@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:Before we go any further, I wonder whether David would like to answer this:
If William the Conqueror's invasion and subsequent occupation of England could be justified, can NASA, the conqueror of the Moon, justify itself as the owner of the territory of the natural satellite of the Earth?
In my early youth, it was explained to me
that the practice of law was the art of
predicting what a court
of competent jurisdiction will decide, when presented
with designated evidence or stipulated fact and to advise your client accordingly.
That is usually accomplished by statutory analysis as well as by analysis
of judicial authority on the subject. (
Stare decisis; no pun)
Different courts (
not being genuinely impartial) will arrive at
different conclusions. (I remember hearing of a lower-court case
wherein the judge had the effrontery to preside over litigation
whose plaintiff was
his mom, before it was overturned, on appeal.)
American astronauts did
NOT claim the Moon to be American territory.
Hence, there is no territorial claim for anyone to dispute.
Incidentally, William the Conqueror, was acutely aware
that he was the rightful King of England, as its Owner.
As a matter of the
bloodlines of inheritance, he had the right
to that real estate, the same as if your dad dies and u inherit
the family house along with bank accounts & corporate stock.
He was cheated. He was no fool. He was not going to put up with that.
He did something about it.
After his successful invasion from Normandy, Bill was effectively
a military dictator. He was boss & owner both
de facto and
de jure,
as a matter of the ordinary law of real estate and of inheritance.
David
