One Day in and Trump attacks the Planet

[buddhist]

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.

I don't recall stating anything about immigrants in this thread. Can you please point me to that post?

That doesn't serve to prove me wrong regarding any of the other points.

• You implied the Articles of Confederation was no longer law. I demonstrated otherwise, that it's still law.
• You claimed that these united States was one country. I demonstrated otherwise, that there are fifty countries in a federation.
• You claimed that the federal government has authority to make laws beyond their Constitutionally granted Powers over the sovereign States. I demonstrated otherwise.
• You claimed that the Supreme Court was acting as an Article III court in Missouri vs Holland. I demonstrated otherwise, and how the U.S. District Court, where the suit originated, is not an Article III court.
• You claimed that "Missouri" equals "The (sovereign) State of Missouri". I demonstrated otherwise.
• You claimed that the Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction in cases between two States. I demonstrated otherwise, that it has original jurisdiction in cases involving the United States and a State as well.
• You claimed that State citizens must always be U.S. Citizens. I demonstrated otherwise.

 

[Curious George]

I don't recall stating anything about immigrants in this thread. Can you please point me to that post?

• You implied the Articles of Confederation was no longer law. I demonstrated otherwise, that it's still law.

It is not valid.

• You claimed that these united States was one country. I demonstrated otherwise, that there are fifty countries in a federation.

The united states is one country.

• You claimed that the federal government has authority to make laws beyond their Constitutionally granted Powers over the sovereign States. I demonstrated otherwise.

What I claimed was not beyond the constitutional grant

• You claimed that the Supreme Court was acting as an Article III court in Missouri vs Holland. I demonstrated otherwise, and how the U.S. District Court, where the suit originated, is not an Article III court.

You are very confused on this one. They literally say that the action is brought by the "state of Missouri"

• You claimed that "Missouri" equals "The (sovereign) State of Missouri". I demonstrated otherwise.

Smh

• You claimed that the Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction in cases between two States. I demonstrated otherwise, that it has original jurisdiction in cases involving the United States and a State as well.

I explained this is not exclusive original jurisdiction which is how you were using the phrase.

• You claimed that State citizens must always be U.S. Citizens. I demonstrated otherwise.

Yes, this one I was wrong. The exception being immigrants and illegals.

 

[buddhist]

It is not valid.

The united states is one country.

What I claimed was not beyond the constitutional grant



You are very confused on this one. They literally say that the action is brought by the "state of Missouri"


Smh



I explained this is not exclusive original jurisdiction which is how you were using the phrase.



Yes, this one I was wrong. The exception being immigrants and illegals.

I've already pointed out how you were mistaken on all those points. The very fact that "missouri" brought it's case to USDC instead of to the Supreme Court tells me it's not operating as "The State of Missouri". Nowhere in your case text is the proper name for the nation-State indicated.

We'll have to agree to disagree from this point on.

 

[Curious George]

I've already pointed out how you were mistaken on all those points. The very fact that "missouri" brought it's case to USDC instead of to the Supreme Court tells me it's not operating as "The State of Missouri". Nowhere in your case text is the proper name for the nation-State indicated.

We'll have to agree to disagree from this point on.

No, you did not. You have tried to form some strange point of view that is removed from legal understanding. It started with the technical argument that the articles of Confederation are still law, because they are "organic law, in reference to my point that they were insufficient and failed our country and the several states. You somehow tried to twist this into the legal argument that they are still valid. This argument, though removed from mainstream, was at least digestible. Then you try to suggest that navigable waterways on fire could not obstruct traffic. So I pose an alternative constitutional authority. I give you a case on point, and you try to claim that this wasn't an action involving the state of Missouri, but the territory of Missouri, despite the case having the words "State of Missouri" throughout. You claim that it could not possibly be an action involving the state because it was not filed in the scotus. I point out that you have mistaken original jurisdiction for exclusive original jurisdiction. You then go on to claim that citizens of the u.s. should focus where they are citizens-- areas like Washington d.c. I point out that citizens of the states are citizens of the united states. Here you point out the technicality that this isn't always the case. And you were correct on this one. Illegals and immigrants can be considered citizens of a state without being considered citizens of the united states. Now this seems like a silly technicality in the light of our discussion, but technically it is true, beside the point, but true.

I can agree to disagree, but much of what you posted was either ignoring the point in its entirety and focusing on technicalities that were not relevant to the discussion at hand or just plain wrong. If you want to address the constitutional authority of the u.s. to regulate the environment, I am open to that discussion.

 

[buddhist]

... this wasn't an action involving the state of Missouri, but the territory of Missouri, despite the case having the words "State of Missouri" throughout. You claim that it could not possibly be an action involving the state because it was not filed in the scotus. I point out that you have mistaken original jurisdiction for exclusive original jurisdiction.

Point out where in the case does it state the proper name "The State of Missouri". Also, even if the Supreme Court doesn't possess exclusive original jurisdiction, there remains the fact that the case was filed with an Article IV tribunal - the USDC - which only involves itself with U.S. Territories, unlike the Article III DCUS. All this together tells me that the case did not involve The State of Missouri.

If you want to address the constitutional authority of the u.s. to regulate the environment, I am open to that discussion.

There is no authority for the U.S. to regulate the environment; no such Power is authorized in the Constitution nor in any of the other organic documents, except that it does has the power to do so in all of its own limited territories, like D.C.

 

[Curious George]

Point out where in the case does it state the proper name "The State of Missouri".

How about the first line of the case

"This is a bill in equity brought by the State of Missouri"

Also, even if the Supreme Court doesn't possess exclusive original jurisdiction, there remains the fact that the case was filed with an Article IV tribunal - the USDC - which only involves itself with U.S. Territories, unlike the Article III DCUS. All this together tells me that the case did not involve The State of Missouri.

Seriously.....United States district court - Wikipedia

It is an article III court from which it was appealed.

There is no authority for the U.S. to regulate the environment; no such Power is authorized in the Constitution nor in any of the other organic documents, except that it does has the power to do so in all of its own limited territories, like D.C.

Wrong. The federal government possesses the authority to regulate interstate commerce. The federal government possesses the power to make treaties. The federal government possesses the authority to do what is necessary and proper to uphold these treaties. If regulating the environment is required to do these things, then they do have the authority.

 

[buddhist]

How about the first line of the case

"This is a bill in equity brought by the State of Missouri"

"the State of Missouri" is not the same as "The State of Missouri".

Seriously.....United States district court - Wikipedia It is an article III court from which it was appealed.

Your argument would be more appealing if you could cite something more authoritative than Wikipedia.

Wrong. The federal government possesses the authority to regulate interstate commerce. The federal government possesses the power to make treaties. The federal government possesses the authority to do what is necessary and proper to uphold these treaties. If regulating the environment is required to do these things, then they do have the authority.

Wrong. Interstate commerce does not equal environment.

 

[Curious George]

"the State of Missouri" is not the same as "The State of Missouri".

You are trying to distinguish the two based on whether or not the "t" in "the" is capitalized or not? You realize how silly that sounds? Missouri Constitution, 1820 :: Missouri Constitutions, 1820-1945

Your argument would be more appealing if you could cite something more authoritative than Wikipedia.

Comparing Federal & State Courts

About | USAO-WDMO | Department of Justice

Wrong. Interstate commerce does not equal environment.

I did not say that it was equal, only that when there is overlap, that the federal government has authority to regulate.

 

[buddhist]

You are trying to distinguish the two based on whether or not the "t" in "the" is capitalized or not? You realize how silly that sounds? Missouri Constitution, 1820 :: Missouri Constitutions, 1820-1945

Yes, when it's "the", it's not part of the name. "The" is part of the actual name of the sovereign State. It's not silly to me.

Comparing Federal & State Courts

About | USAO-WDMO | Department of Justice

None of your links state that the "United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri" is an Article III court.

I did not say that it was equal, only that when there is overlap, that the federal government has authority to regulate.

Regulate commerce. Period.

 

[Curious George]

Yes, when it's "the", it's not part of the name. "The" is part of the actual name of the sovereign State. It's not silly to me.

So the Missouri constitution is not the Constitution for the state but for the territory?

None of your links state that the "United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri" is an Article III court.

The links show that it is one of the 94 inferior courts which were established by congress and are article III courts. You are being willfully blind at this point.

Regulate commerce. Period.

And where the need to regulate the environment arises in order to regulate commerce?

 

[buddhist]

So the Missouri constitution is not the Constitution for the state but for the territory?

Looks like it to me.

The links show that it is one of the 94 inferior courts which were established by congress and are article III courts. You are being willfully blind at this point.

The links stated nothing specifically about the "United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri"

And where the need to regulate the environment arises in order to regulate commerce?

I cannot imagine a case where such a situation would ever come into play.

 

[Curious George]

Looks like it to me.

Or you are mistaken....

The links stated nothing specifically about the "United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri"

How about you call them. Settle it once and for all...

I cannot imagine a case where such a situation would ever come into play.

Your lack of imagination doesn't preclude the authority

 

[buddhist]

How about you call them. Settle it once and for all...

The Supreme Court has already spoken:"The United States district court is not a true United States court established under Article III of the Constitution", and "The term 'District Courts of the United States describes the constitutional courts created under article 3 of the Constitution".

It's called the "United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri" - not the "District Court of the United States for The State of Missouri".

Your lack of imagination doesn't preclude the authority

Why even write the rest of the Constitution then, if the feds can do basically anything it wants to with the Commerce clause?

 

[Curious George]

The Supreme Court has already spoken:"The United States district court is not a true United States court established under Article III of the Constitution", and "The term 'District Courts of the United States describes the constitutional courts created under article 3 of the Constitution".

It's called the "United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri" - not the "District Court of the United States for The State of Missouri".

How can you hold on to this? Just call them.

Why even write the rest of the Constitution then, if the feds can do basically anything it wants to with the Commerce clause?

It cannot. I agree there have been gymnastics with the Commerce clause, but that does not mean you should turn the dialogue into "the Commerce clause gives no authority to make environmental regulations. "

 

[buddhist]

How can you hold on to this? Just call them.

We shall see.

It cannot. I agree there have been gymnastics with the Commerce clause, but that does not mean you should turn the dialogue into "the Commerce clause gives no authority to make environmental regulations. "

It sounds like gymnastics already. Commerce is about commerce; not environment or anything else.

 

[Curious George]

We shall see.

It sounds like gymnastics already. Commerce is about commerce; not environment or anything else.

Hmmm, I find it hard to believe that you cannot think of any environmental regulations which might effect commerce, but apparently it will have to be discussed on a case by case basis. Cheers

 

[buddhist]

Hmmm, I find it hard to believe that you cannot think of any environmental regulations which might effect commerce, but apparently it will have to be discussed on a case by case basis. Cheers

That's the point. The Commerce clause doesn't talk about the Power to regulate environmental or any other concerns that might either affect or effect commerce. It only speaks about regulating commerce itself.

Otherwise, there is no point to the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

[Curious George]

That's the point. The Commerce clause doesn't talk about the Power to regulate environmental or any other concerns that might either affect or effect commerce. It only speaks about regulating commerce itself.

Otherwise, there is no point to the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I am suggesting that it is within the authority when there is overlap. The point of the 10th ammendment would be when there is not overlap.