11
   

Palin is a very clever distraction.

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 12:55 pm
@Debra Law,
Pavlov would be proud.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 01:00 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I also have no problem with those who do not share my views on a personal level. I do not want those who share my views or those who do not share my views forcing their personal views on me at any level.

On a political level, I do not require that a candate share my views on a personal level so long as he or she understands basic constitutional principles, appreciates and defends the best of our traditional values that have made our nation a great nation, governs according to the rule of law, and appoints judges who base their rulings on Constitutional principle and the law.


I've been a member of this forum over 4 years, and your words are not true. You want your party in power precisely so you can pack the SC with those who share your ideology and thus impose your ideology on the rest of us.



I've been on this forum for more than four years too, and I'm pretty darn sure that I know what I want better than you know what I want. (Or are able to even read or guess what I want apparently.)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 01:03 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Debra Law wrote:


Palin is a moron.



And yet she is much smarter than Obama.





Hmmm. I don't believe I've ever read the Alaskan Constitution. I wonder if Debra has?
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 01:10 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
Last year, former Gov. Frank Murkowski settled in principle with BP, Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips on fiscal terms " taxes and royalties " for producing the North Slope gas.

It would have frozen oil taxes for 30 years and gas taxes for up to 45 years for the three major oil companies.

Still, last year's deal did not guarantee a pipeline would get built; the hope was it would enable producers to move forward with a pipeline.

The line would ultimately have delivered 4.5 billion cubic feet (130 million cubic meters) of natural gas a day, which is about 7 percent of the current U.S. demand.

But state lawmakers felt the deal had too many giveaways for big firms, including locking in the tax rates, and stripped the state of its sovereignty and constitutional powers. The Legislature never voted on the deal.

That led Palin, who took office last December, and her administration to chart a different course in January
. Rather than negotiate with one group, her plans called for new guidelines designed to stimulate competition among oil and pipeline companies.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22044490/
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 02:02 pm
@Foxfyre,
Here are a few interesting parts of the Alaska Constitution.

Article 8 - Natural Resources

§ 1. Statement of Policy

It is the policy of the State to encourage the settlement of its land and the development of its resources by making them available for maximum use consistent with the public interest.

§ 2. General Authority

The legislature shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the State, including land and waters, for the maximum benefit of its people.

§ 3. Common Use

Wherever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use.

§ 4. Sustained Yield

Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenishable resources belonging to the State shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses.

§ 5. Facilities and Improvements

The legislature may provide for facilities, improvements, and services to assure greater utilization, development, reclamation, and settlement of lands, and to assure fuller utilization and development of the fisheries, wildlife, and waters.

§ 6. State Public Domain

Lands and interests therein, including submerged and tidal lands, possessed or acquired by the State, and not used or intended exclusively for governmental purposes, constitute the state public domain. The legislature shall provide for the selection of lands granted to the State by the United States, and for the administration of the state public domain.

§ 7. Special Purpose Sites

The legislature may provide for the acquisition of sites, objects, and areas of natural beauty or of historic, cultural, recreational, or scientific value. It may reserve them from the public domain and provide for their administration and preservation for the use, enjoyment, and welfare of the people.

§ 8. Leases

The legislature may provide for the leasing of, and the issuance of permits for exploration of, any part of the public domain or interest therein, subject to reasonable concurrent uses. Leases and permits shall provide, among other conditions, for payment by the party at fault for damage or injury arising from noncompliance with terms governing concurrent use, and for forfeiture in the event of breach of conditions.

§ 9. Sales and Grants

Subject to the provisions of this section, the legislature may provide for the sale or grant of state lands, or interests therein, and establish sales procedures. All sales or grants shall contain such reservations to the State of all resources as may be required by Congress or the State and shall provide for access to these resources. Reservation of access shall not unnecessarily impair the owners' use, prevent the control of trespass, or preclude compensation for damages.

§ 10. Public Notice

No disposals or leases of state lands, or interests therein, shall be made without prior public notice and other safeguards of the public interest as may be prescribed by law.

§ 11. Mineral Rights

Discovery and appropriation shall be the basis for establishing a right in those minerals reserved to the State which, upon the date of ratification of this constitution by the people of Alaska, were subject to location under the federal mining laws. Prior discovery, location, and filing, as prescribed by law, shall establish a prior right to these minerals and also a prior right to permits, leases, and transferable licenses for their extraction. Continuation of these rights shall depend upon the performance of annual labor, or the payment of fees, rents, or royalties, or upon other requirements as may be prescribed by law. Surface uses of land by a mineral claimant shall be limited to those necessary for the extraction or basic processing of the mineral deposits, or for both. Discovery and appropriation shall initiate a right, subject to further requirements of law, to patent of mineral lands if authorized by the State and not prohibited by Congress. The provisions of this section shall apply to all other minerals reserved to the State which by law are declared subject to appropriation.

§ 12. Mineral Leases and Permits

The legislature shall provide for the issuance, types and terms of leases for coal, oil, gas, oil shale, sodium, phosphate, potash, sulfur, pumice, and other minerals as may be prescribed by law. Leases and permits giving the exclusive right of exploration for these minerals for specific periods and areas, subject to reasonable concurrent exploration as to different classes of minerals, may be authorized by law. Like leases and permits giving the exclusive right of prospecting by geophysical, geochemical, and similar methods for all minerals may also be authorized by law.

§ 13. Water Rights

All surface and subsurface waters reserved to the people for common use, except mineral and medicinal waters, are subject to appropriation. Priority of appropriation shall give prior right. Except for public water supply, an appropriation of water shall be limited to stated purposes and subject to preferences among beneficial uses, concurrent or otherwise, as prescribed by law, and to the general reservation of fish and wildlife.

§ 14. Access to Navigable Waters

Free access to the navigable or public waters of the State, as defined by the legislature, shall not be denied any citizen of the United States or resident of the State, except that the legislature may by general law regulate and limit such access for other beneficial uses or public purposes.

§ 15. No Exclusive Right of Fishery

No exclusive right or special privilege of fishery shall be created or authorized in the natural waters of the State. This section does not restrict the power of the State to limit entry into any fishery for purposes of resource conservation, to prevent economic distress among fishermen and those dependent upon them for a livelihood and to promote the efficient development of aquaculture in the State. [Amended 1972]

§ 16. Protection of Rights

No person shall be involuntarily divested of his right to the use of waters, his interests in lands, or improvements affecting either, except for a superior beneficial use or public purpose and then only with just compensation and by operation of law.

§ 17. Uniform Application

Laws and regulations governing the use or disposal of natural resources shall apply equally to all persons similarly situated with reference to the subject matter and purpose to be served by the law or regulation.

§ 18. Private Ways of Necessity

Proceedings in eminent domain may be undertaken for private ways of necessity to permit essential access for extraction or utilization of resources. Just compensation shall be made for property taken or for resultant damages to other property rights.

* Return to Constitution Index

http://ltgov.state.ak.us/constitution.php?section=8
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 03:56 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
On a political level, I do not require that a candate share my views on a personal level so long as he or she understands basic constitutional principles. . . .


Foxfyre requires candidates for public office to understand basic constitutional principles. Palin does not meet this basic requirement. Palin demonstrates her IGNORANCE of basic constitutional principles here:

Quote:
Alaska could revoke leases for oil fields like Prudhoe Bay if top energy companies refuse to participate in a government natural gas pipeline plan, Gov Sarah Palin told Reuters in an interview.

Exxon Mobil Corp, BP Plc and ConocoPhillips together control more than 35 trillion cubic feet of known gas reserves on the Alaska North Slope.

But the companies declined to participate in a process backed by Palin to jump-start a long-delayed gas pipeline, arguing they needed a long-term tax deal from the state first.

Palin called the refusal "unconstitutional."

"When the conditions of these leases are not met, especially after decades, it is time to open them up and allow other companies to come in here and compete for the right to tap the resources," the Republican governor told Reuters this week in an interview.


http://news.theage.com.au/business/alaska-threatens-oil-leases-over-plan-20080221-1ti1.html


In a rush to defend Palin, Foxfyre posts this dribble:

Foxfyre wrote:
Hmmm. I don't believe I've ever read the Alaskan Constitution. I wonder if Debra has?


and Foxfyre posts this ignorant dribble:

Foxfyre wrote:
Quote:
Last year, former Gov. Frank Murkowski settled in principle with BP, Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips on fiscal terms " taxes and royalties " for producing the North Slope gas.

It would have frozen oil taxes for 30 years and gas taxes for up to 45 years for the three major oil companies.

Still, last year's deal did not guarantee a pipeline would get built; the hope was it would enable producers to move forward with a pipeline.

The line would ultimately have delivered 4.5 billion cubic feet (130 million cubic meters) of natural gas a day, which is about 7 percent of the current U.S. demand.

But state lawmakers felt the deal had too many giveaways for big firms, including locking in the tax rates, and stripped the state of its sovereignty and constitutional powers. The Legislature never voted on the deal.

That led Palin, who took office last December, and her administration to chart a different course in January. Rather than negotiate with one group, her plans called for new guidelines designed to stimulate competition among oil and pipeline companies.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22044490/


FYI: As the Alaskan Attorney General duly noted, the United States Supreme Court ruled on this very issue over 155 years ago. See The Piqua Branch of the State Bank of Ohio v. Knoop, Treasurer of Miami County, 57 U.S. 369 (1853):

Quote:
The assumption that a State, in exempting certain property from taxation, relinquishes a part of its sovereign power, is unfounded. The taxing power may select its objects of taxation; and this is generally regulated by the amount necessary to answer the purposes of the State. Now the exemption of property from taxation is a question of policy and not of power. A sound currency should be a desirable object to every government; and this in our country is secured generally through the instrumentality of a well-regulated system of banking. To establish such institutions as shall meet the public wants and secure the public confidence, inducements must be held out to capitalists to invest their funds. They must know the rate of interest to be charged by by the bank, the time the charter shall run, the liabilities of the company, the rate of taxation, and other privileges necessary to a successful banking operation. . . .

There is no constitutional objection to the exercise of the power to make a binding contract by a State. It necessarily exists in its sovereignty, and it has been so held by all the courts in this country. A denial of this is a denial of State sovereignty. It takes from the State a power essential to the discharge of its functions as sovereign. If it do not possess this attribute, it could not communicate it to others. There is no power possessed by it more essential than this. Through the instrumentality of contracts, the machinery of the government is carried on. Money is borrowed, and obligations given for payment. Contracts are made with individuals, who give bonds to the State. So in the granting of charters. If there be any force in the argument, it applies to contracts made with individuals, the same as with corporations. But it is said the State cannot barter away any part of its sovereignty. No one ever contended that it could.

A State, in granting privileges to a bank, with a view of affording a sound currency, or of advancing any policy connected with the public interest, exercises its sovereignty, and for a public purpose, of which it is the exclusive judge. Under such circumstances, a contract made for a specific tax, as in the case before us, is binding. This tax continues, although all other banks should be exempted from taxation. Having the power to make the contract, and rights becoming vested under it, it can no more be disregarded nor set aside by a subsequent legislature, than a grant for land. This act, so far from parting with any portion of the sovereignty, is an exercise of it. Can any one deny this power to the legislature? Has it not a right to select the objects of taxation and determine the amount? To deny either of these, is to take away State sovereignty. [57 U.S. 369, 390] It must be admitted that the State has the sovereign power to do this, and it would have the sovereign power to impair or annul a contract so made, had not the Constitution of the United States inhibited the exercise of such a power. The vague and undefined and indefinable notion, that every exemption from taxation or a specific tax, which withdraws certain objects from the general tax law, affects the sovereignty of the State, is indefensible.


http://laws.findlaw.com/us/57/369.html

There is nothing in the Alaska Constitution that prohibits the state legislature from granting tax incentives that are binding on future legislatures for the purpose of providing economic certainty to capital investors and thus spurring economic development witin the state.

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/gasline/pdf/Dave%20Final%20Fiscal.pdf

In other words, it is NOT unconstitutional for the State of Alaska to provide long-term tax incentives and economic certainty to developers and investors as a means to get what it wants--i.e., the TransCanada pipeline. Palin fails Foxfyre's requirement. Palin shows ignorance with respect to basic constitutional principles.



0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/19/2022 at 11:40:15