RE: Jurisdiction: Where does it come from?
I guess this works if you accept the premise that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were just opiate for the masses, and not an actual legal foundation for the government.
Just because you can take something, doesn't mean it's yours, Raskolnikov. You are making the argument that might makes right, and I would tend to disagree. There is a right and there is a wrong. In the US we have tried to use law as an arbiter when there are conflicting interests, but we are human and therefore not perfect.
Jurisdiction, being a legal term, can only exist inside of a legal framework. The founders were trying to move us past the point where we decide who is in charge by who is the strongest. Someday, maybe humanity will get there. Probably not in my lifetime, though.
BTW, lots of people have gotten out of legal trouble by arguing jurisdiction, including yours truly, so it is a real thing and you don't have to kick the prosecuting attorney's ass to make it happen.
I'm trying to make the case that the US was set up to be self-rule as opposed to the pre-existing international world view that might has right. Right of Conquest still has its place in International law in recognizing other nations, as well as domestic law upholding title to our lands otherwise it's illegitimate and the natives still have a claim to it otherwise.
I guess I need to revise it to be more clear in that regard... and I am curious of the specifics in your jurisdiction argument.
Yeah, I think I missed that, but it could just be that I wasn't paying close enough attention.
I am not a lawyer, and I've been told by a few cops that I don't know what I'm talking about so I guess Caveat emptor. It's my understanding that Jurisdiction exists within specific geographical boundaries in which certain ruling authorities have a monopoly on the use of force and the enforcement of justice. For example in my case, when I was a teenager I was given an MIP along with abou 60 other kids for drinking out back behind the airport. The officer was a sheriff, and I argued he didn't have jurisdiction. Most of the kids paid the fine, but I went to the prosecuting attorney and showed him that we were on FAA land. He dropped the charges and agreed the sheriff had no jurisdiction.
The only reason any of that worked is because there exist a legal framework delegating the monopoly on the use of force for that area to the Federal Government. If those laws didn't exist, the sheriff's citation would have been valid.
Reading the Constitution and some of the founders' works leads me to the conclusion that most of them intended the states to retain jurisdiction for almost all criminal matters. It has only been gradually that the Feds have encroached on the states' jurisdiction and begun enforcing statutory code nationwide.
I'm not sure if that makes sense, but, like I said I'm no lawyer.
Yes it makes sense; just the other day the Sheriff in Las Vegas where the Bundy Ranch is at told them that the Sherrifs office didn't have jurisdiction on the Federal Land where the protest was at years ago.... but I disagree. The State has jurisdiction State Wide (not necessarily ownership just to jurisdiction). I'm trying to make a point with some people who claim the US has no jurisdiction if they don't agree with the contract.... type of stuff. ( I personally believe that the Federal government delegated jurisdiction to all the States (retaining some functions) and the therefore all the States jurisdiction is the dominant estate except for those functions).
That's interesting. What do you make of the tenth amendment, then? I always understood it to mean that the States gave certain powers and jurisdiction to the Federal Government, and the tenth was to specifically address the idea of the Feds taking more.
I am talking about territorial jurisdiction. First was Indian Territory. Conquered by the US for and named the Territory of Nebraska or (name the Territory not part of the 13 colonies) The Territory of Nebraska ceded all land Ownership and Quit Claimed any all Sovereign Jurisdiction to the US who then delegated it back keeping certain functions. The. Land was surveyed and patented and conveyed to people and private corporations. What wasn't surveyed was retained by the US.... Side note: in Florida the swamplands act gave all Ownership back to Florida regardless of existing survey or patent....
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are simply catchalls for any functions they missed in the circular delegations. Imho.
I guess I didn't consider the states that weren't around when the constitution was written. That does present a weird problem. I guess that partially explains why there's so much federal land out west.
Tons of unsurveyed lands out west. That's why they created the BLM originally call mes the national grazing service. The Cattlemen at the time didn't want the land sold off and fenced in or to be required to lease it back for grazing at high rates.... but the Environazis have created ways that force the Cattlemen to have to lease it from the BLM defeating the whole purpose of the Grazing Service. Hence bundy's cattle wars in Vegas. @adamkokesh who Just filmed a fundraiser for one of the Bundy girls.
https://steemit.com/activism/@adamkokesh/activists-under-fire
I revised it man. Thanks Garth.
~Conner
Yeah, it's clear enough now so even I can't miss it. BTW, I'm only a part time anarchist. Sometimes I wake up a minarchist...
That's funny!