I agree Bill. In the case of the Arizona Department of Transportation, you are absolutely correct. If pavement is any indicator of legal limits, which it is, for one state/country rarely wastes time and money paving over the actual line, then Arizona does pave up to a line in the road that is exactly in line with the middle of the boundary marker!
Dallen
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Hanrahan [mailto:hanrahan@...]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 3:35 PM
To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: US-Mexico and citizenship
I'm not a constitutional lawyer (I don't even play one on TV), but I
can see why this raises some interesting federal-state questions.
Presumably, the US INS opinion can't technically affect the extent
of * state * jurisdiction. In other words, they might be able to
argue that they can administratively move the "jurisdictional"
boundary on a Federal level, but I'd venture to say, not on a state
level. I could forsee the Arizona Department of Transporation, say,
extending its jurisdiction to the middle of the monument, regardless
of where a Federal agency locates the fence. The action of the
Federal agency could be construed to be changing a state
boundary...which only a state legislature can do with the consent of
Congress. Regardless of the constitutional supremacy clause,
specific powers not enumeratd in the constitution are reserved to the
respectve states. My point (hopefully) is that the INS, Border
Patrol, Customs, Dept. of Justice, etc. can not "move" a boundary
(administratively or otherwise) simply because it's convenient. Then
again, they can do what the Supreme Court says they can!
Bill
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., Dallen Timothy <dtimothy@a...> wrote:
> These pictures remind me of a recent discussion I had with a US
Immigration
> supervisor about citizenship...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/