--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus" <
mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> 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.
you bet
& which means it is the law of the land in mexico
under the mexican constitution
a law doesnt have to be in the constitution to be legal
He does state that the
> federal government excludes this beach strip from state and municipal
> jurisdiction.
aha
& what is left then but federal jurisdiction
or at least i believe precisely that is the intent & meaning of the law
However, he also says that the feds allow the municipal
> governments a share of the lease revenues paid by adjacent landowners.
of course
hahaha
this is just the normal mexican
er
service fee distribution system
in action
>
> 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.
as i understand all the above & below
as well as other things i have seen
tho i still havent yet read the full law yet
yes indeed
the 20 meter strip is outside the territory of the states
as well as excluded from their jurisdiction
basically because it is just part of the much larger & continuous
federal maritime territorial zone
which includes not just this dry terrestrial margin
but all the tidelands as well
& moreover continues at least 12nm out to sea beyond the low tide line
but i will read it now just to be sure
hahaha
& my guess is you will need further legal investigation
if you intend to sandcastle this any further with me
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@h...>
> 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