Titties

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:13 pm

BTW Assa, Since you have not addressed the post, I will take it that you acknowledge that there are some things in this world that you can "own" but never sell.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56102
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana


Re: Titties

Postby Lreynolds » Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:46 pm

Underradar wrote:Reynolds, earlier you cited the US Supreme Court case of Missouri v. Holland from 1920. Did you even read the opinion? It was written by Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes, who specifically wrote that migratory birds are owned by no one. If you have another Supreme Court opinion that rules otherwise, please post up a cite and prove me and Justice Holmes wrong. Until then, please stop your outrageous obfuscation.

Some people here may think you are being serious.


I cited Missouri vs Holland to address the question about the basis for federal control of migratory birds.

I am being absolutely serious. Wildlife belongs to the public until legally taken while hunting. If you say "public" means "nobody" instead of "everybody" ..... so what. It has no practical significance.
Last edited by Lreynolds on Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lreynolds
hunter
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Titties

Postby bighop » Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:02 pm

Indaswamp wrote:BTW Assa, Since you have not addressed the post, I will take it that you acknowledge that there are some things in this world that you can "own" but never sell.

Maybe. He hasn't named a single thing he owns.
Rick Hall 2016
He'll turn it all around. Unless he doesn't.
User avatar
bighop
Sugar Daddy
 
Posts: 6357
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Titties

Postby La. Hunter » Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:33 pm

This thread is still going???

Has anyone brought up the rule of capture yet? I'm not reading through the whole thing to find out.
User avatar
La. Hunter
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5668
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:13 am
Location: Northeast Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby La. Hunter » Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:34 pm

By the way, can I retitle this "arguing for the sake of arguing"?
User avatar
La. Hunter
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5668
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:13 am
Location: Northeast Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:45 pm

La. Hunter wrote:This thread is still going???

Has anyone brought up the rule of capture yet? I'm not reading through the whole thing to find out.

Underradar brought it in to the discussion, I went and found the definition for Assa...
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56102
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:46 pm

La. Hunter wrote:By the way, can I retitle this "arguing for the sake of arguing"?

"titties and feathers"..... :lol3: You can look but you can't touch!!! :lol3:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56102
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:50 pm

Lreynolds wrote:
Underradar wrote:Reynolds, earlier you cited the US Supreme Court case of Missouri v. Holland from 1920. Did you even read the opinion? It was written by Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes, who specifically wrote that migratory birds are owned by no one. If you have another Supreme Court opinion that rules otherwise, please post up a cite and prove me and Justice Holmes wrong. Until then, please stop your outrageous obfuscation.

Some people here may think you are being serious.


I cited Missouri vs Holland to address the question about the basis for federal control of migratory birds.

I am being absolutely serious. Wildlife belongs to the public until legally taken while hunting. If you say "public" means "nobody" instead of "everybody" ..... so what. It has no practical significance.

....no one "Privately Owns them", until legally taken while hunting. The same individual "Publicly Owns them" collectively through the Public Trust doctrine, but there are restrictions on that ownership within that trust. Assateague wants to narrowly define "ownership" to that of "private ownership" when by law there are various means for ownership.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56102
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby La. Hunter » Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:08 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
La. Hunter wrote:By the way, can I retitle this "arguing for the sake of arguing"?

"titties and feathers"..... :lol3: You can look but you can't touch!!! :lol3:


I think this one belongs in the CI forum!
User avatar
La. Hunter
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5668
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:13 am
Location: Northeast Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:37 pm

La. Hunter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
La. Hunter wrote:By the way, can I retitle this "arguing for the sake of arguing"?

"titties and feathers"..... :lol3: You can look but you can't touch!!! :lol3:


I think this one belongs in the CI forum!

agreed, but if it's moved, change the name of the thread or Glimmerjim will be disappointed. :wink: :lol3:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56102
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby Feelin' Fowl » Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:40 am

When is UR going to give us the answer to the original post???

50/50 he owns the answer...
luie b wrote:I think you guys were right.
User avatar
Feelin' Fowl
hunter
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 11:12 am
Location: Northern IL

Re: Titties

Postby assateague » Fri Sep 13, 2013 7:32 am

Why'd this get moved?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Titties

Postby Underradar » Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:21 am

Collectivism = Communism

Why am I not surprised our government agent relies on that to justify his claim?
My lab died, and no one on Duckhuntingchat even cared.

Google I'm feeling lucky: DU biologist stole my car

You may win a fight, but you can never win an argument.
User avatar
Underradar
hunter
 
Posts: 5166
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 5:09 pm
Location: Rut Coon, LA

Re: Titties

Postby ScaupHunter » Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:23 am

:clapping:
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6395
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:52 am

Underradar wrote:Collectivism = Communism

Why am I not surprised our government agent relies on that to justify his claim?

Public Trust Doctrine dates back to Roman times.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56102
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby ScaupHunter » Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:58 am

Yes, it does.

Then again the Romans voted in a Ceasar to rule them and look at how that turned out.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6395
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Titties

Postby Underradar » Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:07 am

From the U.S. Supreme Court case of PPL Montana vs. State of Montana, decided in February, 2012, that says the public trust doctrine belongs to the states, not the Federal government:

"The public trust doctrine is of ancient origin. Its roots trace to Roman civil law and its principles can be found in the English common law on public navigation and fishing rights over tidal lands and in the state laws of this country. See Coeur d’Alene, 521 U. S., at 284–286; Illinois Central R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U. S. 387, 458 (1892) ; D. Slade, Putting the Public Trust Doctrine to Work 3–8, 15–24 (1990); see, e.g., National Audubon Soc. v. Superior Court of Alpine Cty., 33 Cal. 3d 419, 433–441, 658 P. 2d 709, 718–724 (1983); Arnold v. Mundy, 6 N. J. L. 1, 9–10 (1821). Unlike the equal-footing doctrine, however, which is the constitutional foundation for the navigability rule of riverbed title, the public trust doctrine remains a matter of state law, see Coeur d’Alene, supra, at 285 (Illinois Central, a Supreme Court public trust case, was “ ‘necessarily a statement of Illinois law’ ”); Appleby v. City of New York, 271 U. S. 364, 395 (1926) (same), subject as well to the federal power to regulate vessels and navigation under the Commerce Clause and admiralty power. While equal-footing cases have noted that the State takes title to the navigable waters and their beds in trust for the public, see Shively, 152 U. S., at 49, 15–17, 24, 46, the contours of that public trust do not depend upon the Constitution. Under accepted principles of federalism, the States retain residual power to determine the scope of the public trust over waters within their borders, while federal law determines riverbed title under the equal-footing doctrine."

So, the Feds don't have Constitutional authority to exercise the Public Trust Doctrine, over ducks or rivers within a state. The states do. I can't wait for the Louisiana Legislature to take the reins over duck hunting in Louisiana. Me, I g'on kill some ducks, yeah!
My lab died, and no one on Duckhuntingchat even cared.

Google I'm feeling lucky: DU biologist stole my car

You may win a fight, but you can never win an argument.
User avatar
Underradar
hunter
 
Posts: 5166
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 5:09 pm
Location: Rut Coon, LA

Re: Titties

Postby assateague » Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:36 am

This is the part where Larry says "Too bad- the Supreme Court says so".
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Titties

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:32 pm

Yes, but treaties are Federal as is their enforcement. Migratory waterfowl is regulated under jurisdiction of treaties.

http://riceonhistory.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/migratory-bird-convention-1916/
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15793
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Titties

Postby assateague » Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:49 pm

Doesn't matter. As I'm sure you know, a treaty cannot be in violation of the constitution, no matter how it is ratified.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Titties

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:03 pm

assateague wrote:Doesn't matter. As I'm sure you know, a treaty cannot be in violation of the constitution, no matter how it is ratified.

OK, I'll bite. Which part of the Constitution does the migratory bird treaty violate?
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15793
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Titties

Postby assateague » Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:34 pm

I'd say probably the 10th amendment. Not certain how migratory birds (or anything of the sort, really) falls under the purview of the federal government. They're not "imported", there' no "commerce" aside from intrastate hunting licenses, no "general welfare" that I can see. Just seems like one of those feel-good appropriations of power. If anything, it violates the 10th by telling states what they may or may not do, with something which the federal govt isn't supposed to have any say in. Just my opinion, though.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Titties

Postby boney fingers » Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:01 pm

assateague wrote:I'd say probably the 10th amendment. Not certain how migratory birds (or anything of the sort, really) falls under the purview of the federal government. They're not "imported", there' no "commerce" aside from intrastate hunting licenses, no "general welfare" that I can see. Just seems like one of those feel-good appropriations of power. If anything, it violates the 10th by telling states what they may or may not do, with something which the federal govt isn't supposed to have any say in. Just my opinion, though.


Do you consider things like Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement constitutional?
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 793
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Titties

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:04 pm

Hunting is a form of commerce. I don't think that is a stretch at all. Migratory birds clearly cross state and international boundaries. If a state wishes to wipe out it's deer herd or rabbits or cut down all their trees or ..., and it does not directly impact anyone outside of their state and I would agree completely. For migratory birds, this is simply not true. If Canada were to wipe out all their waterfowl, it would directly impact the people of many states. Are you saying that the federal government is not authorized to do anything about this or come to any agreements to regulate the behavior of Canadians in exchange for regulating the behavior of Americans?

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

It seems like this is a case where this is precisely the kind of thing that was meant to be covered by this clause of the Constitution.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15793
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Titties

Postby assateague » Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:44 pm

Commerce among the states and foreign nations, to me, does not include regulating and appropriating things that fly around through the air, from place to place. It includes commerce between states and foreign nations.




boney fingers wrote:
assateague wrote:I'd say probably the 10th amendment. Not certain how migratory birds (or anything of the sort, really) falls under the purview of the federal government. They're not "imported", there' no "commerce" aside from intrastate hunting licenses, no "general welfare" that I can see. Just seems like one of those feel-good appropriations of power. If anything, it violates the 10th by telling states what they may or may not do, with something which the federal govt isn't supposed to have any say in. Just my opinion, though.


Do you consider things like Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement constitutional?


I don't know what this is. I'll check it out and get back to you with my opinion, valid or not :lol3:
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Andy W and 3 guests

cron