ahh
okay lowell
i may have just glimpsed your meaning
& certainly a beautiful idea
what if the suspension of the normal laws of reality had actually
been codified by delineating the bridge construction itself in its
entirety as a special 3dimensional proruption both from the
normal thalweg boundary & from normal reality itself
& it couldve been done at least that cleanly in some treaty text
so we are not completely out of the woods here yet
in our diligence
before proceeding to stage the wetback incident
which btw gets more hilarious every time i think of it
since the border guards will actually not only be tresspassing &
wrongfully arresting & detaining & finally deporting our wetback
but also in doing so they will actually be kidnapping him from his
homeland or yikes even from his very home itself if he happened
to be camped there in a cardboard box while waiting to be
arrested
so at that point he would have the usa by the legal short hairs to
such an extent that he could probably sue for a green card if not
immediate naturalization & instant wealth
but anyway to return to the first beautiful idea
whether the same as your idea or not
what the suspension of vertical integrity in favor of bridge integrity
would have the great virtue of producing at every level from the
ground to the top of the bridge is the most complex cross
sections of unimaginably diverse international claves & perhaps
counterclaves etc
depending only on the particular physical form of each bridge
but since the legal delineation of this new regime could be done
with so few & such easy strokes of a pen
we must consider it if not a present possibility here then at least
a likely eventuality somewhere
& thus we have built or at least imagined a simple model by
which such an exceptional reality as vertically differentiated
sovereignty could come into existence if indeed it hasnt already
emerged
for lets remember there is still a probability in which peters
similarly simplistic idea of a variable hinge boundary or some
other easy formula like or unlike that one or this one already
exists de jure
yet still i have a feeling that if we are going to find or create a
situation that suspends the laws of normal reality
we still have a ways to go
however ready for prime time the wetback caper may be
for of course these 2 are completely separate ideas & tries
however excellent as a pair of associate yaks
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002"
<orc@o...> wrote:
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > Acroorca wrote:
> >
> > > aha
> > > & doesnt this wording
> > > whether intended or not
> > > also establish a boundary point exactly under every such
> marker
> > > as long as that marker exists
> > > regardless of where the rest of international boundary may
> > > subsequently wander
> >
> > I agree! Thus, it would be somewhat analogous to a
> monumented land boundary,
> > regardless of how poorly surveyed. In my perusal of the
really
> old Minutes
> > (1920's, etc.), I found examples of the rebuilding of one
bridge
> that had burned
> > and another that had washed away. In each case, they were
> rebuilt on the same
> > [stone?] piers, and in each case the Commission found that
> the boundary on the
> > rebuilt bridge should remain in exactly the same spot as on
the
> old, without
> > regard to any accretions. This would lend credence to the
> theory that a
> > monument nails down the boundary to a point under it.
> >
> > > aha
> > > i have seen these on bridge railings or edges
> > > & dont they then mark
> > > besides the path of the boundary across the bridge
> > > the paths of its lateral displacements from the living
thalweg
> > > precisely along these railings or edges
> >
> > I'm not positive that I follow you, but the monument on each
> railing would have
> > to be placed directly above the middle of the main channel as
it
> passes at an
> > angle under the respective edge of the bridge (as it exists at
> the time of
> > construction).
>
> yes
> from the looks of this i believe you did follow
> but i see i must be more careful to be perfectly clear
> especially in such delicate circumstances
>
> in the case just above here
> perhaps i should have said
> aha
> & doesnt this pair of railing markers then establish the turn
> points of all 3 of the horizontal boundary lines
> & thus of all 3 of the corresponding vertical boundary planes
> that interrupt the thalweg boundary line & its vertical plane
> to form a simple & vertically continuous territorial proruption
> along & between the railings of each of the bridges that have
> been so marked
>
> & btw in the case of your railroad bridge
> i think there must originally have been a companion marker on
> the opposite side of the stone pier
> which would thus have completed & still implicitly completes
the
> demarcation of that particular proruption
>
> more below
>
> > Now, furthermore:
> >
> > I have been thinking about the implications to private property
> of an accreting
> > ground boundary under a fixed bridge boundary. It was
stated
> by Mr. Rubio that
> > the ground boundary accretes with the river, but
> > that the boundary on [within] the bridge structure above it
stays
> put so as
> > (among other reasons) not to confuse ownership of the
bridge.
> What, then, of
> > ownership of the underlying right-of-way? If Texas property
law
> is like that of
> > Louisiana, accreted riparian land is the property of the
riparian
> owner. If the
> > vertical differentiation theory were to obtain, then we would
> have a
> > still-Mexican-owned bridge above land that had been newly
> deposited in the
> > (expanding) USA and would belong to the connecting
> American railroad! Now, THAT
> > would create a confused situation! Who would pay the taxes
> then, and would the
> > landowner be entitled to be paid rent on his new land? This
> floppy boundary
> > can't be! I vote for the one that is nailed down by the
> monument(s) on the
> > bridge at all levels and creates a finger of sovereignty wide
> enough to contain
> > the pertinent segment of the bridge, even as the river
accretes
> away.
> >
> > If the theory of different boundaries on the ground and on the
> bridge structure
> > were real, then what of a case such as I depict at
> www.mexlist.com/mxus/ ?
> > Remember that the stone pier now stands on dry land,
> perhaps 50 feet from the
> > "American" bank of the river. If the accreted land under the
> manifestly Mexican
> > segment of the bridge were American, then Mexican
> sovereignty would extend out
> > horizontally from Mexico proper, caged-in by the freshly
painted
> Mexican steel
> > truss, but it would taper down (with the truss) to the Mexican
> half of the stone
> > pier. (Oddly, the highest thing on the "bridge structure" at the
> monumented
> > boundary is the monument!) Now, follow me, here: If
Mexican
> sovereignty were
> > conducted through the "bridge structure" above American
land,
> the next place
> > that it would have to flow would be downward through the
> Mexican half of the
> > stone pier and deep into the soil of Texas until it reached
> whatever bedrock
> > foundation upon which the pier rests. Too bizarre for belief!
>
> yes indeed but maybe because the logic too has gone awry
> & i too am not sure
> but if i have followed you
> your line of reasoning begins just below my previous insertion
by
> assuming a nonstandard regime of vertical differentiation
> just for the sake of your ensuing argument
> which then apparently proceeds to ignore that such an
> assumption necessarily suspends the standard regime of
> vertical boundary integration
>
> so whether your direction of travel at that point is down to & into
> the ground or up from the ground & into the bridge
> & whether thru the stone pier or by any other means or route
> the argument would appear to contradict itself
>
> i also dont follow the tapering idea
> which may only be incidental anyway
> so perhaps no matter
> but even allowing for oblique movement i still dont see how the
> downward flow to the soil you are expecting would at all
> necessarily occur once you have assumed the opposite
>
> but anyway maybe its just that i have missed something
>
> > No, the only reasonable explanation is that the boundary is at
> all times
> > absolutely vertical, and that it deviates from the "living
thalweg"
> to follow
> > the lateral margins of bridge structures to the point(s)
> previously fixed by
> > monuments on those bridges. Thus, the accreted land
directly
> under the Mexican
> > portion of the bridge would have to be Mexico!
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
> but i absolutely agree with & salute your conclusion