Subject: Re: NYNJ - My take
Date: May 13, 2003 @ 12:15
Author: acroorca2002 ("acroorca2002" <orc@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> I agree with your characterizations of the discussion, and btw, Iam not
> wedded to a position on the issue; that's why I am discussingit, because I
> am ultimately confused over the status. It makes no sense tome that there
> would be a boundary down the center of the river/bay, witheverything west
> of it NJ although NY has exclusive right of jurisdiction over thewaters up
> to the wharves and docks on the NJ shoreline; yet the samelanguage is used
> regarding Ellis and Bedloes (exclusive right of jurisdiction; andnote the
> compact didn't say NY had exclusive right of "property," the termwhich is
> used for its actual territory *east* of the center line boundary).Nothing
> that's been said yet excludes the possibility that Ellis andBedloes -- and
> for that matter the waters west of the boundary line that areindisputably
> in NJ -- are simply NJ lands over which NY nevertheless bycustom and
> practice has been ceded the "exclusive right of juridsiction" asopposed to
> being actual corporate parts of the sovereign state of NY.becasue a
>
> And also BTW, being in journalism, I would hesitate to say that
> magazine article makes an assertion, that it is unassailable!I've seen how
> the process works!http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> > ----------
> > From: Arif Samad[SMTP:fHoiberg@y...]
> > Reply To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 6:53 PM
> > To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: [BoundaryPoint] NYNJ - My take
> >
> > As Charles Barkley named his book, I say "I could be
> > wrong...but I doubt it." Seriously though, it is just
> > my opinion and no way the gospel truth, just as I see
> > your arguments as opinion. I was just providing a
> > counterpoint to your arguments, which may have
> > validity, but which I won't accept as gospel truth
> > until proven otherwise on something more than a
> > 170-year old document (we are talking about a boundary
> > NOW, after all), even which can be argued against.
> > Providing a counterpoint needs to show how a person's
> > point can be wrong and may sound like a dismissal
> > unfortunately. This is no way a knock to you, as I
> > have also doubted existence of international enclaves
> > until proven wrong on the group.
> > Ellis Island does not only involve rights, but it
> > involves a boundary. Supreme court has taken many
> > cases of trading or water rights, and it has taken
> > cases on boundaries. I tend to doubt that they would
> > have taken a case with no true state boundary and no
> > rights involved. Also the fact that the court doesn't
> > clearly distinguish the boundary being only a
> > jurisdictional one makes it, only in practical terms,
> > a state boundary at the CURRENT time, even if it was
> > practically only a jurisdictional boundary earlier.
> > As I was saying, making too many distinctions can
> > totally provide misguided assumption. (On the subject
> > of assumptions, I once had an argument on About.com
> > with somebody about what kind of a government Bahrain
> > was because he made the same mistake of overanalyzing
> > a book on government.)
> > By the way, your insistence on Guantanamo as a
> > comparable idea to this is totally misguided as the
> > presence of lease itself is considered to be a factor
> > in sovereignty. To have comparable ideas in the two
> > areas, we will need to discount the factor of leasing.
> > To me the Vietnamese, German and Korean division in
> > jurisdiction was or is a fairer comparison and in all
> > cases they were or are considered to be countries in
> > most practical circles.
> > Arif
> > PS The GeoInfo article says that the two islands were
> > under the sovereign authority of New York. If a
> > magazine accepts that contention, can we really
> > dismiss it?
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> > http://search.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> >
> >