--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus" <
mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:

> Mike wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> Of course.

haha
well now you say of course
but in your previous message you were only interested in the
constitutional boundary between state & federal territory
rather than the legally operative one
which
of course
combines constitutional & statute law

& then on top of that
you proceeded to conclude that just because the constitution refers to
the maritime territory as federal that federal territory must end at
dry land regardless of whether it is extended by law
even by a law which names this extension
the terrestrial federal maritime territory

so of course you have to speculate about whether your invented wet dry
line occurs at high tide or low tide

for that detail was never contemplated in 1917
nor ever pinned down subsequently
other than by the 20 or 100 meters above high tide provision

I think his point was that, since it's only a statute and not in the

> constitution, the change for which he agitates can and should be accompli=

shed.

yes but that means it would need to be changed from its present status
which is of legal federal territory & jurisdiction
& which he finds so deplorable
or he wouldnt have written the article

he wants it to be restored to its original constitutional condition

> Perhaps his point is also that the constitution does not make mention of =

any

> such 20 meters of dry land as part of the federal dependency, so therefor=

e the

> states and locals should have more authority over it.
>
> > 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, by the definition of the ZoFeMaT in the Ley General de Bienes Nacion=

ales,

> it is ONLY the 20-meter strip coastal strip plus the surfaces of the odd =

keys

> and reefs. It does NOT include the sea bed.

of course it doesnt
because it doesnt have to

the sea bed is already federal
as i think you are also saying below

It's the Zona Federal Marítima

> Terrestre (Federal Maritime LAND Zone), not the Zona Federal Marítima
> Territorial (Federal Maritime Territorial Zone). Indeed, no statute woul=

d be

> needed to put the tidelands and territorial sea into the federal public d=

omain.

> That's already in the constitution.
>
> For the reasons that I derived from my earlier recitation of the constitu=

tional

> articles, I believe that the feds can hold the ZoFeMaT in the public doma=

> under statute, and they can probably manage and control it as much as the=

y can

> any federal property, but they cannot deny it as part of the territories =

of the

> respective coastal states.

& i think they not only can but would & probably even do deny this
or that poor guy wouldnt have been whining so pathetically about it

& that is another reason why i continue to believe the punctological
trijunctions fall at the stipulated distances inland of the high tide
line
rather than at either the high or low water lines you cant decide which
you would rather speculate about

>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA