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..

Moderator: Smackaduck

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: 682
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 11:12 am
Location: Northeast KS


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: 21278
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: 6861
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!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 63796
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: 6861
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: 21278
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/
Stupid people can cause problems, but it usually takes brilliant people to create a real catastrophe. Thomas Sowell
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 17890
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: 21278
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?
Stupid people can cause problems, but it usually takes brilliant people to create a real catastrophe. Thomas Sowell
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 17890
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: 21278
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: 1075
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.
Stupid people can cause problems, but it usually takes brilliant people to create a real catastrophe. Thomas Sowell
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 17890
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: 21278
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Titties

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:38 pm

assateague wrote: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.
I really don't think this is stretching the intent at all. The valuable natural resource moves across international borders. The natural place for that to be regulated is at the federal level.
Stupid people can cause problems, but it usually takes brilliant people to create a real catastrophe. Thomas Sowell
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 17890
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Titties

Postby assateague » Fri Sep 13, 2013 7:10 pm

Not really. It was not enacted to "protect commerce", but to protect the birds. I doubt in 1918 that either hunting licenses or the hunting "industry" in general generated much "commerce" (read "revenue") Perhaps if the bird treaty had been enacted in 1990 or something, then there would be a "commerce" leg to stand on. But that isn't the case. It was strictly done to exercise control over the birds, something clearly not covered in the enumerated powers. Matter of fact, it could be argued that it HURTS commerce in certain states, by limiting seasons and takes. Unless you're a believer in that communistic principle of the "common good".

Matter of fact, here is the basis for upholding the bird treaty

"If Congress possessed plenary powers to legislate for the protection of the public domain, then it had to take into account all possibility for such protection", including protection of migratory birds, "these natural guardians" against "hostile insects, which, if not held in check ... would result in the inevitable destruction" of "both prairie and forest lands".


So it has nothing whatsoever to do with commerce, and everything to do with insects. Something else I can't find in the Constitution. But before you try a "general welfare" argument based on the perceived "War on Bugs", I will preemptively argue that the damage caused by geese specifically far outweighs any protections granted to them.
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: 21278
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Titties

Postby assateague » Fri Sep 13, 2013 7:15 pm

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?



After some quick Googling, I'd say yes, at least to the parts regarding water quality. I would say working with a foreign government to insure citizens aren't exposed to toxic chemicals in their drinking water would certainly fall under the nation's general welfare. And it's not like Wisconsin or Michigan could really do anything to prevent Canada from dumping nuclear waste in Lake Superior if they wanted to. Some of the other stuff regarding shoreline habitat and such seems to be yet another EPA "stretch", but the main chunk of it certainly makes sense to me.
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: 21278
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Titties

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:56 am

assateague wrote:Not really. It was not enacted to "protect commerce", but to protect the birds. I doubt in 1918 that either hunting licenses or the hunting "industry" in general generated much "commerce" (read "revenue") Perhaps if the bird treaty had been enacted in 1990 or something, then there would be a "commerce" leg to stand on. But that isn't the case. It was strictly done to exercise control over the birds, something clearly not covered in the enumerated powers. Matter of fact, it could be argued that it HURTS commerce in certain states, by limiting seasons and takes. Unless you're a believer in that communistic principle of the "common good".

Matter of fact, here is the basis for upholding the bird treaty

"If Congress possessed plenary powers to legislate for the protection of the public domain, then it had to take into account all possibility for such protection", including protection of migratory birds, "these natural guardians" against "hostile insects, which, if not held in check ... would result in the inevitable destruction" of "both prairie and forest lands".


So it has nothing whatsoever to do with commerce, and everything to do with insects. Something else I can't find in the Constitution. But before you try a "general welfare" argument based on the perceived "War on Bugs", I will preemptively argue that the damage caused by geese specifically far outweighs any protections granted to them.

So you think the Senators from Maryland were not thinking about their hunting industry? Louisiana was worried about bugs in da swamp?

The reasons were likely many as this effects many things.

Just as the federal government and not the state of New York is the responsible party for negotiating the use of the Niagara river. The reason being that if Canada were to take all the water or dump massive amounts of pollutants into the river, the state of New York is not empowered to enforce any agreements with force. They can however use force against their citizens.

I really think this is within the purview of what was intended by the Constitution. They were practical and practically this falls to the federal government and I believe the commerce clause is explicitly where that power comes from. Commerce is really all social interactions and not just those that involve trade. The actions on either side of the border in this regard have a direct impact on those on the other side and not some indirect impact.
Stupid people can cause problems, but it usually takes brilliant people to create a real catastrophe. Thomas Sowell
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 17890
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Titties

Postby assateague » Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:02 am

Nope. You can "think" whatever you want, but just because you do so does not mean its valid if it flies directly contrary to what the stated purpose of the treaty was. And it wasn't about the "hunting industry".
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: 21278
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:12 am

assateague wrote:Nope. You can "think" whatever you want, but just because you do so does not mean its valid if it flies directly contrary to what the stated purpose of the treaty was. And it wasn't about the "hunting industry".

So Assa, How do you propose we manage the resource and maintain it without putting stress on the population?
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 63796
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby :-) » Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:18 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
assateague wrote:Nope. You can "think" whatever you want, but just because you do so does not mean its valid if it flies directly contrary to what the stated purpose of the treaty was. And it wasn't about the "hunting industry".

So Assa, How do you propose we manage the resource and maintain it without putting stress on the population?


Our elected officials are taking care of that issue as we speak.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr3018/text
User avatar
:-)
hunter
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 2:57 pm
Location: Texas Coast

Re: Titties

Postby assateague » Sat Sep 14, 2013 2:39 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
assateague wrote:Nope. You can "think" whatever you want, but just because you do so does not mean its valid if it flies directly contrary to what the stated purpose of the treaty was. And it wasn't about the "hunting industry".

So Assa, How do you propose we manage the resource and maintain it without putting stress on the population?



It's a state issue. Period. You cannot choose to believe in, and admire, small, decentralized, constitutional government, and then accept big government when it's in regard to something you "like" without being considered a tad hypocritical.
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: 21278
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:58 pm

assateague wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
assateague wrote:Nope. You can "think" whatever you want, but just because you do so does not mean its valid if it flies directly contrary to what the stated purpose of the treaty was. And it wasn't about the "hunting industry".

So Assa, How do you propose we manage the resource and maintain it without putting stress on the population?



It's a state issue. Period. You cannot choose to believe in, and admire, small, decentralized, constitutional government, and then accept big government when it's in regard to something you "like" without being considered a tad hypocritical.

Look into the controversy over mottled duck limits between texas and louisiana. Louisiana for the longest time had a 3 mottled duck limit. It was believed that mottled ducks were a local bird and did not migrate. Banding studies have recently confirmed that mottled ducks do migrate, but east west, not north south. Mottled ducks from the coastal texas plain fly east to the fresh water marshes of louisiana for the winter. As such, the limit was reduced to 1. Who is going to over see whether louisiana reverts back to a 3 mottled duck limit if it is a states issue? A duck is a resource and as such, when it crosses state lines, it becomes a federal issue. No different than when a walmart truck loaded with goods drives on the interstate and crosses state lines.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 63796
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby jehler » Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:31 pm

Indaswamp wrote: Banding studies have recently confirmed that mottled ducks do migrate, but east west, not north south.

dont let tangier see this :lol3:
Buy it, use it, break it, fix it,
Trash it, change it, mail - upgrade it,
Charge it, point it, zoom it, press it,
Snap it, work it, quick - erase it,
Write it, cut it, paste it, save it,
Load it, check it, quick - rewrite it,
Plug it, play it, burn it
User avatar
jehler
thread hi-jacking expert and a great guy
 
Posts: 17575
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:52 pm
Location: Traverse City, MI

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests