HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #861  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2018, 12:02 AM
Notyrview's Avatar
Notyrview Notyrview is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Ah, the time-honored Chicago no-snitching code. When the mayor is suspected of violating the law, the immediate reaction is to attack those who called the police.
Lol nice try, bucko, but your sloppy mixed metaphor is way off the mark. This has nothing to do with policing or ferreting out corruption and everything to do with very small group of irrational naysayers preventing boatloads of progress for the rest of this fair city. So we get a tailgating parking lot instead of a world class tourist attraction; and for sure let's prevent the first black president from honoring his legacy of being the least corrupt politician we've seen in our lifetime. The group and the law it's cloaking itself suck.
__________________
Feel free to DM me for a civics lesson
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #862  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2018, 2:13 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is online now
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,852
So you're only in favor of the rule of law when you agree with the verdict?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #863  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2018, 2:39 AM
BonoboZill4's Avatar
BonoboZill4 BonoboZill4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: PingPong
Posts: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
So you're only in favor of the rule of law when you agree with the verdict?
Sounds like American politics
__________________
I'm here for a long time, not a good time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #864  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2018, 3:13 AM
Khantilever Khantilever is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
So you're only in favor of the rule of law when you agree with the verdict?
I think you can admit that there are Permit Pattys out there who will use the law as a tool for harassment or simply to make life difficult for the other side in order to get what they want. We can all agree that the law needs to be respected; but a blind appeal to the law--without regard for the underlying justification for it or the context--is just legalism.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #865  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2018, 3:20 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
So you're only in favor of the rule of law when you agree with the verdict?
You are like some kind of weird urban planning patent troll.

Just because something can be found to be "the law" in a court doesn't mean it is right or the best course of action. And yes, the State and City could have just changed the law to correct the loophole the parking lot fiends used, but how great would that have been, to break a policy designed to protect the public way just because some group of nitwits decided to abuse it to push their troll agenda?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #866  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2018, 4:01 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is online now
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
the State and City could have just changed the law to correct the loophole the parking lot fiends used
Yeah, you'll probably want to do further research before filing your amicus brief.

The Public Trust Doctrine is federal common law. It's doubtful that even Congress could change it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #867  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2018, 1:03 PM
Laife Fulk Laife Fulk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Yeah, you'll probably want to do further research before filing your amicus brief.

The Public Trust Doctrine is federal common law. It's doubtful that even Congress could change it.
By definition of it being common law, any new statue passed by Congress and signed by the President immediately supersedes common law. The courts have the right to judicial review and could find the law to be unconstitutional, but common law exists only in the absence of statutory law. Since The Public Trust Doctrine comes from Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892) and was ratified in Martin v. Waddell’s Lessee years later, Congress absolutely has the ability to enact new legislation to create new, superseding federal law.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #868  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2018, 2:39 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laife Fulk View Post
By definition of it being common law, any new statue passed by Congress and signed by the President immediately supersedes common law. The courts have the right to judicial review and could find the law to be unconstitutional, but common law exists only in the absence of statutory law. Since The Public Trust Doctrine comes from Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892) and was ratified in Martin v. Waddell’s Lessee years later, Congress absolutely has the ability to enact new legislation to create new, superseding federal law.
Welcome to the forum!
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #869  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2018, 2:41 PM
Notyrview's Avatar
Notyrview Notyrview is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laife Fulk View Post
By definition of it being common law, any new statue passed by Congress and signed by the President immediately supersedes common law. The courts have the right to judicial review and could find the law to be unconstitutional, but common law exists only in the absence of statutory law. Since The Public Trust Doctrine comes from Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892) and was ratified in Martin v. Waddell’s Lessee years later, Congress absolutely has the ability to enact new legislation to create new, superseding federal law.
Exactly. Mr Downtown, you're wrong again and once again draw an erroneous and hyperbolic conclusion to make your point bc you can't really articulate why you support the turds of the park, other than some transparent forum grudge.

The judges don't even have to find the law unconstitutional. They can make an exception based on the circumstances, and use a test to weigh the harm done to the friends of the park against the overwhelming good done to the public by having the Obama Foundation there. Judges do that all the time, especially with the common law.
__________________
Feel free to DM me for a civics lesson

Last edited by Notyrview; Sep 21, 2018 at 2:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #870  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2018, 3:01 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is online now
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laife Fulk View Post
Congress absolutely has the ability to enact new legislation to create new, superseding federal law.
Not if Congress lacks that power because the right is an inherent limit on all sovereigns, a limit that is "pre-Constitutional" in its origins. See "Underpinnings of the Public Trust Doctrine: Lessons from Illinois Central Railroad," 33 Ariz. St. L.J. 849 (2001); Michael C. Blumm and Lynn S. Schaffer, “The Federal Public Trust Doctrine: Misinterpreting Justice Kennedy and Illinois Central Railroad,” 45 Environmental Law No. 2, Symposium: Public Trust Doctrine (Spring 2015), pp. 399-430; and Richard Hurlburt, "The Public Trust Doctrine - A Twenty-First Century Concept," 16 Hastings West Northwest J. of Envtl. L. & Pol'y 105 (2018).

As Justice Field wrote in Illinois Central:
The State can no more abdicate its trust over property in which the whole people are interested, like navigable waters and soils under them, so as to leave them entirely under the use and control of private parties .... than it can abdicate its police powers in the administration of government and the preservation of the peace.
Obviously, if a state is powerless to abdicate its trust, it cannot convey that [lack of] power to the Congress.

Notyrview, you may have some difficulty with your Civil Procedure exam, given your misunderstanding of fundamental rights. They are not subject to balancing tests. I regret that I can't recommend you as a source of civics lessons.

Last edited by Mr Downtown; Sep 21, 2018 at 3:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #871  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2018, 3:04 PM
Notyrview's Avatar
Notyrview Notyrview is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Not if Congress lacks that power because the right is an inherent limit on all sovereigns, a limit that is "pre-Constitutional" in its origins. See "Underpinnings of the Public Trust Doctrine: Lessons from Illinois Central Railroad," 33 *Ariz. St. L.J.* 849 (2001), and Michael C. Blumm and Lynn S. Schaffer, “The Federal Public Trust Doctrine: Misinterpreting Justice Kennedy and *Illinois Central Railroad,*” 45 *Environmental Law* No. 2, Symposium: Public Trust Doctrine (Spring 2015), pp. 399-430.

As Justice Field wrote in *Illinois Central:*
The State can no more abdicate its trust over property in which the whole people are interested, like navigable waters and soils under them, so as to leave them entirely under the use and control of private parties .... than it can abdicate its police powers in the administration of government and the preservation of the 13 peace.
Obviously, if a state is powerless to abdicate its trust, it cannot convey that [lack of] power to the Congress.

Lolol omg pre-consitutional??? You're really going to appeal to "natural law"? Say hi to all your militia friends for me
__________________
Feel free to DM me for a civics lesson
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #872  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2018, 3:10 PM
Laife Fulk Laife Fulk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Not if Congress lacks that power because the right is an inherent limit on all sovereigns, a limit that is "pre-Constitutional" in its origins. See "Underpinnings of the Public Trust Doctrine: Lessons from Illinois Central Railroad," 33 Ariz. St. L.J. 849 (2001), and Michael C. Blumm and Lynn S. Schaffer, “The Federal Public Trust Doctrine: Misinterpreting Justice Kennedy and Illinois Central Railroad,” 45 Environmental Law No. 2, Symposium: Public Trust Doctrine (Spring 2015), pp. 399-430.

As Justice Field wrote in Illinois Central:
The State can no more abdicate its trust over property in which the whole people are interested, like navigable waters and soils under them, so as to leave them entirely under the use and control of private parties .... than it can abdicate its police powers in the administration of government and the preservation of the 13 peace.
Obviously, if a state is powerless to abdicate its trust, it cannot convey that [lack of] power to the Congress.
Even if this was the case (and I strongly disagree that it is... more than happy to DM back and forth on this as to not hijack the thread), all that would need to happen is a Constitutional Amendment (which, yes, would be difficult and I highly doubt would happen for this as it's just not that important of an issue in today's political environment). However, the underlying fact is that Congress can supersede common law by enacting statutes. It's one of the most basic principles of the checks and balances.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #873  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2018, 4:05 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is online now
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laife Fulk View Post
all that would need to happen is a Constitutional Amendment
Yes, I suppose that could override Illinois Central to allow the Lucas Museum. I wonder why Mayor Emanuel didn't try that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notyrview View Post
Lolol omg pre-consitutional??? You're really going to appeal to "natural law"? Say hi to all your militia friends for me
Then what do you view as the underpinning of Illinois Central? I suggest you reread pp. 138-141 of the Hurlburt note cited above.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #874  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2018, 9:15 PM
Laife Fulk Laife Fulk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Yes, I suppose that could override Illinois Central to allow the Lucas Museum. I wonder why Mayor Emanuel didn't try that?

Then what do you view as the underpinning of Illinois Central? I suggest you reread pp. 138-141 of the Hurlburt note cited above.
No, my issue is with your statement that "The Public Trust Doctrine is federal common law. It's doubtful that even Congress could change it." That is completely false as Congress could enact statutory law that would supersede any federal common law. States could then challenge the new statutory law as being unconstitutional and the Supreme Court could agree, in which Congress could amend the constitution.

Laws are made all the time that replace common law. Common law does not supersede act of Congress. And it is possible that any law can be changed in the future, and changed multiple times (see 18th and 21st Amendments as an example of this) That's all I'm saying.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #875  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2018, 9:42 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is online now
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,852
But Congress only has the powers granted to it by the several states. If the states didn't have that power (to alienate their navigable waters) to begin with, they cannot pass that power on to Congress. This is not an ordinary bit of criminal or tort common law that can be overcome by positive law in statute, nor is it the kind of common law that was rendered inoperative by Erie R.R. v. Tompkins. Read the Hurlburt note cited above.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #876  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2018, 10:32 PM
Laife Fulk Laife Fulk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
But Congress only has the powers granted to it by the several states. If the states didn't have that power (to alienate their navigable waters) to begin with, they cannot pass that power on to Congress. This is not an ordinary bit of criminal or tort common law that can be overcome by positive law in statute, nor is it the kind of common law that was rendered inoperative by Erie R.R. v. Tompkins. Read the Hurlburt note cited above.
Moving this to DM as to not highjack the thread.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #877  
Old Posted Yesterday, 2:51 AM
Stockerzzz Stockerzzz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laife Fulk View Post
Moving this to DM as to not highjack the thread.
Ok but give us an update after on who out-lawyered who.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #878  
Old Posted Yesterday, 1:22 PM
jpIllInoIs's Avatar
jpIllInoIs jpIllInoIs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laife Fulk View Post
Moving this to DM as to not highjack the thread.
Do not apologize, its not hijacking in fact it is germaine to the case.(drop lawyer word). Counsel proceed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #879  
Old Posted Yesterday, 1:59 PM
Notyrview's Avatar
Notyrview Notyrview is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
But Congress only has the powers granted to it by the several states. If the states didn't have that power (to alienate their navigable waters) to begin with, they cannot pass that power on to Congress. This is not an ordinary bit of criminal or tort common law that can be overcome by positive law in statute, nor is it the kind of common law that was rendered inoperative by Erie R.R. v. Tompkins. Read the Hurlburt note cited above.
If this were 1797, your natural law claim might find some support from Alexander Hamilton? but we now have nearly a hundred years of jurisprudence interpreting the Commerce Clause to give Congress the right to regulate basically everything, which is a good thing, otherwise we'd still have segregation. Even when a the Court has limited those powers, as was the case in 2012, when the Court rejected the government's claim that Obamacare's individual mandate was protected under the Commerce Clause, it still upheld the mandate under Congress' taxing power. The point is, even a conservative Court interprets Congress' authority very broadly and your views are way way way outside the mainstream.
__________________
Feel free to DM me for a civics lesson
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #880  
Old Posted Yesterday, 6:53 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is online now
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,852
Don't get blinded by the term natural law used in the cited law review article. Illinois Central is still good law, and I know of no Supreme Court cases questioning it. I find myself wondering if you've ever even read it.

Congress has only the specific powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8. The Commerce Clause has been stretched quite a bit, but as noted in U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), that power is not infinitely elastic. But as a bedrock principle of federalism, Congress is irrelevant here. Since the State of Illinois lacks the authority to alienate the waters of Lake Michigan, it cannot delegate that authority to the City of Chicago; nor can it grant that authority to Congress.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:30 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.