One Day in and Trump attacks the Planet

[buddhist]

You are wrong. This was an action involving the state of Missouri. It is clearly indicative of that fact. The case is on point dealing with states rights. You simply do not want to see what is before your eyes.

Judge Arba Seymour Van Valkenburgh presided over the case in its original jurisdiction, a judge in the United States District Court (USDC) for the Western District of Missouri - an Article IV tribunal, not an Article III court:

• Regarding the DCUS: "The term 'District Courts of the United States,' [DCUS] as used in the rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of the United States does not make it a 'District Court of the United States.'" (Supreme Court, MOOKINI et al. v. UNITED STATES)
• Regarding the USDC: "The United States district court [USDC] is not a true United States court established under Article III of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article IV, § 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States." (Supreme Court, Balzac v. Porto Rico).

If Missouri brought the case into USDC, it was functioning as the U.S. District of Missouri, not as the national "The State of Missouri". The Supreme Court ruled against the District of Missouri, not against The State of Missouri.

 

[Curious George]

Judge Arba Seymour Van Valkenburgh presided over the case in its original jurisdiction, a judge in the United States District Court (USDC) for the Western District of Missouri - an Article IV tribunal, not an Article III court:

• Regarding the DCUS: "The term 'District Courts of the United States,' [DCUS] as used in the rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of the United States does not make it a 'District Court of the United States.'" (Supreme Court, MOOKINI et al. v. UNITED STATES)
• Regarding the USDC: "The United States district court [USDC] is not a true United States court established under Article III of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article IV, § 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States." (Supreme Court, Balzac v. Porto Rico).

If Missouri brought the case into USDC, it was functioning as the U.S. District of Missouri, not as the national "The State of Missouri". The Supreme Court ruled against the District of Missouri, not against The State of Missouri.

LOL, the case clearly articulates that it is brought by the state of Missouri. Look up the federal courts in missouri. I am not even sure what you think you are saying here. This is part of the federal court system in missouri. Courts of Missouri - Wikipedia

There is no other federal court. What exactly are you trying to distinguish? It seems to me you are confusing district courts in territories i.e Guam with district courts in states. What court should this have gone to in Missouri?

 

[buddhist]

LOL, the case clearly articulates that it is brought by the state of Missouri. Look up the federal courts in missouri. I am not even sure what you think you are saying here. This is part of the federal court system in missouri. Courts of Missouri - Wikipedia

There is no other federal court. What exactly are you trying to distinguish? It seems to me you are confusing district courts in territories i.e Guam with district courts in states.

As shown in the case text, it was brought by the "State of Missouri" - not by "The State of Missouri", the proper name for the "free and independent republic" (Constitution for The State of Missouri).

What court should this have gone to in Missouri?

If The State of Missouri was exercising its rights as a sovereign nation-State under the Republic, the original jurisdiction is The Supreme Court itself. The State of Missouri would have brought the case directly to the Supreme Court: "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction." (Article 3, Section 2, U.S. Constitution)

The very fact that the case was brought first to a U.S. District Court (USDC) - and not the Supreme Court, or even a DCUS - shows that it wasn't a case involving "The State of Missouri", but simply a district of Missouri (aka "State of Missouri").

 

[Curious George]

As shown in the case text, it was brought by the "State of Missouri" - not by "The State of Missouri", the proper name for the "free and independent republic" (Constitution for The State of Missouri).

If The State of Missouri was exercising its rights as a sovereign nation-State under the Republic, the original jurisdiction is The Supreme Court itself. The State of Missouri would have brought the case directly to the Supreme Court: "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction." (Article 3, Section 2, U.S. Constitution)

The very fact that the case was brought first to a U.S. District Court (USDC) - and not the Supreme Court, or even a DCUS - shows that it wasn't a case involving "The State of Missouri", but simply a district of Missouri (aka "State of Missouri").

OK, I get it now, you just don't understand. Yes, the u.s. supreme Court has original jurisdiction accordinary to the Constitution, however this is only exclusive when dealing with cases between two or more states. Otherwise it is concurrent with courts such as from where this case was appealed.

There we go. Now we are all on the same page, and this case deals with the state of Missouri, the treaty power, the necessary and proper clause, and state sovereignty.

 

[buddhist]

OK, I get it now, you just don't understand. Yes, the u.s. supreme Court has original jurisdiction accordinary to the Constitution, however this is only exclusive when dealing with cases between two or more states. Otherwise it is concurrent with courts such as from where this case was appealed.

There we go. Now we are all on the same page, and this case deals with the state of Missouri, the treaty power, the necessary and proper clause, and state sovereignty.

No. 28 USC 1251: The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction of "All controversies between the United States and a State", not just "between two or more States".

 

[Curious George]

No. 28 USC 1251: The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction of "All controversies between the United States and a State", not just "between two or more States".

Okay, if the united states itself is a party sure, I am not sure if that is exclusive but I can't think of any us. v. X syate rn. So sure. I suppose I can look it up but I think thathere it isn't pertinent to the point here.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

My prediction (probably obvious to many), is that everything trump does will be for the short term benefit of big business to the detriment of the planet and/or the poor and middle class.

Here's an early salvo to allow continued pillaging of our ecosystem:

Trump’s White House vows to kill Obama’s Climate Action Plan

Call me optimistic, but I think science always triumphs over politics in the end.

Global warming was a 100% political movement and a humiliation to the scientific method. Its demise is just one small triumph for science.

America has led scientific progress for a century or more, and this is in keeping. We can now get back to investigating the real scientific, natural, pre- Al Gore mechanisms behind our dynamic climate system. which will have many practical uses.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The new White House.gov page does say Trump still considers clean water and the environment a high priority, and that he wishes to direct environmental agencies more towards that direction rather than climate change and business regulations.
Which doesn't sound too bad. I'm all for protecting the environment. 110%

110% with you, protect the environment, not green industry subsidies

 

[buddhist]

Okay, if the united states itself is a party sure, I am not sure if that is exclusive but I can't think of any us. v. X syate rn. So sure. I suppose I can look it up but I think thathere it isn't pertinent to the point here.

Well, the point is that Trump is aiming to revoke the unlawful regulations that surpasses the very limited powers granted by the 50 sovereign nation-States to the confederation, and that is the lawful thing to do.

 

[Curious George]

Well, the point is that Trump is aiming to revoke the unlawful regulations that surpasses the very limited powers granted by the 50 sovereign nation-States to the confederation, and that is the lawful thing to do.

My point is that their are a variety of ways that the federal government can and should protect the environment. I am aware that the clauses that enable the government to act in some of these instances also enable the government to act in other instances which I do not like. This is a problem. Most people should agree that we want the environment protected from pollution and general harm. It doesn't matter if I live in the state in question or not, I do not want to see needless destruction or pollution. There is a place for states rights and there is a place for federal intervention. Protecting the environment should in some cases fall into the hands of the people as United States citizens not as citizens of the several states.

 

[buddhist]

My point is that their are a variety of ways that the federal government can and should protect the environment. I am aware that the clauses that enable the government to act in some of these instances also enable the government to act in other instances which I do not like. This is a problem. Most people should agree that we want the environment protected from pollution and general harm. It doesn't matter if I live in the state in question or not, I do not want to see needless destruction or pollution. There is a place for states rights and there is a place for federal intervention. Protecting the environment should in some cases fall into the hands of the people as United States citizens not as citizens of the several states.

Citizens of the United States can manage their own domain - D.C. and other U.S. Territories. The lands of the States belong to the Citizens of those States.

Are you saying that the States and their People are so incompetent that they can't protect their environments nor should they be allowed to take into account their local circumstances and needs ... and that a larger, less personalized, federal system run by elitists is required instead?

By implication, you seem to also be implying that a world government with even more powerful elitists will do a better job than even the federal government.

 

[Curious George]

Citizens of the United States can manage their own domain - D.C. and other U.S. Territories. The lands of the States belong to the Citizens of those States.

Are you saying that the States and their People are so incompetent that they can't protect their environments nor should they be allowed to take into account their local circumstances and needs ... and that a larger, less personalized, federal system run by elitists is required instead?

By implication, you seem to also be implying that a world government with even more powerful elitists will do a better job than even the federal government.

I am not sure if you are aware but citizens of the several states are also citizens of the united states.

Nope, that is not what I am saying. Perhaps you are having trouble understanding me. Is there something on which you need clarification?

 

[CCXLVI.]

All of the bigotry and nonsense Trump has said and done Last updated 11/7/16 =================... - justpaste.it Every bigoted thing Trump has ever said or done (432 pages long).

 

[buddhist]

I am not sure if you are aware but citizens of the several states are also citizens of the united states.

Untrue. "Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state ... Citizenship of the United States is defined by the Fourteenth Amendment and federal statutes" (CROSSE v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ELECTIONS OF BALTIMORE CITY, 1966)

Nope, that is not what I am saying. Perhaps you are having trouble understanding me. Is there something on which you need clarification?

I comprehend what you believe, but do not understand your claims - in the legal sense.

IMO local communities are more than capable of managing their own environments in accordance with their own circumstances far more effectively than a distant, centralized government.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

We are *probably* on opposite sides, but what you've said so far is ambiguous. It *could* be that you think the environment is resilient and doesn't protecting. Or it *could* be that you think the environment needs protecting and you think Obama's plan was a bad one. Or it *could* be something else...

So I'm sincerely curious.

Why do you think he has even thought it trough?

 

[Curious George]

Untrue. "Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state ... Citizenship of the United States is defined by the Fourteenth Amendment and federal statutes" (CROSSE v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ELECTIONS OF BALTIMORE CITY, 1966)

OK, one needn't be a citizen of the united states to be a citizen of the state. Yet, for one to have control (voting) in that state they do need to be citizens of both. Seems a little silly for you to suggest that immigrants, both legal and illegal, should have more control over a state than citizens of the united states.

I comprehend what you believe, but do not understand your claims - in the legal sense.

It's okay. Legalities can be complicated. I tried to explain, but it seems as though you didn't want to understand. Shall we try again?

IMO local communities are more than capable of managing their own environments in accordance with their own circumstances far more effectively than a distant, centralized government.

In many cases this is true. And I certainly recognize the need for local control. I disagree that such control should be absolute.

 

[buddhist]

OK, one needn't be a citizen of the united states to be a citizen of the state. Yet, for one to have control (voting) in that state they do need to be citizens of both. Seems a little silly for you to suggest that immigrants, both legal and illegal, should have more control over a state than citizens of the united states.

Citizens of the United States are simply those born within the District of Columbia, or one of the other districts belonging to the United States. I didn't suggest anything about immigrants.

It's okay. Legalities can be complicated. I tried to explain, but it seems as though you didn't want to understand. Shall we try again?

In many cases this is true. And I certainly recognize the need for local control. I disagree that such control should be absolute.

With all due respect, I don't understand because your explanations do not agree with the Law, as I believe I've shown multiple times in this thread.

 

[Curious George]

Citizens of the United States are simply those born within the District of Columbia, or one of the other districts belonging to the United States. I didn't suggest anything about immigrants.

With all due respect, I don't understand because your explanations do not agree with the Law, as I believe I've shown multiple times in this thread.

You are a citizen of the united states if you are born in anyone of the several states.

With all due respect, I think you have shown a misunderstanding of the law.

 

[buddhist]

You are a citizen of the united states if you are born in anyone of the several states.

With all due respect, I think you have shown a misunderstanding of the law.

I already posted this which refutes your claim:

"Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state ... Citizenship of the United States is defined by the Fourteenth Amendment and federal statutes" (CROSSE v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ELECTIONS OF BALTIMORE CITY, 1966)

 

[Curious George]

I already posted this which refutes your claim:

"Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state ... Citizenship of the United States is defined by the Fourteenth Amendment and federal statutes" (CROSSE v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ELECTIONS OF BALTIMORE CITY, 1966)

Yes, you pointed out that an immigrant can be considered a citizen of a state prior to becoming a citizen of the united states. And I acknowledged that such is true. Theven majority of citizens of states are also citizens of the united states. And any natural citizen of a state is also a natural citizen of the united states.

That doesn't serve to prove me wrong regarding any of the other points. That said, your interpretation of what you are quoting (that generally, state citizens are not federal citizens and the only federal citizens are those living in d.c. etc) makes me understand that you have trouble following legal arguments and the law.

I would be happy to explain if you want.