Thanks for the useful URL. The writer of the editorial makes the point that
there is no constitutional basis for the ZoFeMaT--it being based only on a
federal statute, the General Law of National Goods. He does state that the
federal government excludes this beach strip from state and municipal
jurisdiction. However, he also says that the feds allow the municipal
governments a share of the lease revenues paid by adjacent landowners.
I think some confusion still exists. Is this strip of 20 meters landward from
the high-tide line outside the territory of the states, or is it merely excluded
from their jurisdiction. Pending further legal investigation, I tend to think
that it is within the coastal states' territories, but under exclusive federal
jurisdiction. If so, this would be analogous to those federal military and
naval reservations in the USA that fall under the provisions of the latter part
of the 17th clause of Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. Nobody would
argue that Fort Polk (near where I live) isn't part of Louisiana, but all would
acknowledge that the local sheriff and tax authorities have no jurisdiction
within the military reservation.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 11:48 AM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Mexican internal maritime allocation
> the writer of this spanish text deplores that it is actual federal
> jurisdiction
> rather than merely federal ownership
> http://www.noroeste.com.mx/Culiacan/20020807/nacional/FerOrrantia.php3
>
> anyway
> at least i am sure it is 20 meters now
> whatever else you may find it is
> for which good luck
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus" <
> mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > So, are you saying that this URL makes you sure that the Zona Federal
Maritimo
> > Terrestre (ZoFeMaT) is beyond the jurisdiction of the states? It says to me
> > only that the federal government owns the land and will lease it to the
adjacent
> > inland landowners. This situation is analygous to the right-of-way of any
> > private-sector toll highway or railroad in the republic (federally owned;
leased
> > to private entity). I don't see anything at this URL addressing the
question of
> > state territorial jurisdiction over the beaches.
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 8:33 AM
> > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Mexican internal maritime allocation
> >
> >
> > > yes i finally am sure now thanx to you
> > > http://www.mexicolaw.com/LawInfo30.htm
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus" <
> > > mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > That is bizarre! Are you sure that the Mexican states don't even
include
> > the
> > > > beaches, or is it just a matter of federal government ownership of the
> > beaches
> > > > (as landowner)?
> > > >
> > > > Now that I know what I'm seeking, I'll attempt to look up the law when I
> > have
> > > > more time.
> > > >
> > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 10:00 PM
> > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Mexican internal maritime allocation
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > as i recall
> > > > > mexico is basically just like canada in reserving its entire maritime
> > > > > territory to the federal government
> > > > > except that canadian federal waters end & provincial territory begins
> > > > > at the low tide line
> > > > > whereas mexican federal maritime territory extends as far as the high
> > > > > tide line plus 10 or 20 horizontal meters of beach above & beyond that
> > > > >
> > > > > or in other words it is mexican federal seas plus beaches all in one
> > > > >
> > > > > the only catch is i cant recall whether it is 10 or 20 meters of beach
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus" <
> > > > > mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > > > I'm now catching up from being a week behind in reading BP messages,
and
> > I
> > > > find:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > & it is a bit of a crisis because my ignorance of these internal
> > maritime
> > > > > > > allocations is so great
> > > > > > > indeed except for a very few places like oz & nafta
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Although I consider myself a Mexiphile and researcher on most things
> > > > Mexican,
> > > > > > I've never know the republic's internal maritime allocation regime.
> > Mike,
> > > > can
> > > > > > you enlighten me?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>