pfife

Why either/or? Why not both? Oh that's me being for women's choice again.

But we are not discussing law enforcement - we're discussing who has the jurisdiction to make the rules that are to be enforced, specifically abortion policies on federal lands. You seem to be using who can enforce the laws & regulations as a proxy for who can make the laws & regulations - which may be appropriate in some cases but your article clearly stated who has the jurisdiction to make laws and regulations: Note that it doesn't say states have full authority - which is what you claimed. Furthermore, whether there's an abortion clinic in the forest is relevant to the operation of the national forest.

Your article said national forests were proprietary ownership, which is regulated by Congress, who ceded the power to the Ag Department. Nowhere did that article support your claims from earlier today that national forests were full authority of the states - in fact, it said the opposite. Also since Military bases are included same as Isle Royal , as you just ceded, that means the point about having to go to Isle Royal was NOT valid as you just claimed.

The transcript of the podcast you posted: https://www.fletc.gov/territorial-jurisdiction-federal-property-mp3 mentioned the following federal properties we hadn't considered: post offices, veterans hospitals, research facilities, military installations. Here's who makes the rules for proprietary owned lands- congress gave the power to the Executive Branch. For exclusive owned lands: More on Concurrent, they don't say who makes the regulations, but they do say that feds can patrol so it's fair to infer the feds can make the rules on these lands too: So in summary, based on the link you posted: https://www.fletc.gov/territorial-jurisdiction-federal-property-mp3, all three categories seem to be at least partially under the jurisdiction of the federal government: Proprietary: Congress has regulatory jurisdiction, and they ceded it to Exec branch Ag Dept Exclusive: Feds can enforce laws there Concurrent: Feds can enforce laws there I've now educated myself from your link and frankly the feds seem to have more jurisdiction than you claimed. At one point you claimed state had full authority (your words) and in this article NONE of the three types of federal land ownership say the state had full authority - they don't even come close: National forest was proprietary ownership which the article you posted said was regulated by congress, ceded to Ag Dept.

So a president can declare an emergency and steal the constitutional power of the purse from Congress, but a president can't declare a state of emergency and disregard the US forest service manual? that is one powerful document.

You are selling something - you're selling your opinion that this can't be done b/c of the jurisdiction of the land. We're 3 years removed from a president declaring a state of emergency and used that not to override a law- but to override the constitutional article that the Congress controls the purse. I didn't make the game or the rules, but those are the rules and that is the game- we all saw it with our own eyes.

I will accept that I was right yet again. Thank you. However, it's sad that the board would rather call me names than google the damn quote themselves. And then one poster googled the quote they literally called it a quote from Warren when it was nothing of the sort - it was literally a quote from someone else. The dishonesty is very high in this forum right now - to the point where accurately quoting someone is a "technicality". If it's childish to call it out, so be it. Someone's gotta call out the bullshit. Sad that no one else seems to give a fuck. I guess you all would rather just admit that I'm right. Repeatedly. Regarding something other than me being right.... yet again..... Trump declared his state of emergency on the border wall in February 2019. It was approximately 1 year before COVID was an issue in the US. Why are you referring to COVID as the case for emergency and drawing inferences from that to the current situation? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/15/us/politics/national-emergency-trump.html My argument is the reason for emergency need not even be an actual emergency - as Trump showed. Also- can you post what you're referring to regarding COVID not passing muster in courts as a reason for declaring emergency? Are you referring to Whitmer's power to declare state of emergency re: covid? I also don't know if I can buy what you're selling me on the law here b/c you told me earlier this morning that states had "full authority" - your wording- over these lands and you have since scaled that "full authority" back on at least two different occasions now (this one just above, and one I already asked about) with little to no explanation of this change in your presentation of the jurisdiction of these lands. Under normal circumstances I would buy what your selling no problem, but given your unexplained shifts here, and also that you built it on a false representation of Warren's quote - even after I said multiple times it was not her quote. Thus, I am unable to purchase at this time. Plus I'm a child with no money. Furthermore - what's the downside for trying this, regardless of your shifting notion of who has full authority or not over these lands and your assessment of legal viability of the idea? I'd argue that having a choice to get an abortion in Isle Royal is better than not having the choice whatsoever. The reason I brought up that she said lands and not parks wasn't based on the ability to get abortions in one and not the other - you're the one arguing that front. It was because you and Motown Bombed trashed the idea b/c it meant Michiganders and also Michiganians would have to go to a remote uninhabited island in Lake Superior. That, of course was totally inaccurate based on a total inaccuracy in what she said. Inaccuracies, mind you - pushed by a purported Democrat who purports to not trash Democrats/their voters/their policies (even though I quoted 8 messages of him doing exactly that just today). I'm pretty shocked you decided to eat from his bullshit trough today.

You actually probably are one that voted for the ones that appointed at least 3 of these hacks on the scotus. Given that I am totally fine with your characterization of me. Your judgment..... yeesh Being held responsible is painful and I'm the one blaming the GOP for the GOPs authoritarianism and not the left.

I never said it was my purpose in life- you're lying again. Like the lie you told about not talking about Isle Royal. Like the lie you told about what Warren said. Like the lie you told about me not complementing Nancy on the J6 commish All easily disproven with screenshots and arrows.

I'm much more interested in beating you mercilessly again and again You've had to admit I was right quite a few times since I chose to start acknowledging your existence again.

Yes, I know. I won again. It's too bad you lie so much about what you posted.

Smash the ignore button if you don't like it - I couldn't give a shit less if you do.

What is the only National Park in Michigan?

Yes I am posting on the message board your mastery of the obvious is very impressive congrats on the rare truthful post

Free pass for Republicans woo hoo!

Earlier you said national forests are under the full authority of the states, now you're saying the fed enforces federal statues there which would be different than states having full authority.

or you could blame Republicans for what Republicans did.

I'll do whatever I want until the mods tell me not to then I still might

1) I said the likes of you. 2) I was posting in response to G2, as shown by the quote, who did say Isle Royal. Thus, not lying. Clearly. You should read what you're responding to (which you admit you don't) before responding.

Was it a technicality when you used it?

Again, she didn't speak with insufficient specificity. In the only actually quote found or posted of what she actually said, she said federal lands. A poster here made references to 1 National Park in Michigan, which is not synonymous with federal lands. The poster also directly stated that she said "parks" when she did not. ETA: Furthermore, even though it's a technicality to look at what someone actually said when discussing what was actually said...... she said this in the context of declaring a medical emergency. What is the impact of declaring the emergency on the legal aspects you posted? Since it's already been established that declaring emergency unshackles a president from Congress, as proven by Trump, why would the legal argument you're making persist?

So you werent talking about the only national park in Michigan when you were talking about the only national park in Michigan?

Accurately depicting what a person said isn't a technicality.

She didn't speak with incomplete specificity. The only quote we have of her actually talking was from ABC's This Week (which I posted) - She said land, not parks. As for the point of the distinction - I didn't make a bunch of jokes about the policy being only applicable to Isle Royal so I'll defer to the likes of you and MB for why you made jokes about having to go to Isle Royal for an abortion if you could hypothetically go closer b/c there's no legal distinction between federal lands and federal parks.