would agree with that.

    However to pinpoint the greatest of all time you need to go back to the founding of the nation. The men who took the huge risk to create this nation and then hold it together were true visionaries.

  5. #44
    Points: 33,845, Level: 44
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 105
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Subdermal's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    184660
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    11,998
    Points
    33,845
    Level
    44
    Thanks Given
    13,718
    Thanked 5,374x in 3,871 Posts
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by resister View Post
    Roseavelt(?) Did a good thing creating National parks, not sure about the rest of what he did. Kind of ironic for a man who traveled the globe hunting for sport, possibly a mitigation action?
    Roosevelt did not do a good thing establishing National Parks. It is not his job, nor has it ever supposed to be possible for the Federal Government to annex any land from States.

    But that's exactly what they've done. What started as a few thousand acres for the Fed has turned into millions of square miles for the Fed.

    Unacceptable, and a terrible abuse of power - and exactly why the Fed has granted itself authority over cattle ranchers like Bundy.
    Last edited by Subdermal; 02-18-2017 at 02:54 PM.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Subdermal For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (02-18-2017)

  7. #45
    Points: 78,723, Level: 68
    Level completed: 43%, Points required for next Level: 1,327
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveSocial50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    resister's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    154141
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    29,399
    Points
    78,723
    Level
    68
    Thanks Given
    23,242
    Thanked 10,122x in 7,595 Posts
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Subdermal View Post
    Roosevelt did not do a good thing establishing National Parks. It is not his job, nor has it ever supposed to be possible for the Federal Government to annex any land from States.

    But that's exactly what they've done. What started as a few thousands acres for the Fed has turned into millions of square miles for the Fed.

    Unacceptable, and a terrible abuse of power - and exactly why the Fed has granted itself authority over cattle ranchers like Bundy.
    Point taken, but I am glad national parks are not subdivisions even if the method was wrong, but I agree it has been abused.
    There is no God but Resister and Refugee is his messenger’.

    Book of Democrat Things, Chapter 1:1






  8. #46
    Points: 33,845, Level: 44
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 105
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Subdermal's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    184660
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    11,998
    Points
    33,845
    Level
    44
    Thanks Given
    13,718
    Thanked 5,374x in 3,871 Posts
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by resister View Post
    Point taken, but I am glad national parks are not subdivisions even if the method was wrong, but I agree it has been abused.
    There would have been nothing wrong with States doing so. That is allowed.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Subdermal For This Useful Post:

    resister (02-18-2017)

  10. #47
    Points: 158,710, Level: 95
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 2,940
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    SocialOverdrive50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupVeteran
    Green Arrow's Avatar Overlord
    Karma
    620067
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    47,841
    Points
    158,710
    Level
    95
    Thanks Given
    54,414
    Thanked 24,816x in 16,297 Posts
    Mentioned
    1674 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Subdermal View Post
    Roosevelt did not do a good thing establishing National Parks. It is not his job, nor has it ever supposed to be possible for the Federal Government to annex any land from States.

    But that's exactly what they've done. What started as a few thousand acres for the Fed has turned into millions of square miles for the Fed.

    Unacceptable, and a terrible abuse of power - and exactly why the Fed has granted itself authority over cattle ranchers like Bundy.
    Article IV, section 3 allows it and places no limitations on how much.
    "Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most — that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least."
    - Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926), five-time Socialist Party candidate for U.S. President

  11. #48
    Points: 264,301, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 86.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteranTagger First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Activity Award
    MisterVeritis's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    307871
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Northern Alabama
    Posts
    104,523
    Points
    264,301
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    94,656
    Thanked 39,245x in 27,866 Posts
    Mentioned
    385 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Arrow View Post
    Article IV, section 3 allows it and places no limitations on how much.
    "Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal government may acquire and retain land necessary for carrying out its enumerated powers. This includes parcels for military bases, post offices, buildings to house federal employees undertaking enumerated functions, and the like. It is not necessary to form federal enclaves for these purposes.* But within state boundaries, the Constitution grants no authority to retain acreage for unenumerated purposes, such as land for grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or parks.
    * Once a state is created and is thereby no longer a territory, the federal government has a duty to dispose of tracts not used for enumerated purposes.
    * In the process of disposal, the federal government must follow the rules of public trust."
    http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016...and-ownership/

    We disagree.
    Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.


    I pledge allegiance to the Constitution as written and understood by this nation's founders, and to the Republic it created, an indivisible union of sovereign States, with liberty and justice for all.

  12. #49
    Points: 158,710, Level: 95
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 2,940
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    SocialOverdrive50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupVeteran
    Green Arrow's Avatar Overlord
    Karma
    620067
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    47,841
    Points
    158,710
    Level
    95
    Thanks Given
    54,414
    Thanked 24,816x in 16,297 Posts
    Mentioned
    1674 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MisterVeritis View Post
    "Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal government may acquire and retain land necessary for carrying out its enumerated powers. This includes parcels for military bases, post offices, buildings to house federal employees undertaking enumerated functions, and the like. It is not necessary to form federal enclaves for these purposes.* But within state boundaries, the Constitution grants no authority to retain acreage for unenumerated purposes, such as land for grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or parks.
    * Once a state is created and is thereby no longer a territory, the federal government has a duty to dispose of tracts not used for enumerated purposes.
    * In the process of disposal, the federal government must follow the rules of public trust."
    http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016...and-ownership/

    We disagree.
    It's certainly not the first time. Your article actually agrees with me, though. I note you didn't quote that part.

    In a nutshell, my findings were:* Under the Property Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2), land titled to the federal government and held outside state boundaries is “Territory.” Federal land held within state boundaries is “other Property.”
    That's precisely what I said. Article IV, Section 3, second clause gives the federal government the ability to control land within state boundaries. Particularly when you consider that much of this land belonged to the federal government long before a state's borders were established around it.

    Of course, again, states are subservient to the federal government anyway so even if it was land within the state before it was federal government land, it's federal government land now.
    "Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most — that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least."
    - Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926), five-time Socialist Party candidate for U.S. President

  13. #50
    Points: 33,845, Level: 44
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 105
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Subdermal's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    184660
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    11,998
    Points
    33,845
    Level
    44
    Thanks Given
    13,718
    Thanked 5,374x in 3,871 Posts
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Arrow View Post
    Article IV, section 3 allows it and places no limitations on how much.
    Quote Originally Posted by MisterVeritis View Post
    "Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal government may acquire and retain land necessary for carrying out its enumerated powers. This includes parcels for military bases, post offices, buildings to house federal employees undertaking enumerated functions, and the like. It is not necessary to form federal enclaves for these purposes.* But within state boundaries, the Constitution grants no authority to retain acreage for unenumerated purposes, such as land for grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or parks.
    * Once a state is created and is thereby no longer a territory, the federal government has a duty to dispose of tracts not used for enumerated purposes.
    * In the process of disposal, the federal government must follow the rules of public trust."
    http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016...and-ownership/

    We disagree.
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Arrow View Post
    It's certainly not the first time. Your article actually agrees with me, though. I note you didn't quote that part.



    That's precisely what I said. Article IV, Section 3, second clause gives the federal government the ability to control land within state boundaries. Particularly when you consider that much of this land belonged to the federal government long before a state's borders were established around it.

    Of course, again, states are subservient to the federal government anyway so even if it was land within the state before it was federal government land, it's federal government land now.



    States are NOT supposed to be "subservient" to Federal Government beyond very specific enumerated roles - and those aren't roles which place States subservient; they are roles which take burdens off of States. Where the hell did you get that addled notion?

    I do not find your argument compelling. You yourself should cede that point, with the millions of acres now under Federal Control.

    If you cannot see that as the abuse of power that it is, there is no further point in discussing it, particularly since it isn't the Constitution which has provided your argument. You're twisting words to actually claim that land within State incorporation is still territory: you're just trying to call it "other property" without requiring that such "other property" meets the test as defined below. This line alone is definitive:

    But within state boundaries, the Constitution grants no authority to retain acreage for unenumerated purposes, such as land for grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or parks.

    That's horrible logic to suggest there is any valid override. You are simply a big Government leftist, regardless your packaging.
    Last edited by Subdermal; 02-18-2017 at 06:33 PM.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Subdermal For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (02-18-2017)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts