I agree with your characterizations of the discussion, and btw, I am not
wedded to a position on the issue; that's why I am discussing it, because I
am ultimately confused over the status. It makes no sense to me that there
would be a boundary down the center of the river/bay, with everything west
of it NJ although NY has exclusive right of jurisdiction over the waters up
to the wharves and docks on the NJ shoreline; yet the same language is used
regarding Ellis and Bedloes (exclusive right of jurisdiction; and note the
compact didn't say NY had exclusive right of "property," the term which is
used for its actual territory *east* of the center line boundary). Nothing
that's been said yet excludes the possibility that Ellis and Bedloes -- and
for that matter the waters west of the boundary line that are indisputably
in NJ -- are simply NJ lands over which NY nevertheless by custom and
practice has been ceded the "exclusive right of juridsiction" as opposed to
being actual corporate parts of the sovereign state of NY.
And also BTW, being in journalism, I would hesitate to say that becasue a
magazine article makes an assertion, that it is unassailable! I've seen how
the process works!
> ----------
> From: Arif Samad[SMTP:fHoiberg@...]
> 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>